examiNation: What do you think of the push to limit gun ownership?

The only reason we don't have a terrorist cell in every neighborhood is because those who hate us realize any one of us might be carrying a weapon. It is sad but true.

We need to make Md a conceal carry state so we can protect ourselves. The police aren't allowed to enforce the laws or deal appropriately with violent offenders (ie NAACP racists trying to ban tasers.

Do people really believe that the founders felt like they needed to protect the government's ability to own arms? If so why did they use the words "the people" Was the right of "the people" to peaceably to assemble put in the first amendment to allow the legislatures of the states to meet? Was right of "the people" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, meant to protect government employees at home? Don't forget the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." If "the people" really refers to the government then, praytell, who are the states?

I think its a push to bring us rowdy Americans in line with the rest of the "Global Community" so that we can be better managed by the UN. I RESIST! I WILL NOT COMPLY.

You cannot enslave a well armed populace.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Going strictly by the question asked, yes I support the push to limit gun ownership - AS LONG AS, it is a push to limit CRIMINALS gun ownership. Oh you say we are already doing that? How's that going?

As usual, the media has misreported and misrepresented what the issue before the Supreme Court really is. The Court has consistently, in over 35 cases, acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms. So, that is not the issue. The issue before the Court is whether government has the right to deny the good citizen the right of self defense. For a good time, and a fuller understanding of issues regarding "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms", I highly recommend reading: The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. - Les Adams (Palladium Press, 1996) and The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government, and an Armed Populace 1787-1792 - David E. Young (Golden Oak Books, 2001)

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me.... I once was lost but now am found, Was blind, but now, I see. T'was Grace that taught... my heart to fear. And Grace, my fears relieved. How precious did that Grace appear... the hour I first believed. Through many dangers, toils and snares... we have already come. T'was Grace that brought us safe thus far... and Grace will lead us home. The Lord has promised good to me... His word my hope secures. He will my shield and portion be... as long as life endures. When we've been here ten thousand years... bright shining as the sun. We've no less days to sing God's praise... then when we've first begun. "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me.... I once was lost but now am found, Was blind, but now, I see.

My dear fellow law abiding citizens, what is going to happen is that OUR right to protect ourselves from the vicious violent jungle bunnies is going to be null and void, and these vicious violent jungle bunnies will be the only ones with the guns besides the members of the police departments. We fellow law abiding citizens can not depend on our overworked police officers who are stretched to the limit because of the vicious violent jungle bunnies. Any limit on gun ownership will be a limit on law abiding citizens, not the vicious violent jungle bunnies. Need I say it any more clearer than that?

Self defense. Only stole a candy bar once.

Great! Does this mean they're going to deny gun ownership for criminals?

Guns are not allowed in my house, someones afraid I may use it.

40% say we don't have the right to own guns. 30% say Bush has the right to take our civil liberties. How can America stay free with 70% morons?

The milita at the time of the writing of the constitution was everyone. People grabbed their guns at home and went to fight. Therefore the right is an individual one. We the people are the militia.

Gun ownership should be a requirement to be a citizen.

Gun control is a totally moronic idea that only harms honest people. Fenty is an idiot. The Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not states. If they can get away with that lie on the Second Amendment, they will try it on the rest of them eventually. Why would the Founding Fathers put a states' rights issue in the Bill of Rights that was specifically created to protect individuals. Why does "the people" mean individuals in every other right but the Second Amendment? If you believe this fraud, you deserve what you get when they come for your rights. All totalitarian regimes start with outlawing weapons.

10:14, CORRECTION: "So a militia is made up of all able Americans. So all able Americans can bear arms to use in their militia," able bodied only in emergency that is organized; organized is the operative word.

Even if you use the argument that the 2nd amendment only covers "A well regulated Militia" (and ignore EVERY paper written on the subject by our founding fathers themselves) then you have to know what a Militia is. Per Webster: 1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service So a militia is made up of all able Americans. So all able Americans can bear arms to use in their militia. Bear arms is not storing them in a safe locked up government building somewhere. Bear arms is to keep them accessable in event of any emergencey. p.s. Gun Grabbers loose in the long run, the pro gun group has the guns! After diplomacy fails then force always wins. ALWAYS...

What ever you say, i trust you.

We're living in a time where the commander in chief is using the military the way he, and he alone, pleases. The US public has disagreed with its use, as well as military brass, congress, US allies, the media, and just about everyone else. King George has set a precidence; it's not so hard any longer to imagine The White House turning the military against US citizens. Now is not a good time to ask law abiding citizens to give up their arms. I'm no lawyer, but the Second Amendment does imply that only organized militas should bear arms. That's why the founding fathers made it so easy to change the constitution to read that anyone of sound mind, who is not a convict, and who completes safety training should be allowed to bear arms. Why debate semantics when whe can just change it to make it the way we want it?

If you read the second amendment it is in the context of "A well regulated Militia..." to keep the "security of a free state". It does not state anything about the security of the individual. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In Australia they outlawed guns, now only the outlaws have them. Just goes to show, Shrub and the CONs are trying to take away our rights, and so are the left wing Dems. When they try to take away our guns, I think it's going to be a hell of a fight.

The same who take away free speech by interfering with speakers at colleges etc. are the same ones that want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. They only want THEIR views and want to IMPOSE them on everyone. The right of the people shall NOT be infringed..........

While I do not currently own a weapon, I don't think I really like the fact that the option could be taken away. Nothing can combat a gun- but a gun, so when my city neighborhood gets to the point where I feel I need one- I want to get on. Granted, I have no experience and it could very well get turned on me- but isn't that MY option if I choose stupidity for the feeling of safety in my own home? I do agree with some sort of program to keep a closer eye on purchases, etc...but to take away another right-NO. If our cops can use tasers and guns willy nilly...why can't I? Especially if I am using it for the same purpose they claim to be.

Our second amendment is absolute and is part of the foundation of our country. Any attempt to alter our constitutional right should be seen as treasonous. The Supreme Court needs to butt out before they embark us down a road we cannot possibly return.

So leet me ask this question: Does the Constitution actually guarantee a persons right to bear arms, or a persons right to bear arms as part of a well regulated state milita? Just curious.

I live on a block in the inner city with 48 households. Atleast 40 have a firearm. Oh yeah I am a part of the 40. I will always keep a firearm. I do not use it for harm only protecting my household buddy.

Good luck to ANYONE trying to get my two handguns, my shotgun and rifle out of my house and take them away from me.

Limiting our gun ownership is the first step to destroying our constitution. Behind the scenes things like this is why our freedom and our country is going downhill fast.I think it's time we take our country back, our government has had it long enough and they are destroying everything that we stand for as Americans.