Guns enforce current laws. We don't need loads more

2nd amendment

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:^[30]

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.

Obama won't even mention the words " Islamic terrorism". Are you 100% confident he, or Hillary, whose chief aid is a Muslim Brotherhood supporter,  will protect you from the onslaught of Islamic terror directed vs Jews that is coming here?


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and
from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and
others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated
in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news,
or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives
and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely
affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.

According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,^[179] in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:^[179][180]

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.^[179][180]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.^[179][180]

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.^[179][180]

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.^[179][180]

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.^[179][180]

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.^[179][180]

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.^[179][180]

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller‍ '​s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.^[179][180]