Comment: My Comments:

(See in situ)

My Comments:

If you haven't read the founding documents in this country and only get your information from "main" (heavily corporate controlled) stream sources then how can you intelligently even enter the debate about the 2nd amendment? I've run the gambit on the gun issue. I used to be strong ANTI-GUN until later on when I actually read the Bill of Rights for the first time. Then I realized how irresponsible I was for not owning one in order to protect my friends, family and my neighbors. While the cops are always less than 5 minutes away... violence happens on a moment's notice.

Questions: Are NON-constitutionalists your peers? If so how can you be judged by them (jury of peers) with respect to your right to bear arms? If theses non-peers DO NOT have any rights to effect your rights - how can they delegate power they don't have to "government?" Where does "government" get this perceived power? Answer to that one is obvious: From the gun because its certainly not from The Law.

"Government" can have NO effect ON people PERIOD. If you wish to have some effect on your neighbor the only recourse for you is to handle it privately or bring it up with that individual's peers through a lawful court proceeding.

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910.

NOWHERE - In the constitution does it say that "government" can have ANY effect whatsoever on PEOPLE.

The 2nd amendment protects the people's right to bear arms... the PERSON has NO RIGHT to BEAR ARMS. The irony of this fact is that the public servant, while on-duty as a "person" can in fact have his privilege to carry a gun can be taken away by his employers (the people - the owners - the shareholders).

The right is also protected by the 9th amendment even if the 2nd amendment was abrogated.

If the people could by and large wrap their heads around this... I would be ALL IN FAVOR of amending the constitution to abrogate the second amendment and make bearing arms by "persons" unlawful. Of course without a vast leap forward consciousness that would be mass suicide.

People serving as persons in "government" should have their guns taken away - they are SERVANTS to the people they must ask permission for just about everything! We the people are the owners! They are the employees! Since when can an employee tell an owner what to do? When the employee is pointing a GUN AT THE OWNER that's when!