Does The Constitution Grant The Right Of All Americans To Own And Carry firearms?
 

The Second Amendment

"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."

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
James Madison

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
George Washington

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson

In some states yes. My house is in Georgia and when I am home I have a gun permit. This permit allows me to carry a concealed weapon above the waist anywhere I desire with exception to schools, churches, publicly owned establishments (paid for by taxpayers IE courthouse) and resturants that serve alcohol for consumption on the premises. Now that being said I have never actually carried my glock anywhere. I just can if I want. I got the permit because they want to do away with the permit and if I go buy a gun then I do not require a background check. I have carried a loaded weapon in my car (concealed) you must have a permit to do this in Georgia. But, there are states where the weapon laws have gotten out of hand, California, New York, New Jersey, and Conn. if I remember right.

I have no criminal record, and I have security clearance with the government but just last week I bought an AK-47 and AR-15 because I like to shoot and they will be banned soon. To the general public, I must be a criminal since I own these. Thank you Obama, you really are stimulating our economy. Now every time the topic of weapons come up everyone always says that its the "assult rifles" that must go. When was the last time you seen some wanna-be gang banger toting an AK? I think they should just ban every hand gun under $300 that should solve the problem. The government will take away our arms soon or at least our ability to buy them. Then what do you do? Who do you call and ask to check on our constitutional rights? I know I sound very pro gun but thats only true in the hands of someone that should have one. I am not a member of NRA and I will not join because I dont think "everyone" should have one.

This is an interesting topic and I think that I'm a little bit different than most people here. Personally, I am anti-gun 100%. I do not understand the obsession with anything "gun" unless it involves NERF. However, I have no problem with people being responsible and owning them. I just have no desire myself to use them/carry one/ etc. I grew up in the South, my family all hunts and I did stuff like that as a youth but just never dug it as my thing. I would agree with Sean that the Assault Rifles aren't typically the problem and I would argue that handguns are far more dangerous than assault rifles just because of the availability, concealability and so on. Then again, I also had a friend who lost his life because he was stupid with his own gun a few years ago when he thought someone was breaking into his house so that colors my decision as well.

I think people should be able to have them, if they want them, but that there should be restrictions that prevent irresponsible people from getting them. Perhaps some state funded and instructed exam system that just shows you know which end the bullet comes out of would be a good start :D

The question is, "Does the Constitution grant the right," not, "do you think.." therefore I voted 'yes, without restrictions' because the constitution doesn't say anything about restrictions.

That being said, my personal belief is yes, but with restrictions.

I voted yes with no restrictions. If the purpose of the right to bear arms is for the people to protect themselves from the government, then the people need to be able to bring the same guns to the fight if it ever comes to that point.

there is also a limit that can be reached of course. I don't think the people should own tanks, artillery or rockets/missles.

That is what the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." but I like to point it out that it's also vague.

The Federal Government (Congress) can ban and make illegal to all possessions and sales of firearms with an exception to small arms weapons tech from the time the Constitution was written and still the people's right will be 100% in accordance to the 2nd Amendment. Meaning single shot pistols, rifles, and muskets firing only musket balls using open powder. A firearm is a firearm regardless of how you put it and muskets used by the Pilgrims qualify as such.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

The reason why this was added because at the time the United States did not have a large standing professional army and calling civilian militias was the only option for they are the one's who can organize rather quickly and large enough numbers. But such militias were not very well organize in terms of fighting, discipline, and other fields necessary to the battlefield hence why the Americans did so poorly during the War of 1812 or even the Revolutionary War. The United States did not field a large "real" professional army until the War of 1812 but they also did poorly. Not until after the war did newer graduated officers coming from West Point honed in military training doctrines for the Army that finalized the full and immediate defense of the Republic. A success fully realized during the Mexican-American War 30+ years later. From then on a large National Federal Army solidified for all that was need to defend the United States and making state and local militias irrelevant.

Yes without restrictions because all of the criminals I have run into in my lifetime have them. My response may or may not have anything to do with the Constitution.

By the word of the law, all Americans have te right to own some form of firearm. But the spirit of the law no longer applies. Like frothy said, we do not need private firearms to maintain a militia. The states do a fine job with their militias and I'm seriously doubting that any state's National Guard allows its member to bring their own guns.

I voted no. We as a society are too loose with our morals and decisions. When the second amendment was written there were not automatic weapons, gangs, and the crime that we see now. Maybe we should update or re-interpret the constitution for modern times, problems and issues.

i think people should be able to purchase and carry weapons, but i also think the serious background checks need to be performed before any gun is purchased.