Kansas Right to Bear Arms Question, Constitutional Amendment Questi...

The 10 ammendments to the Constitution are inviolate. The 2nd Ammendment is the guardian of them all. When you are armed and ready to defend yourself and your family you are safer than when you depend on the police to protect you. The Supreme Court has held on several occasions that "there is no requirement for law enforcement to prevent a crime from happening". So we MUST be prepared to defend ourselves

Ever notice how so many of those who apparently could care less if a person's Second Amendment rights are violated, tend to rail against any perceived violation of a person's First Amendment rights?

It must be nice to have the kind of pick and choose mentality, when it comes to which rights or laws a person should stand up for, and which ones can be virtually ignored.

Just a random thought.

tired wrote:

Every country in the world that has banned guns has had an increase in violent crime or the people controlled by the ones that did.

...and your source for this information, tired.

Don't renig in 2012

What are you voting for? You already have the right to keep and bear arms. That is not a broken law so why fix it? Guess I will have to consider suing to keep the second amendment in place you vote take away what is already mine!

haw haw haw

Guns and Ammo editor arrested for murder.

Another fine gun rights hero:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news...

haw haw haw.

http://cjonline.com/news/2012-05-04/gunman-ge...

The families of Lambert and Gordon "will never be the same," Braun said. "Until we get a grasp on the circulation of handguns, we're going to continue to see this."

You gunphucks haven't been getting good press lately

We as Union state Citizens have many Rights that are unalienable. None of these Rights can be sold or transferred in anyway! Unalienable is defined - "The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold." "The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable."

For anyone within the jurisdiction of the Union states or its government has the unalienable Right to bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for all other lawful purposes.

No one can vote to amend my Natural Rights therefore voting yes or no is an unconstitutional act of Sedition.

Most likely after someone reads this it will be removed from the Internet.

guns = loons.

door king wrote:

guns = loons.

What is your problem?

et one wrote:

The 10 ammendments to the Constitution are inviolate. The 2nd Ammendment is the guardian of them all. When you are armed and ready to defend yourself and your family you are safer than when you depend on the police to protect you. The Supreme Court has held on several occasions that "there is no requirement for law enforcement to prevent a crime from happening". So we MUST be prepared to defend ourselves

I went to a State Park recently and a loose Pit Bull started following me, as his owners, a young couple with two kids watched from a distance and did nothing. I stopped and drew my .38 and just stood there. They called him and quickly left with Pit Bull in tow. That`s why we have the Second Amendment, and I fully support it.

this is why no one should own guns!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Dick wrote:

<quoted text>Do I have to spell it out for you?
We are not talking about you doing some blunt; we are addressing the issue of home invasions which are on the rise. I have a right to defend my self and property in my home from some thief who thinks it would be just fine to relieve me of my property or my life.
Some 80 year old is as entitled to defend themselves as anyone else and could be a Korean or Vietnam veteran with experience with firearms.
Regardless, if more people were armed, there would be less home invasions and probably fewer trials to worry about also.

Especially when there are so few in the sherrif's dept- it took about 40 minutes when we had an emergency.Better be able to defend yourself!

door king wrote:

guns = loons.

Cops, military, secret service, hunters, robbers, cowboys, etc...anybody with one is that what you mean?

I have been a member of the National Rifleman's Association for years and will continue to be.

I can understand why some people would not like to have a gun themselves; I can even understand how some people would prefer not to be around guns… What I cannot understand is why a few people object to other people wanting to have guns or be around guns?

If I were in third grade I might say,“Your just a selfish bully,”.

I mean this cat is completely out of the bag here, there are guns in the hands of private citizens – get over it ~

Attempting to criminalize guns would pretty much ensure the only people who had guns other than the authorities, would be criminals. There is no way to make them go away completely, especially here.

Just like every other facet in life there are those who are responsible with what they have and in what they do, and there are those who are irresponsible with those same things and like I said, this goes for cars, drinking, child rearing and guns.

Then there are those who seem to have only a tenuous grasp of reality, believing they can make the problem go away, if they complain loud enough and often enough.

Personally I think one of the quickest and surest ways of starting a civil war, would be to encourage the government to disarm the public.

Not only would it be counter to the Second Amendment of the Constitution (we all remember the Constitution don’t we?), but it would be proof positive that we couldn’t trust the government.

In a 1994 National Institute of Justice Survey it was estimated that, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.

Now take into account that there is an estimated 2,927,754 total people in the U.S. military, many of whom are non combatants, there are also about 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S., Of those in the military there are a significant number of "non combatants" - of those in law enforcement there are "administrators" and of those there are individuals who own guns and believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in law enforcement or the military, and be told to go out and collect the guns from everybody else.

Don-N-Kansas wrote:

I can understand why some people would not like to have a gun themselves; I can even understand how some people would prefer not to be around guns… What I cannot understand is why a few people object to other people wanting to have guns or be around guns?
If I were in third grade I might say,“Your just a selfish bully,”.
I mean this cat is completely out of the bag here, there are guns in the hands of private citizens – get over it ~
Attempting to criminalize guns would pretty much ensure the only people who had guns other than the authorities, would be criminals. There is no way to make them go away completely, especially here.
Just like every other facet in life there are those who are responsible with what they have and in what they do, and there are those who are irresponsible with those same things and like I said, this goes for cars, drinking, child rearing and guns.
Then there are those who seem to have only a tenuous grasp of reality, believing they can make the problem go away, if they complain loud enough and often enough.
Personally I think one of the quickest and surest ways of starting a civil war, would be to encourage the government to disarm the public.
Not only would it be counter to the Second Amendment of the Constitution (we all remember the Constitution don’t we?), but it would be proof positive that we couldn’t trust the government.
In a 1994 National Institute of Justice Survey it was estimated that, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.
Now take into account that there is an estimated 2,927,754 total people in the U.S. military, many of whom are non combatants, there are also about 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S., Of those in the military there are a significant number of "non combatants" - of those in law enforcement there are "administrators" and of those there are individuals who own guns and believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be in law enforcement or the military, and be told to go out and collect the guns from everybody else.

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. So, within the confines of the law, a guy or gal should be able to hunt with a shotgun or rifle and to use a handgun in self-defense. Do you support the right for anyone to own any guy outside the confines of the law? Does your support for gun owners' rights extend to the guy with that Mac 10?

agreed wrote:

<quoted text>I went to a State Park recently and a loose Pit Bull started following me, as his owners, a young couple with two kids watched from a distance and did nothing. I stopped and drew my .38 and just stood there. They called him and quickly left with Pit Bull in tow. That`s why we have the Second Amendment, and I fully support it.

I notice that no where did you say that the pit was aggressive. But it dose seem the fact it was a pit made you uneasy. I have been bitten by a German Sheppard, A terrier when I was like 3 right in the left eye and he f@#$ed it up, and a few other breads but not once in my life a pit. And I have known quite a few pits and owned one myself. I call that ignorance, not reason to own a gun. Fact you seem like you might be a bit to twitchy to have one.