From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Congressman Andy Harris’ Statement on President Obama’s Executive Action on Gun Control
WASHINGTON, DC: Congressman Andy Harris (MD-01) released the following statement in response to President Obama’s announcement of his executive actions on gun control:
“President Obama’s executive actions on gun control infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to prevent the true origins of gun violence. Cities such as Baltimore, Washington, and Chicago have among the strictest gun control laws and background check systems – and yet have among the highest gun violence rates in the country. If the President was truly serious about protecting American lives he would get serious about the threat of terrorism. I will continue to work to support the rights of every American under the Second Amendment and to resist what I believe are the many unilateral unconstitutional actions taken by the current administration.”
Please explain the infringement Andy?
Wait. Who is Andy Harris?
You remember Andy, he’s the DC guy / Congressman / Doctor guy who surfaces every so often to criticize anyone who tries to make progress but offers no progress of his own… Go back to sleep Andy
Note to Andy Harris – The Second Amendment does NOT guarantee anyone the right to own or carry a gun. It guarantees the State’s right to have an armed militia. Because of this, gun ownership, concealed carry permits and the right to openly carry firearms are LEGALLY regulated by both the ATF and State Law Enforcement Agencies. Nothing in his executive order infringes on any Second Amendment rights or clauses. However, his order may violate HIPPA regulations involving the disclosure of Medical records to Law Enforcement without a signed disclosure. HIPPA Regulations are NOT a Constitutional concern unless you can somehow connect them to the Fourth Amendment rights of privacy in one’s papers or effects and that is stretching it a bit. However, if someone is receiving a check from SSA for a Mental Disability, that effectively renders them Mentally Incompetent, why shouldn’t Law Enforcement Agencies be able to view the records, owned by the Federal Government, to regulate firearm purchases in the name of individuals who have been declared incompetent to receive that SSA check? People should NOT be selling firearms, on a retail or wholesale level, without the FFL. People should NOT be able to purchase firearms without the required background check. There really is nothing new about this order other than the increase in Agents to perform the tasks already on the books. In closing, NONE of this will keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who wishes to purchase a gun ILLEGALLY, as they are readily available throughout this country and nothing will ever change that…….
The Supreme Court in D.C. Vs. Heller utterly invalidates this entire post.
Uh sorry, but it doesn’t because the Petitioners agreed with the trial court’s decision that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, and further argued that (a) the Second Amendment should not apply to D.C. because it is a federal enclave rather than a state, and (b) that the D.C. legislation merely regulates, rather than prohibits, gun ownership.
Heller had nothing to do with the mentally ill.
Agreed. Nor did it have anything to do with any State, but only the Federal enclave of the District of Columbia. The same logic is used in determining Marijuana Regulation id D.C. as well. How did Andy Harris’ opposition to Marijuana Regulation in D.C. turn out?
It actually served to further legalize it as DC was unable to enforce any laws on the book regulating it!
Upon reading the court findings again Heller had nothing to say about any of the points raised in the above quotes in fact Heller affirms that most of what he suggests is entirely legal! All Heller says is that in DC you can own a gun or rifle for self defense or recreational purposes and keep it in your home in DC subject to some restrictions. That is it.
This is what I’ve read : https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.”
That says the right of the people, not the militia. Keep and bear also known as own and carry. Shall not be infringed. Definition of infringed is to act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. How is an executive fiat that restricts someones ability to purchase a fire arm not unconstitutional?
He is simply making it easier to enforce existing prohibitions on the mentally ill not keeping people who are allowed to own guns
Who defines mental illness? A soldier returns from his or her fifth deployment to the sand box and needs a bit of help to get through some of the associated problems. They used to call that “gun shy”, now it’s PTSD. Should that soldier be prohibited from owning a weapon? If he or she already has a hand gun, should we now confiscate it?
The idea of having the inanimate object be the cause is our unadulterated bullshit. If you find yourself in the “feel good” category then the actions of the president make all the sense in the world. It’s always better to feel good than to do good.
These cities have the strictest gun control BECAUSE they have the most gun violence. The problem remains because of the laxity in the jurisdictions around them.
Andy Harris is an embarrassment, an example of our own electile dysfunction.
Do you really believe that the gun problem stems from the suburbs? You are a special kind of naïve! If you want to find blame in something other than the irresponsible thug and/or parent, try correlation with other events. For example track the gun violence graph with the Roe v Wade graph. The total lack of respect for a human life is where studies of that nature will take you. The total lack of respect for your fellow man for the “me/my/mine” generation is then evident. Or perhaps you’d like to compare gun violence with the advent and growth of the Great Society movement to total socialism. No let’s blame it on the gun and the neighboring government! I think we should replace the word naïve with stupid in my second sentence.
Earth to Arturro: There is a world out there beyond the suburb you may inhabit.
Ass-sphincter said what?
Happy New Year PR Monkey! Maybe next time you can type TWO paragraphs.
Happy New Year to you too. Funny thing, Former Republican Senator Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe), mirrored my exact opinion in this matter. Yet my opinion was printed here before he made his statement on his TV show this morning. Furthermore, the President of the NRA also mirrored my opinion. Finally, three of your Republican Presidential heroes, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and his son George Bush, ALL were in favor of gun control. Anything else need be said?
It may crush your soul to know what I wasn’t even talking about you.
I was referring to the trained monkey Harris has cranking out this drivel.
Oh, my mistake….
Even so it’s still unconstitutional. If you don’t like it amend it, but don’t do a judicial end around.
I disagree….
It doesn’t say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms” it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
You can interpret your own meaning, but the words are right there in front.
All this mental health stuff will do is keep people from seeking treatment knowing the .gov will take away whatever it is they are going to take away.
Baltimore City doesn’t have a gun problem because Virginia gun laws are “lax,” Baltimore City has a criminal problem to the 100th degree compared to anywhere else in this state.
Baltimore City PD routinely post gums they recover, a large majority of them are dubbed “Saturday night specials” in my opinion, stuff that most non prohibited persons who can possess firearms don’t buy or have, and the “nicer” firearms are usually stolen.
“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.” – Next time include the entire text of the sentence you’re referring to. When the Constitution was written, the State Militia was in fact a group of armed citizens, that acted as security and Law Enforcement for the people. We have gravitated past that point as we now have Police Officers and National guard that have taken the place of armed citizens. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms is essentially a statement to the fact of a State’s right to have a well regulated Militia. That’s why it was included in the same sentence and not drafted into a context of its own.
I did include the entire sentence. It says the right of the people after the comma. Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms
If your interpretation was correct, no one but the Police and Military would have firearms.
Once again incorrect, but a good argument. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
In a case where the language is less than clear one needs to go to alternate writings and documentation of the founders and in particular those that formed the constitutional protections and powers. I could link you a bunch of stuff but the concern at the time was the ability of a hostile government to put the boot on it’s citizens and the arming of citizens creating a deterrent to tyranny.
Lol Nice copy and paste.
“Once again incorrect”
Yeah, I know, everything after the first sentence was cut and pasted from the Cornell Law Library or WEXLAW.
Periods end sentences not commas!!!!!
Isn’t a ‘militia’, by definition, a force gathered from the civil population? How can a force be gathered to form a militia if the people do not have the right to bear arms?
Please don’t attack me. I am not trying to start a fight. I honestly want to know your opinions on this.
Straight from Wikipedia – “The organized militia is the armed forces of the state. Each state has two mandatory forces which are: the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. Many states also have state defense forces and a naval militia, which assist, support and augment National Guard forces.”
Thank you for your reply. I tend to not use Wikipedia as a source, as the content is not always accurate. I am just here for a healthy debate, as I am not a gun owner. I do not agree with many gun control policies, as I feel that the only people those policies will deter from having weapons are the ones that will follow the laws. If someone is willing to break the law to shoot you, why would breaking the law to get a gun bother them?
The definition of militia that I have found is below. My question is this: in the event that the militias that you mention above become oppressive and there is the need for civilians to form their own militia to combat that, how is that possible if law-abiding citizens are not permitted to arm themselves? Who decides which militia has a legal right to weapons and which does not?
mi·li·tia
/m??liSH?/
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
•a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
•all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
As I stated before, I believe we have gravitated past the point of armed militia being just armed members of the community. However, for the sake of good argument, if the citizens believed they were being oppressed and armed themselves to defend against the oppression, then they would be morally justified. They would also be considered rebels or terrorists by the government. Just look at the second definition of your militia definition listing. That’s where problems would occur. The government would take that armed militia as a threat, maybe even a terroristic threat. Look at what’s happening in Oregon right now at the Federal Wildlife Reserve, its somewhat similar. Let’s see how that plays out and then we’ll know the truth about armed militias vs. organized militias in the US.
What is happening in Oregon will not prove anything more than Ruby Ridge proved in 1992. Wasn’t the Constitution written by citizens that were considered terrorists and rebels? Where would our country be if they had not been permitted to own guns?
I am a law-abiding citizen, raising a family in a rapidly deteriorating area. I have no problem with background checks being done for me to purchase a weapon; in fact, I would encourage it! I am just not sure that would be the solution to the problem. In Sandy Hook, the weapons did not belong to the shooter; they were the legally-purchased guns of his Mother. In San Bernardino, the weapons were legally purchased by a neighbor/friend. Does this mean that we should investigate everyone that is related to or friendly with a prospective gun owner before that person can purchase a gun? Does it mean that we should not allow ANY citizen the right to own a gun? Wouldn’t that mean that only criminals would be armed? What would happen if a corrupt government came to power and the general populace was unarmed? Just because it has never happened does not mean it never could. It happens in other parts of the world all the time.
I don’t know the answers any more than anyone else does. Again, I am just here for discussion and debate.
We’ll lets see. Yes, Government is corrupt. If you think our Government is NOT corrupt then you are NOT being realistic. Yes, our forefathers we’re considered Rebels and Terrorists by the King of England and the British Parliament. However, England was across the Atlantic ocean and neither the King or ANY member of Parliament had ever stepped foot on American soil, yet commanded, ruled and oppressed the colonists that became first generation American citizens. In that world, people needed guns to survive, as you had to defend your home, family and basically needed one to put meat on the table, for the MOST part. Now, no amount of supposed gun control would have ever prevented Sandy Hook. You can be as vigilant as you want on this issue and some NUT can always find a way around the system to get a gun. So the background check issue will never make everyone safe from ever getting shot by a NUT. No one has ever said that you can’t own a gun, only that it is NOT a Constitutional right to own one and you are subject to a regulatory process to own one, LEGALLY. Anyone can purchase a gun ILLEGALLY as they are readily available through out this country and NO AMOUNT of legislation will ever prevent that. Guns will never be possessed by only criminals as Law Enforcement will always have guns to combat gun wielding criminals, even if Law Enforcement didn’t always carry guns on them, just like in modern day England.
You are correct which is why case law has included all physically and mentally capable adults. This is why we can say that the mentally ill can’t have a gun. Hence the part about SSA sharing people receiving disability checks with law enforcement!
America doesn’t have a gun problem; it has a violent criminal and mental illness problem. I daresay Congress could convene and gather around a loaded handgun lying on the floor and if no one touches it, they’ll all make it out of the room alive. Penalties need to be severe and final. As long as society coddles criminals because they weren’t hugged enough as a child or they grew up in a bad neighborhood we’ll continue the downward spiral. I feel that everyone is welcome to be a peaceful, law abiding, useful member of society or they can live in prison. Our tearful organizer in chief is stepping up to the plate to protect us all from peaceful, law abiding citizens. Biggest wuss president ever. One thing I can give the guy though… he never tires of being wrong.
no matter how much you hate the President.
No one is taking guns away from law abiding citizens.
You are a clueless fear mongering idiot, now rush down top Walmart and buy another gun and ammo before the evil black man makes it illegal……
No, I don’t particularly like him… but I don’t particularly like narcissistic, condescending, elitists of any color so his appearance doesn’t come into play. I do pity those who feel compelled to defend any and every action he takes simply because of his skin color – but then I don’t understand the mindset of those that blindly idolize others. I’m quite certain I never said anyone was taking anyone’s weapons away. All I said is that once again, the real problem of violent criminals will not be addressed. See? I’ve replied without once insulting you. This is called debate.
I daresay Congress could convene and gather around a loaded bazooka lying on the floor and if no one touches it, they’ll all make it out of the room alive. Does that mean we should all be allowed to own bazookas? Or hand grenades, or machine guns? Because after all, none of those things kill people either, right? Just the bad people who would use them. So let’s just punish the bad people who use their bazooka to blow up their local elementary school with everyone inside, not by regulating who can own one. .
You have to wonder what Andy thinks ” the true origins of gun violence” are or does he think at all. I suspect he is so far removed from the lives of citizens that he would have no idea about real world workings. His main objective is to pontificate and get re-elected, but that is the unfortunate goal of many politicians it seems.
All this arguing back and forth doesn’t touch on a very real situation.
One Saturday morning when I was home from college, and my parents were out of town for the weekend, the doorbell rang. Because I was alone and it was my policy and I did not recognize the man on the front steps, I did not open the front door to him.
He kept knocking and ringing the door bell and I continued to ignore him (if you can ignore someone who constantly rings the door bell). After a while, he gave up on knocking and ringing and began in earnest to try to remove the screen door. Praise the Lord, the screen door held. But that didn’t stop him. Since the house was a ranch-style,, he proceeded to test every window in the house to see if they were open. When that failed, he started on the back door. As part of my policy when home alone I lock all the screen doors. He tried to tear this one down too. By this time, I was well and truly terrified. I got my father’s 2-shot derringer out of his closet and held on to it for dear life. I made up my mind that if that fool came thru either of my doors or windows, I was going to shoot the second he crossed the threshold. I wasn’t going to ask questions, I was going to shoot first and let the cops sort things out. I was not going to be a statistic.
Well, he gave up trying to break and enter and I thought it was over. A few minutes later, I got a telephone call from this pervert. He claimed he had an appointment with my father and demanded that I let him in. I informed him that my father was not here and if he persisted, I was going to call the police. He started with some molenjohn talk about something and I hung up on him. Be advised I was still clutching the little derringer to my heart hoping all the while that now it was finally over.
Wouldn’t you know it? He came back and started with the door banging and bell ringing. I continued to ignore him. This time he went and got my neighbor. When the neighbor rang the bell, I answered. The neighbor told me that this young man had an appointment with my father. I told the neighbor that my father was out of town and if the “young man” didn’t stop harassing me, I was going to call the police. The neighbor looked at me and back at the “young man”, and told this “young man” that if he didn’t leave immediately, he would call the police.
That was the end of that. I am always grateful my father had that gun in his closet and I have no doubts that I would have shot this man at first entry.
Maybe I should have called the police first, but I was so terrified that my first response was that the police would not have time to get here before this person gained entry. I wasn’t going to wait around to hear his explanation.
If I am ever in the same situation again, I have a nice Glock 9 mm that I know how to use and would not hesitate to use it
Sometimes, the police just do not have time to get somewhere before the unthinkable happens. I am never going to be that 0person to which the “unthinkable” happens while waiting for rescue.
That is why you are allowed to own a gun. That is why you do own a gun. I fear our discussion on 2nd Amendment rights may have given you the impression that someone or something has or is going to take away your right to own your gun. This is not the case and nothing Mr. Obama has specified in his Executive Order will change your right to own that gun. I’m glad you feel safe….
You state that maybe you should have called the police first, however, I did not read anywhere that you ever called the police.
Let me say that you should not have called the police first if you had a gun in the house. You should have retrieved the gun and then called the police. Not calling the police in the situation you describe which played out over several minutes, including the man trying to break down the doors to gain entry to the home says to me that while you may be legal to purchase a gun, you are not smart enough to own a gun.
The second amendment does not grant a right, it guarantees a pre-existing right! All of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL not collective, The problem is one of violence by persons not inanimate objects. The solution lies in regulating the criminals not the tools. The problem with regulating the criminals is that the overwhelming majority of persons committing violence on others are minorities. Any effective solution to the problem of the criminals would be immediately labeled “Racist” and burned at the alter of political correctness. Look at Baltimore, about a murder a day and 3 times that many non-fatal shootings last year. What percentage of those crimes were committed by blacks? Furthermore, for what percentage of those criminals was that shooting their first crime? Almost zero. If we locked ’em up and kept ’em locked up they wouldn’t be out shooting folks. Instead, our criminal justice system routinely pleads away mandatory sentencing related to violent criminals. Grants these thugs early release and they go back out on the street and shoot someone else. Bad people do not care about laws and passing more of them wont change criminal behavior in any meaningful way. If instead we had a mandatory 10 years for a 1st offence with a weapon and the death penalty for a second that could not be plead away then we would see a reduction in shootings. Passing laws and imposing restrictions only affects those who care about laws, the folks pulling the triggers clearly do not.
I think you’re incorrect about the Bill of Rights applying to Individuals and not being collective in nature. I believe the First, Second and the Tenth Amendments are clear that they are collective in nature. I believe MOST violent crimes are committed by Whites. Here is the data I’m referring to- http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
I also think you should take into consideration that the majority of MASS SHOOTINGS have been by White Males. I am White and I have no problem with this observation, because it is the truth. It is also true that MOST violent crimes committed by Blacks are toward others who are Black. The statistics show it at 62.2%. Us White people seem to commit violent crimes against everyone and the statistics show it plainly.
Whoooaaaaaa, there cowboy….
Your source has been labeled a ‘hate group’ and the editor called, ‘The Ivy League face of white supremacy’…. so….. that sort of undermines any data or statistical interpretations coming from that camp……
Instead, try the FBI stats….. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf
You can draw your own conclusions from those statistics.
I’m just here to help….
Uh oh, you’re right. Oh well. You have to wonder why a Hate group would post data that counters their arguments of racial inequality. Thanx for the heads up….. However, I wouldn’t trust the FBI either…..
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure a free state. It has nothing to do with regular crime.
Of course the militia was more important when we actually did not maintain a standing Army!
SoulCrusher,It matters to no-one but you that you “think” I’m wrong about the Bill of Rights, even a cursory amount of effort on your part into learning about the Constitution and its history and creation would prove to you you’re wrong. “Most violent crimes are committed by whites”, interesting factoid, doesn’t change the fact that most murders are committed by minorities. Over 1000 people shot in Baltimore last year almost all the victims and almost all the shooters were black. “Mass shootings” why bring these up at all? More folks killed by thugs in 1 month in Baltimore (one mid sized city) than in mass shootings for the entire country for the entire year. Your attempt to dilute the fact that blacks are the overwhelming majority of shooters by including white violent crime is laughably transparent. Most of the shooters are black and that’s why Obama doesn’t want to focus on the criminals, because “if he had a son” he would look like most of the murderers in this country. No rational person can argue against my assertion that if we kept them locked up for the first violent crime they commit, shootings and murders would absolutely decrease. Instead, Obama wants to add red tape, expense and rigmarole to the process for regular folks that will do nothing to reduce murders but will make Liberals feel like they are “doing something”.
You are right according to FBI stats involving murder. The blacks and white share nearly the same percentage. But, if you add up ALL the crimes of violence, whites are ruling the violent crime arena.
P.S. This time I used the statistics that “Questionable Sources, Sir….” posted above. Not the stats from Amren. Just do the Math….
FBI stats Blacks are 11% of population and commit 50% of violent crime. Facts are facts.
At the bottom of the page, under the heading “Data Declaration”, it plainly states that 69.3% of all arrestees were white. 28.1% were black. It also states 58.7% of violent crimes were done by whites, so there is no way 50% of all violent crime is committed by black people. From my calculations, I get 64.5% white committing violent crime while blacks commit 32.84% of violent crime. I’m including all murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery, assaults, arsons and gun offenses as violent crimes in my calculations. I’m using the FBI stats from the FBI site. Not the DOJ stats on the Amren site. How did you calculate that 50% of violent crimes are committed by blacks?
Sitting here drinking a beer reading the FBI statistics and have noticed that Hispanics are not included in the statistics. There are white Hispanics and black Hispanics in our country. Until there becomes a time that they are placed into sub-categories these statistics cannot be taken as a literal translation of American life. We all know that figures don’t lie but often times liers figure.
I have met a sh¿~ boat of Hispanic criminals in my day, both white and black… wonder how this skews the FBI figures.
String em up
I tell you ALL what. If you think the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun, then go to the store and try to buy one without the regulatory process that is in place. You won’t leave the store with the gun until the regulatory process is completed. You have been regulated……
Each state is different (as I’m sure you know).
Maryland has a ‘regulatory’ process with handguns, but now all non-NFA long guns can be purchased face to face between non prohibited persons without involving any .gov – As it has been (previously un-regulated) long arms for many decades. Certain long guns (see: regulated) in Maryland required the same state paperwork and 7 day wait that applied to handguns, after 2013 we don’t have “regulated” long arms anymore as some were “banned” for sale.
Many other states you can buy a handgun “face to face” with another person without any state and or/federal paperwork involved, unlike Maryland that requires an FFL or any of the MSP baracks will provide paperwork for the transfer.
So yes, one can (in this state) have bought all long guns face to face and have been perfectly legal as long as they were not a prohibited person of pocessing firearms.
I should say ‘face to face’ with both parties who reside in the same state.
No one was debating the face to face purchases of prior owned long rifles or shotguns. We are talking about on a retail or wholesale level. Nothing Obama has ordered effects face to face purchases, unless you are in fact selling the guns at a retail or wholesale level. This would however alter the legality of someone who buys guns in quantity and offers them to members of the public with the intent of securing a profit and on a regular basis, without an FFL.
What is all this fascination with guns? My Dad was wounded on Omaha Beach on D-Day, and saw the worst of the worst combat with guys dying all around him. He never touched a gun after that day for the rest of his life. He used to say, “if all these pro-gun folks saw what I saw, they would never touch a gun either.”
Cool story, bro.
Gun nuts always miss the “well regulated” part of the 2nd amendment.
What is your point regarding use of the term “well regulated?”
Your definition and ASSumption of “Well regulated” was different than in the 1700’s.
You ASSume well regulated was to mean .gov restriction et al but at the time the Constitution was written, the ‘Well Regulated’ term was used to describe something in ‘proper working order’ or the such. Perhaps you should look back at Oxford English Dictionaries 200 years ago.
If you want to go any further with your “gun nuts” stupidity. You should have mentioned that “gun nuts” overlooked the word “arms” as quite literally at your intentional negativity would include you would think they quit literally meant, your arms, as on that long pole of bone, skin and muscle that connects to your hands.
…you’re looking for hidden context in the wrong word. Notice the framing of the word ‘militia’…. it is referred to as ‘A Militia’… not, ‘the militia’. And, what did ‘militia’ mean in the context of 1770’s politics. Also, let’s not forget that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in an effort to gain ratification. They had to define rights of the people…. ‘We the people…’ not, ‘We the government’…. that wouldn’t have flown at all in 1770’s… while the existing governing body was busy bombing the crap out of Boston.
First of all, Look at all the dictatorships in the world. Like where the refugees in the middle east are fleeing to Europe and also possibly here the US. They have no way to stand up against their government or the terrorist organizations taking over their country. Why? Because they have no right to keep an bare arms. This is why every amendment in our constitution is very important and must be protected. The liberals have already begun the complete dismantling of our freedom of speech. Might I add the majority of that has been during this administration. Yet here they are at it again back with the second amendment. Once it begins where will they stop. God forbid the day we lose that right, we will look just like North Korea. Do some research. Look at how the Communists in the former Soviet union revoked guns from it citizens and how they did it. You will see a resemblance here. The Russians people had no rights to start with. Look how it spiraled down from there and how they suffered at the hand of their government for a century!