Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affirming an individual’s right to bear arms?

Response Percent Votes
Yes
 
71% 953
No
 
25% 337
Not sure
 
2% 38
Total 1328

Comments

Marion Lynn 5 years, 9 months ago

Uh, like allowing law-abiding citizens to execrcise their rights by owning handguns is going to increase the already pitiful crome rate?Getit; the bad guys alreasy have the guns and it is the bad guys who are committing the crimes.Speaking of which; Two Bad Guys Down In Texas:CNN Reports:"HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home was cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.Joe Horn shot and killed two men last November after he saw them crawl out a neighbor's window. Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back."The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.The two Horn suspected of committing burglary, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town. "I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house. "

0

getrightonoutofhere 5 years, 9 months ago

the fact that this vote is so lopsided is baffling. You do realize that the supreme court ruling reversed a District of Columbia law banning handguns, right? As a former Lawrence resident who has relocated to DC I can tell you there is a huge difference between a midwest college town and an urban area. Nobody in this city thinks it is a good idea to suddenly allow handguns again. It is making the average street thug giggle with delight. Thanks a lot ignoramusi on the Supreme Court...and boneheads who think that defending firearm ownership is an important issue.

0

Jim Phillips 5 years, 9 months ago

BABBOY- I whole heartedly endorse your right to freedom of speech. You have the right to say all of the stupid stuff you like. Keep up the good work!

0

Jim Phillips 5 years, 9 months ago

The Supreme Court repeated what the 13 original states did in 1792. They ratified the Bill of Rights, we were lucky this time. One thing we need to remember is that Hitlery is a lawyer. If she doesn't get the nod for Obamination's VP, she could be nominated as a Supreme Court Justice.As for Solon's comment about the Second Amendment, study your history instead of letting people tell you what things mean, The "Militia" in 1792 meant every able bodied free man between the ages of 18 and 45, not an organized governmentally controlled unit.Finally, yes I do agree with the right to due process for prisoners of war. Bad news for the guests of the Gitmo Hilton. They are not considered prisoners of war based on the rules of the Geneva Convention. They are terrorists and therefore are not entitled to the protections and the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war.

0

BABBOY 5 years, 9 months ago

Amazing how red necks support the constitution when it is the second amendment. But, the same stupid red neck could care less when it is the free speach, a Jewish person asserting his or her religious rights, or discrimatory class asking for equal treatment. I got no problem with the Court enforcing the Second Amendment. I just wish they would do the same thing for the 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment,and 14th Amendments and for that matter all the ones in between. But, the reality is that civil liberties have been stripped away by this court.I can safely defend my self with out a gun. But, on the other hand, I can see why most rednecks would need a gun. I mean they are drunk, stupid, very loud, annoying, and not all that atheltic so they probably do need a gun to defend themselves given all the stupid situations they find themselves in.

0

sfjayhawk 5 years, 9 months ago

Boeing, what about due process? You feel just as strongly about due process as you do the right to bear arms, correct? They are both hard wired in the constitution. So Boeing, you agree that everyone deserves due process, including detainees in Gitmo that have gone as much as 7 years without. If not, you need to admit that your need for a gun has nothing do do with the constitution, its just that your are bitter, and turn to guns or jeasus because of your bitterness.

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 9 months ago

Solon (Anonymous) says:The second Amendment confers upon the states the right to a militia, separate from the national defense establishment, which is the responsibility of the federal government. It did not, until the recent decision by the Gang of Five, confer an individual right on persons. All of those first ten amendments were put into the Constitution to assure the states that the new federal government would not undermine their powers in their own territory.******This question will probably be ignored by the addressee, but why in the world would the Founding Fathers write and implement nine amendments that guaranteed individual rights, and single out the 2A as the only one that did not?That K-mart law degree isn't serving you very well.

0

Curtis Lange 5 years, 9 months ago

Good to see them uphold the Constitution. All those that voted no need to check their citizenship at the door.

0

Flap Doodle 5 years, 9 months ago

"Gang of Five"!You've been reading Commie Catchphrases for Pretentious Posters, haven't you?

0

Solon 5 years, 9 months ago

The second Amendment confers upon the states the right to a militia, separate from the national defense establishment, which is the responsibility of the federal government. It did not, until the recent decision by the Gang of Five, confer an individual right on persons. All of those first ten amendments were put into the Constitution to assure the states that the new federal government would not undermine their powers in their own territory. This decision is a gross exercise in judicial activism, appealing to those who like to kill things, but disastrous for the health of the country.

0

beatrice 5 years, 9 months ago

I don't care for guns in my home, but agree that the Constitution clearly states that others have the right to have them in theirs. So yes, I agree with the ruling.

0

justfornow 5 years, 9 months ago

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 Thomas Jefferson had the wisdom and foreskin to see where Liberal thought would take us...... I knew Thomas Jefferson and you my Liberal friend are no Thomas Jefferson.

0

hwarangdo 5 years, 9 months ago

Bully for them! It's time the Constitution was upheld properly. Although there are no Quintrills these days, there are thieves and thugs, bandits and druggies, who would "raid" our homes for plunder. It is nice to know those who want to can at least protect themselves. I do believe, however, that the distinction should be made that this means in the home, not necessarily carried into a tavern where the evil drink can make people do completely stupid things like start up arguments over politics ...

0

XD40 5 years, 9 months ago

One of the primary reasons Chief Justice Taney ruled in Dred Scott that slaves had no rights was to deny black people the right to own guns. The Second Amendment, like the First, protects a basic human right.

0

bondmen 5 years, 9 months ago

In other words the mental disorder of political liberalism is not just a recent phenomenon! Here is another of many historic examples where gun banners are responsible for the mass murder (genocide) of thousands of innocent people. The Supreme Court averted a contentious and bloody American insurrection and for that I'm thankful.

0

Centerville 5 years, 9 months ago

Read up on Quantrill's raid for an early gun control story. The city of Lawrence established a gun control law and kept it in right into the Civil War. They knew they were likely to be attacked so asked the federal government to send troops to protect them (as though the troops didn't have other things to do that year). Then, because of the gun control law, made the troops lock up their guns. When Quantrill arrived, most of the troops escaped by running away. Most of the men in town were killed. Quantrill's group stayed in town most of the day (some homes were pillaged three times) before they leisurely rode away. One of his men was killed: he had become too drunk to notice that his buddies had left, couldn't get on his horse, and was hanged. A posse was organized to follow Quantrill but they could only round up about three guns, one a pre-revolutionay war blunderbuss.

0

notnowdear 5 years, 9 months ago

I think we are going to need all the ammo we can get to protect ourselves against Blackwater. Happy to see this happening.But remember what happened during the Katrina aftermath when the government confiscated guns, for the very reasons we are allowed to own guns. During this incidence, it took the NRA 24 full hours to issue a statement against the actions. Why so long? Later it was found that the snipers were actually Blackwater employees, there uninvited, who were bored and taking potshots for entertainment.

0

arlo 5 years, 9 months ago

about time they did something right.

0

Boeing 5 years, 9 months ago

The purpose of the US Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution...that's exactly what they did. Anyone who can argue against that point, I would like to hear it

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.