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
71% 953
25% 337
Not sure
2% 38
Total 1328


arlo 9 years, 9 months ago

about time they did something right.

Centerville 9 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.

Boeing 9 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

Curtis Lange 9 years, 9 months ago

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

Flap Doodle 9 years, 9 months ago

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

sfjayhawk 9 years, 8 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.

Jim Phillips 9 years, 8 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.

Jim Phillips 9 years, 8 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!

hwarangdo 9 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 ...

beatrice 9 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.

bondmen 9 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.

Solon 9 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.

getrightonoutofhere 9 years, 8 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.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.