uuh dude, what you're describing is called TERRORISM, and it's generally frowned upon. you'll learn about it in school.

There is another term used when someone tries to overthrow the 'abusive' goverment with weapons: terrorists. The gun nutters always drag out this 'we need em' to keep the government off our backs. Go ahead, shoot a cop and try to use your second amemdment right as a defense. Its such a weak reason to have everybody packin. Drunk people with guns kill people for no good reason. Just look at when all the murders happen in your town. Friday night???

Funny, according to the political thought of the time, the Bill of Rights protects rights that are inherent to humanity. So we have established that the BoR was written to protect existing rights, so the Right to keep and bear arms is older than the constitution. Next, the existance of the National Guard, was codified into law in the Early 20th century. Prior to that (and also listed in the US Code) the militia is composed of all Able-bodie adult men (due to equal opportunity, this should be revised to apply to women too). So, by law, all able bodied adults already had the right to keep and bear arms before the addition of the National Guard. Its creation did not replace the civilian militia. Additionally, the National guard is a government entity, and the govenrment has never seen the need to make law allowing it's own bearing of arms, as it wouldn't be necessary.

As the supreme court ruled in US v. Miller, the issue at stake was not whether miller had the individual right to bear arms, as his case would have had no standing if the court thought he didn't. The issue was whether the weapon he was in possession of, a sawed-off shotgun, was useful for a militia purpose. Since Miller and his lawyer didn't show up for the hearing, and the court was unaware of the use of sawed-off shotguns by the militia, they ruled that his weapon was not protected by the Second Amendment. Had miller been caught with a machine gun, an obvious militia-useful weapon, they might have ruled differently. Sawed-off shotguns and machineguns are regulated by the very same law. Under this ruling, the right to keep and bear arms is inferred to be an individual right.

In addition to that, all the other parts of the Bill of rights apply to individuals, the Second amendment is no different.

Finally, it is unreasonable to expect even the most capable police force to be able to protect everyone at the same time. It takes no more that a few seconds to kick someones door in and beat them to death with a rock. No police force would be able to stop that. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that police do not actually have the responsibility for the safety of individuals, only the community as a whole. The ability to defend oneself when the police can't is at the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.

As an aside, nuclear weapons are not protected since they are not suitable for use by the militia. They have no training value, and are of no practical use in protection against "invasion or insurrection". They also cannot be made safe as arms can. A gun can be unloaded making it no more dangerous that a golf club. The materials required in a nuclear or other WMD are inherently dangerous just having around.

Understand this: Rights, like people, must be treated equally. Finding ways to take away rights that seem unpopular, or obsolete, merely opens the door to taking away other rights later. After all, what right does anyone have to buy books, when the government runs perfectly good libraries?

It's interesting to me that gun-haters think the National Guard is supposed to be the infamous "well regulated militia". Well the Founding Fathers intent is obvious* that they opposed a standing federal army. The NG is most definately a standing federal army as thier chain of command ends at the presidents desk. Its not assault weaponry or hand guns that should be banned, its actually the National Guard.

* James Madison:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"

The well regulated militia was formed from private citizens to deal with a tyrannical goverment. It was never a goverment sponsored group. The National Guard is just that not a militia.

On the police the courts have ruled that they have no obligation to protect you.

Your arguments sir are fatuous and insultingly stupid. Clearly you like to quote others instead of thinking for yourself. "When guns are outlawed...." give me a break!

Other countries, you know the other funny shaped blobs in that atlas thingy, don't seem to have any where near the problems of the USA. British police don't even carry firearms.

I think the answer really is though, to issue everyone in the US a gun (semi-auto minimum)and unlimited ammo (Armour piercing is so alluring don't ya think), cut off all the airports and ships and then turn off the TV. I'd give you guys a month. Tops.

The wholesale slaughter would be legendary and the rest of the world can get on with our lives.

Vincine, you are most definitely on the money. But it's a little late now....Which is why I say our 2nd amendment rights will probably be stripped away by the Fed Gov't, like the 4th and others have, as the gov't continues to ignore the will of the American people and instead supports big money corporations and special interests...aka, fascism.

You have an interesting "different perspective" on the "intent" of the Second Amendment. But, here's another "perspective" for you to consider...

The Framers of the Constitution, CLEARLY had two separate concepts in mind as they wrote the Constitution. They thought about what "powers" belonged to the government, (which they referred to as "the state"), and those powers/"rights" that belonged to individual citizens, (which they referred to as "the people").

The term, "the people" was used in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. How is it then, that the term, "the people" can be read to mean, "an INDIVIDUAL right", in ALL of the other Amendments, BUT NOT IN THE 2nd????

I would LOVE to hear your "perspective" on that! If you would care to email me with your thoughts, I would gladly read them and respond. My email is porkchop195801@hotmail.com

Joe

Leaving aside the simple fact that there is an insane amount of gun violence in America? There is? How about all the drunk drivers killing people every day at a rate 100 x that of fire arm deaths? Outlaw beer and cars...... Everyone will be safe then. I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

30% of the population do.

I bet you are the type to call those people "paranoid".

Seems to me that you are the one who is paranoid.

"Remind me to stay out of Nebraska and Nebraska malls."
They don't want you there. To think people are crazy because they want to stop someone from killing people, is the very essence of evil and is a very sad sign of the times.

Apparently, there were NO, "people in the mall carrying weapons under their coats", as the "crazy", suicidal, homicidal, maniac with the rifle was the ONLY one with a gun! So, he was FREE to kill "at will" until he wanted to stop all on his own, or until "someone" with a gun could show up and STOP him!

Contrast THAT incident with the one at the church in Colorado, where an ARMED citizen, (female security guard), was on the scene and able to take on the "crazy", suicidal, homicidal, maniac before he could KILL many more than what he was able to!

NO ONE has anything to FEAR from an armed LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN with a gun, unless, you are a "crazy", suicidal, homicidal, criminal!

By the way, how "small minded", bigoted, and unenlightened remark is it, to assume that if you own/carry a gun, you must be a, "poor and uneducated crazy"?

I own guns too but nobody needs an assault rifle for anything but to kill people.
They are way to easy to get and no use to anyone unless you want to kill people.
Also way to easy for the mentally ill to buy a gun just like Mark says.
Get reasonable.

lol. When you analyse it, in a way abortions COULD protect the environment.

Less of the human species messing up the environment. Whats the difference between preventing more humans in the first place in comparison to killing them later on? I guess the first way is less messy.

I would bet that if they saw how the 2nd amendment was interpreted now, they might very well see it as a mistake. My personal feeling is that having a gun is a privalege. To have one to potentially overthrow an elected government is sedition, or perhaps more acurately, treason
.. your next idea is actually not a bad one. I suppose that haveing fewer people in the world IS protecting the environment!

He didn't intend it as a joke. He was giving an example of how bad giving guns to mentally ill people can be. And in case you didn't notice, the rest of the cartoon is saying that guns are bad too. Did you even pay ANY attention?
Oh and when you say that the rest of his cartoons disgust you, are you forgetting that most of the stuff in them is actually true? Especially the stuff about Bush being an idiot and about Cheney being an evil old man.

The country could be burning down around you and you who still support this treasonist maniacs, Bush and Cheney and you would still have your head up your rear. Those who saw Bush for what he is when he first stole the election had more smarts than those who support him genetically were left without. You need to read Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence. He is a Republican and our best economist. If you are smart enough, I believe you will be surprised. Who will you believe? Alan Greenspan worked closely with many Presidents. He is a man of great education and integrity. Take a little sniff of this economy. What? Now 4T plus in debt? Well, bingo when we started with the Bush madness, we had a 4T plus surplus. And his Administration along with the Republican congress squandered it in the first 4 years and we continue to sink into debt with this b.s. in Iraq. Our troops are broken. How in the H...can we take on Iran. We have been responsible for immense death and life altering injuries to our troops who survive and all for oil. Every time a Republican is in the White House, we have an immense deficit. Check out Alan....or continue to read the ticker tape on the bottom of Fox News. The illiteracy in this country is amazing and sad because we all have to suffer because of stupidity. Propaganda hogs and cement brains! By the way...it is you digust millions of Americans and me. Try English 1.

I can see you are a very intelligent person and a good one to judge. You don't even know enough to start a sentence with a capitol letter.
Get over yourself.
I love these cartoons and if you don't then don't read them. Nobody is twisting your arm.
I read every one and enjoy them all.
And yes, I am a gun owner but one with sense enough to be reasonable.