Need Help With Pro Gun Ownership!!! 10 Points?

Question

I need facts/opinions?ideas supporting the fact that gun ownership is a fundamental right. if you use a website if you could just provide the URL that would be appreciated. Thanks for all of your help in advance!!!!!!

Answer 1

All individuals have a fundamental right to be able to protect themselves from threats. Whether that be from common criminals, assault, random attack from mentally ill, or even the unlikely event of government tyrrony or foreign invasion. This is why the individual has the right to own one, or several. A government can not and should not be relied upon to distribute them, regulate, or keep lists as needed because that in itself can be the end of liberty. Our constitution does not "give" us these rights. We already have them as do all people. Our constitution restrains an overzelous government from infringing, restricting, or modifying them into extinction.



We made a mistake years ago in deciding theat the mentally ill have just as many rights, if not more, than the average individual. This decision is threatening the safety of free thinking people and it threatens the freedom of all within this country. We see this clearly in this latest example.

Answer 2

You are your own property.

Therefore, your production and what you exchange it for are yours.

Therefore, you have property rights.

"Gun ownership" is a property right.



Did you mean "Constitutional Right?"

Yes. Unambiguously so.

> The Constitution enumerates every Federal power

> Restricting "Gun Ownership" is not one of them.

> The Constitution specifies all powers not reserved to the Feds are retained by The States and/or the people.

> So can STATES restrict gun-ownership? Nope. By participating in the Union, they agree it SHALL NOT be infringed. This is a restriction not against only the Federal government but ALL parties to the Constitution. All layers of government in the Union are obligated to PREVENT infringement.



We know this two ways:

> That's what it says.

> The authors also wrote extensively about their debates, intentions etc. Among those who did the homework, no honest debate on this point exists.

Answer 3

No ideas are necessary. The Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

Answer 4

It is a fundamental right as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment



District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed that individuals have the right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes (i.e. self-defense)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller



In McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Answer 5

There's a distinction between constitutional rights and fundamental rights. Constitutional rights are those guaranteed by the Constitution without any a priori justification - jury trials, access to federal courts for amounts in controversy in excess of $500, prohibitions on quartering troops in peacetime; by contrast, fundamental rights are those inherent in an individual's personhood - the right against unreasonable search and seizure implies that a person has a fundamental right to his or her property and privacy. The enumeration of which crimes the death penalty may be applied implies a fundamental right to live.



The best places to go for this would be traditional political philosophy. Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, perhaps, though Locke is my personal favorite. He speaks of three fundamental rights - life, liberty, and property, and protection of this trinity of rights is the reason behind the formation of and submission to government. So that begs two questions - (1) what do we do if government fails to adequately protect these rights? (2) what do we do if government acts directly against those rights? In both cases, self-defense becomes the only logical course of action. In order to defend oneself, whether against a robber or an army, one needs weapons. Without them, we have no way of ensuring that our life, liberty, and property will be protected against unlawful violation. Arms are, therefore, essential to the preservation of our core fundamental rights, and because they are essential, the ability to own and keep them is, by extension, also a fundamental right.

Answer 6

Second Amendment to the Constitution.



Nothing else matters.

Answer 7

Yep!!!! It is a constitutional RIGHT! what else do you need to say, that's all that needs to be considered.