NationStates Jolt Archive

Want A Free Gun? Then Read on.

Wouldn’t it wonderful if you could make your own guns, easily, in your home, from scratch? Yes, these wouldn’t be the best in the world. The quality would not be top-flight – unless you’re a top-flight gunsmith, which most of us are decidedly not. However, there would be another, big difference. Gun control would die a slow, torturous death.
Think of it this way: It is the basic tenet of anti-gun nut ideology that “every gun has once been legal”. Sarah Brady and her merry gang believe, sincerely and truly, that if there will be less gun factories, thugs will have less guns. According to Sarah Brady, if there were less legal guns, there’s be less illegal gun – until it all culminated in a gun free paradise, like Mancheter, UK, or Moscow, USSR. But what if you could have a steady stream of guns originating in your basement? They could burn every gun factory on the planet to the ground and it would not matter.
Ever seen that NORML shirt that says “Fight Terrorism, Grow Your Own”? Effectively homegrown marijuana is a nail in the coffin of marijuana prohibition, and everybody knows it – that is why Switzerland legalized it. No point prohibiting marijuana when any of those pesky hippies can have plantation in his bedroom, and you’d never know it. right? No real point having a ban on guns when every gun nut can have a factory in his bedroom either.
Well, actually, you can. The knowledge is out there for decades now, and the only reason most people have never head of it is low publicity. Many books have been written on the subject ( http://www.webleyweb.com/heap/ has the links to them all). Do you want to make a 9mm sub machinegun? Try “Expedient Homemade Firearms, The 9mm Submachine Gun” by Philip Luty. You’re a rifleman? ”Home Workshop .50-Caliber Sniper Rifle” is a VHS made just for you.
But all those are print books, so the Internet has not done them justice. On the 10th of May, a project was started by Neil Smith fans called the Free Arms project http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-arms/ . The project is, and I quote,”committed to the development of a patentless, Open Source, Open Engineering personal defense weapon”. That is, to make it short, free. Right now, it’s very light on info to say the least, but the member have already made available plans and CNC programs for the AR-15 rifle and the 1911 self-loading handgun. Free.
Now, where do you come in? If you can, make yourself a legal, home-made gun. An AR-15 would be good, but if you don’t have a CNC machine you can make some of the legal contraptions at that HEAP site. That alone would be a terrifying statement to antis. And when you submit your new AR-15 for ATF inspection (as is the law for self-made guns), don’t forget to smile in the knowledge that you could have chopped two or three inches of the barrel, or programmed the computer for a different trigger group – but haven’t. Not that it changes anything – those people are irrelevant. Remember LUFA of Canada? The NRA (or, more likely, KABA) could start something like that tomorrow. What’s the point banning them? You got the proverbial bedroom factory.
What you got now is something that the freedom haters cannot take away, ban, or destroy. Something that they fear more than guns, for it is the very basis of the freedom they hate and fear. What you have is knowledge. Spread it. Send a link to Free Arms and HEAP to every European gun enthusiast you know – they might even start making their own. How long would EU gun laws last, in minutes, if they did? Mind you, I’m not suggesting you break the law. There’s nothing illegal about learning how to make guns, even in Europe. What the Europeans decide to do with it is their own choice (although I would be pleased if someone used that info to start some European version of LUFA).
You want to show gun controllers wrong? You want to demonstrate their ultimate stupidity? You want to drive another nail in the coffin of Karl T. Frederick and his ilk? Want to take revenge for the S&W Agreement? Learn to make your own guns.

Bibliography to be distributed far and wide:

http://www.webleyweb.com/heap/ - HEAP site
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free-arms/ - Free Arms Project

What is it with some of you gun nuts that makes you so obsessed that everyone should have weapons? Why can't you just let us decide this for our self? If Europe would want weapons, then the Europeans would protest and go out on demonstrations to show that they want guns. Then they would most likely vote about. But do you see any protesters? NO! That's because the majority of the EU don't want guns.

And as for it not being legal: well it's illegal to encourage illegal behaviour. At least in my country. If you, as an example tell someone to kill someone and that person does indeed kill that person, you're partially resonsable for that act. So yes, if you go around and tell people: Here's a site how you make guns, now make some guns. Then you're encouraging that person to break the law.

Another point that I want to add: I think your effort is pretty useless. Most of those who want to make their own guns are most likely criminals and I'm pretty sure that they already know about these sites or similliar sites. And I think the more legal minded European enthusiasts wouldn't make guns because of respect of the law. The average Europeans have a different mind set compared to the average American...

So please stop your *Censored* attempt to Americanize the world... and take care of your own *censored* problems...

If guns were free, then all hell would break loose. (to put it lightly)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if infectious deadly viruses were free to any who wanted them? While we at it, wouldn't it be great if neurotoxins were available at your local chemists? Who wouldn't want to run down to the local Costco and, just for buying 12 frozen chicken breasts, they'll throw in a family sized pack of tactical nuclear warheads? Wouldn't we live in a wonderful world then?

If you're going to buy a piece of equipment that may take the life of either an aggressor or an innocent, you can damn well at least fork over the cash to pay for it.

Besides, free guns sounds a whole lot like socialisim or communisim to me...

Canemptopia: some things, such as the rights of the minority, are more important than majority opinion, sorry.

I have a right to keep and bear arms, by virtue of being an human adult human. I have the right to protect my freedom, preferabky through non-violent means, like Ghandi did. Your 51% percent vote cannot take that away.

Besides, in many places it is legal for a persons to make a gun if they may legally possess one (America is such a place).

Finally, I'm not Ameican, so your effort is lost.

There are some problems with gun control. But there are more problems with lots of people having guns.

Still more riddled with problems is your analogy to marijuana. A lot of people who use guns aren't responsible (like marijuana), but unlike marijuana, its not a personal choice issue as generally the person who's life is affected by a gun isn't the person who owns the said gun. Also, unlike guns, the total number of deaths from marijuana last year: 0.

want a free weapon? Go outside, pick up a huge rock, go up to the top of a building, and... :wink:

Allanea, you are wonderful! :D

PRAISE ALLANEA!

I hope the pope makes you a saint!

(by the way, I mean no sarcasm in any of that. Allanea, you are WONDERFUL)

Berkylvania, The nuclear weapon parralel is clearly wrong. As Saharov proved, EVERY nuclear weapon detonation harms innocent people, even when blown up in the desert. A conventional weapon (even a 155mm cannon) can be used extensively without killing one innocent. So non-WMD weapons =/= WMD, sorry.

Generally, spoffin, the person whose life is affected with a gun is the person who owns it. There's 280,000,000 legal guns in america, that's less than cars. Guess what kills more people?

About 250,000 people per year in the world are killed using small arms, using the Cato institute estimate.

Over 1 million die of mosquito bites.

Allanea, you are wonderful! :D

PRAISE ALLANEA!

I hope the pope makes you a saint!


I'm Jewish. :D


I think Berkylvania didn't get it.

Allanea, you are wonderful! :D

PRAISE ALLANEA!

I hope the pope makes you a saint!


I'm Jewish. :D


I think Berkylvania didn't get it.

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

Berkylvania, The nuclear weapon parralel is clearly wrong. As Saharov proved, EVERY nuclear weapon detonation harms innocent people, even when blown up in the desert. A conventional weapon (even a 155mm cannon) can be used extensively without killing one innocent. So non-WMD weapons =/= WMD, sorry.

Actually, no, it's not. If you are going to claim that, as a class of weapons, nuclear weapons kill innocents then you must also acknowledge that, as a class of weapons, guns kill innocents. Besides, a death is a death. If you're big enough to take someone's life, why is it beyond the pale to suggest you should have to pay to do it? Isn't that one of the fundamental principles of capitalisim?


Generally, spoffin, the person whose life is affected with a gun is the person who owns it. There's 280,000,000 legal guns in america, that's less than cars. Guess what kills more people?

Now you're guilty of your own crime. Guns and cars are not the same type of machinery. You don't buy a gun with the intent of killing something. Therefore, to say that there are more traffic fatalities than gun fatalities is comparing apples and oranges.


About 250,000 people per year in the world are killed using small arms, using the Cato institute estimate.

I've never advocated for the repeal of private gun ownership. Using a broad interpretation of Constitutional law, at least in the US, it seems that people do have a right to own firearms and, as we have many historical examples to show us that prohibiting something that people want doesn't make the problem go away, I see no point in trying to change that. Instead, I feel they should be highly regulated and there are certain types of weaponry the common citizen of any nation on the world should never have need of owning.


Over 1 million die of mosquito bites.

And, in the US, we spray to try and control mosquitos. What's your point?

Allanea, you are wonderful! :D

PRAISE ALLANEA!

I hope the pope makes you a saint!


I'm Jewish. :D

:oops: Oops. Sorry.

Actually, no, it's not. If you are going to claim that, as a class of weapons, nuclear weapons kill innocents then you must also acknowledge that, as a class of weapons, guns kill innocents.

No.

When you detonate a nuclear weapon, an innocent wll UNAVOIDABLY get hurt. Thousands of guns get fired every day and NOBODY gets hurt (at firing ranges, etc). WMD are called WMD because they are built to harm peple uncontrollably, not so with other weapons.

Generally, spoffin, the person whose life is affected with a gun is the person who owns it. There's 280,000,000 legal guns in america, that's less than cars. Guess what kills more people?Hang on, try that one again. More cars and more deaths? Less guns and less deaths? Thats what you'd expect isn't it? Explain please.

About 250,000 people per year in the world are killed using small arms, using the Cato institute estimate.

Over 1 million die of mosquito bites.
Thats distinctly uncomparative. Go by location.

Yes, woulden't it be whonerfull if we all had nukclear warheads?

*a kid comes over his friends house* Hey, jimmy, I don't like johny from our class.

B kid: Yeah, he is a real nerd, lets nuke him!!!

A kid: yeah!!!

*female computer launch voice* *launch in ten seconds* *huge missle silo comes out of back yard* *missle launches*

AB kid togther: YEAH WASEN'T THAT FUN!!!! LETS DO IT AG.....ARGGHGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *kids burn to death in nuclear explosion*

See kids!!! Don't play with any sort of Nuclear weapons you find on the street! :D :P :shock: 8) :lol: :roll:

Actually, no, it's not. If you are going to claim that, as a class of weapons, nuclear weapons kill innocents then you must also acknowledge that, as a class of weapons, guns kill innocents.

No.

When you detonate a nuclear weapon, an innocent wll UNAVOIDABLY get hurt. Thousands of guns get fired every day and NOBODY gets hurt (at firing ranges, etc). WMD are called WMD because they are built to harm peple uncontrollably, not so with other weapons.

But, at root, they are both built with one sole purpose: to harm. Besides, the whole point of tactical nuclear weapons is that they do not harm civilians. They are supposedly much more controlled and targeted.

In any event, how does this argument detract from the statement that if you're capable of buying something designed to harm, you should at least be able to pay for it?

About 250,000 people per year in the world are killed using small arms, using the Cato institute estimate.

Over 1 million die of mosquito bites.

And which figure is easier to reduce? :roll:

About 250,000 people per year in the world are killed using small arms, using the Cato institute estimate.

Over 1 million die of mosquito bites.

And which figure is easier to reduce? :roll:Probably wouldn't be too hard to reduce both actually. Maybe we can use the guns to kill the mosquitos? Or sell arms to by anti malaria drugs? I dunno, there've gotta be solutions out there

About 250,000 people per year in the world are killed using small arms, using the Cato institute estimate.

Over 1 million die of mosquito bites.

And which figure is easier to reduce? :roll:Probably wouldn't be too hard to reduce both actually. Maybe we can use the guns to kill the mosquitos? Or sell arms to by anti malaria drugs? I dunno, there've gotta be solutions out there

This is what I like to see, ingenuity in problem solving. When life hands you lemons, make a lemonade that's capable of going over to Life's house, knocking on the door, beating the crap out of it when it answers and then having it's way with Life's wife. :lol:

Riiiggghhtt... Anyway now to get sarcastistic:

Senario 1:
I feel the need to protect myself from jews, blacks, liberals, heathens, the rich, the other poor, and pretty much anyone who isn't a semi-literate, redneck wannabe and/or his folks with delusions of a superior Aryan race that is completely white and meant for greatest. So I'm gonna mass-produce guns like there ain't no tomorrow!

Conclusion: America goes to hell while worldwide celebrations are held.

Senario 2:
I feel the need to protect myself from punks, greedy hoes, wannabe pimps, the system, the rival gangs, and whitey's police. I also need to go handle some business regarding a bank robbery. So I'ma start makin' some guns and I'ma blaze it up! Holla at ya' boy!

Conclusion: Murder sky-rockets; crime is crippling; cities become lawless as the police cannot keep up with the problem.

Senario 3:
Life sucks, everyone but me sucks inculding God and excluding Satan. I have to teach everyone a lesson about picking on their betters like the occultic messages in my Korn c.d. said. That's why I'm going to make a buttload of guns and shoot up the town with my fellow cult members. Of course I could just buy the guys since I'm upper middle class-lower upper class, but then maybe in a million years my parents might suspect and stop me.

Conclusion: After the massacre copycat crimes began to pop up everywhere leading to anarchy nationwide.

That's enough I'm tire.

Canemptopia: some things, such as the rights of the minority, are more important than majority opinion, sorry.

I have a right to keep and bear arms, by virtue of being an human adult human. I have the right to protect my freedom, preferabky through non-violent means, like Ghandi did. Your 51% percent vote cannot take that away.

Besides, in many places it is legal for a persons to make a gun if they may legally possess one (America is such a place).

Finally, I'm not Ameican, so your effort is lost.

What kind of democracy is that!? Should the majority fear guns just so that a small minority should be able to play with their beloved guns!? That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard to put it lightly. That's a highly undemocratic way of thinking IMHO.

You could use your way of thinking to justify murder as a way to make murder legal: "Me? A murderer? No, no, no. I'm a political protester. I want to abolish the murder punishment. If I murder enough people they will make it legal since no one follows that law anyway. I do this because I think it's my right to murder. I mean the people I murder are weak, since they haven't manage to wrestle me down stopped when I killed them. I'm doing mankind a favour" Doing illegal stuff is never ok. If you don't like a law and want change, don't just break it: stage protests against it instead.

BTW don't you think they will tighten control even more and give those who make their own guns (or own other illegal guns) even higher punishments if people would start to create their own guns? (which defintetly should discourage most people to continue) Unless of course the guns were only made be "honest" (even though they're not really honest since they have broken a law by making an illegal weapon) people and in that case no one or few would really notice (which makes this whole act even more useless)

And once again: The American 2nd amendment (was that the correct amendment?) or other rules like it do not apply in the EU. So no, not every person has the right to bear arms unless it's decided in an democratic election or by the goverment. But as of right now: you haven't got the right to bear arms unless the goverment sees you fit and gives you the right to do it.

But as of right now: you haven't got the right to bear arms unless the goverment sees you fit and gives you the right to do it.

This is why the right to keep and bear arms is specifically written into the Bill of Rights; to guard against an oppressive government.

(And yes, I've heard the "well guns wont do much against tanks" argument before, so save it. Is irrelevant as an argument for the removal of guns from society.)

Not a good idea.

(And yes, I've heard the "well guns wont do much against tanks" argument before, so save it. Is irrelevant as an argument for the removal of guns from society.)

That's what molotov cocktails are for :twisted:

But as of right now: you haven't got the right to bear arms unless the goverment sees you fit and gives you the right to do it.

This is why the right to keep and bear arms is specifically written into the Bill of Rights; to guard against an oppressive government.

(And yes, I've heard the "well guns wont do much against tanks" argument before, so save it. Is irrelevant as an argument for the removal of guns from society.)Yeah, but the oppressive government in question was the British one.

No, its a dumbass amendment, written before there were streetlamps let alone a police force. It should be revoked ASAP.

:)

edit for spoffin: Would you care to elaborate on that? I don't want to type out a lengthy post and invest a bunch of time and energy explaining the purpose of the 2nd Amendment unless there is a sincere dialogue.

No, its a dumbass amendment, written before there were streetlamps let alone a police force. It should be revoked ASAP.

I'm not too sure about that, Spoffin. I have a hard time dinking around with any points of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, be it removing one and making gun ownership illegal (and idea which I sort of like in theory) or adding one to outlaw gay marriage (an idea which I absolutely loathe...adding a discriminatory amendment, that is, not gay marriage per se). The reason the Constitution has lasted so long is because of the broadness of it's scope. I think, if a serious push came along to revoke the militia amendment (not that I think there ever will be because Americans love their guns far too much), I would have to be against it unless I saw some incontrivertable evidence arguing for it.

With that said, the idea of free firearms is still laughably moronic...or, at least, it would be if I wasn't worried about how many people in this country might support it just because we like freebies.

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

You can already do that! The difference would be that multiple people with these guns would stop the perp before he kills too many... :idea:

What if guns were free(as in cost no money)?

*sigh*

*in whispery voice* Well, then the world would just be a gosh darn better place, now wouldn't it....

:)

edit for spoffin: Would you care to elaborate on that? I don't want to type out a lengthy post and invest a bunch of time and energy explaining the purpose of the 2nd Amendment unless there is a sincere dialogue.Well, simply, its unnecessary. Its archaic. Its intended for a time and place where guns were necessary, but the conditions don't exist any more. People not only don't need guns to defend themselves, but they aren't effective. In this time with the national guard, the army, the marines and allies in every continent, a militia is not so much necessary for the security of a free state but in fact a direct danger to it.

There are some problems with gun control. But there are more problems with lots of people having guns.

Still more riddled with problems is your analogy to marijuana. A lot of people who use guns aren't responsible (like marijuana), but unlike marijuana, its not a personal choice issue as generally the person who's life is affected by a gun isn't the person who owns the said gun. Also, unlike guns, the total number of deaths from marijuana last year: 0.

first off, the people I know who own guns are a hell of alot more resposible than the people I know who smoke

and what about the innocent bystanders who are killed when a hopped up driver careens off the road? were those deaths in you statistics?

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

hay, maybe colombine would have been a little different if the gym teacher wipped out a 1911, I know you could see that as solving a problem with a bigger problem

but remeber what life was like in the western fronter, a few proficient gunmen with the right, hard to get equipment could control whole counties untill Sam Colt made guns cheap and easy enough for every one to have

"God may have created men equal, but Sam Colt made them equal."

There are some problems with gun control. But there are more problems with lots of people having guns.

Still more riddled with problems is your analogy to marijuana. A lot of people who use guns aren't responsible (like marijuana), but unlike marijuana, its not a personal choice issue as generally the person who's life is affected by a gun isn't the person who owns the said gun. Also, unlike guns, the total number of deaths from marijuana last year: 0.

first off, the people I know who own guns are a hell of alot more resposible than the people I know who smoke

and what about the innocent bystanders who are killed when a hopped up driver careens off the road? were those deaths in you statistics?No they aren't, and for the same reason that deaths by drunk driving go in the automobile accidents statistics and not the alcohol deaths ones.

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

hay, maybe colombine would have been a little different if the gym teacher wipped out a 1911, I know you could see that as solving a problem with a bigger problem

but remeber what life was like in the western fronter, a few proficient gunmen with the right, hard to get equipment could control whole counties untill Sam Colt made guns cheap and easy enough for every one to have

"God may have created men equal, but Sam Colt made them equal."Except the black people who weren't allowed to own guns of course.

Yes, woulden't it be whonerfull if we all had nukclear warheads?

*a kid comes over his friends house* Hey, jimmy, I don't like johny from our class.

B kid: Yeah, he is a real nerd, lets nuke him!!!

A kid: yeah!!!

*female computer launch voice* *launch in ten seconds* *huge missle silo comes out of back yard* *missle launches*

AB kid togther: YEAH WASEN'T THAT FUN!!!! LETS DO IT AG.....ARGGHGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *kids burn to death in nuclear explosion*

See kids!!! Don't play with any sort of Nuclear weapons you find on the street! :D :P :shock: 8) :lol: :roll:

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them
Try the word "arms", an umbrella term that describes everything from a quarterstaff to a cruise missile.

Riiiggghhtt... Anyway now to get sarcastistic:

Senario 1:
I feel the need to protect myself from jews, blacks, liberals, heathens, the rich, the other poor, and pretty much anyone who isn't a semi-literate, redneck wannabe and/or his folks with delusions of a superior Aryan race that is completely white and meant for greatest. So I'm gonna mass-produce guns like there ain't no tomorrow!

Conclusion: America goes to hell while worldwide celebrations are held.

Senario 2:
I feel the need to protect myself from punks, greedy hoes, wannabe pimps, the system, the rival gangs, and whitey's police. I also need to go handle some business regarding a bank robbery. So I'ma start makin' some guns and I'ma blaze it up! Holla at ya' boy!

Conclusion: Murder sky-rockets; crime is crippling; cities become lawless as the police cannot keep up with the problem.

Senario 3:
Life sucks, everyone but me sucks inculding God and excluding Satan. I have to teach everyone a lesson about picking on their betters like the occultic messages in my Korn c.d. said. That's why I'm going to make a buttload of guns and shoot up the town with my fellow cult members. Of course I could just buy the guys since I'm upper middle class-lower upper class, but then maybe in a million years my parents might suspect and stop me.

Conclusion: After the massacre copycat crimes began to pop up everywhere leading to anarchy nationwide.

That's enough I'm tire.

newsflash: those scenarios are already in play all across the world, maybe the innocent sane people should have some leveling power?

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them
Try the word "arms", an umbrella term that describes everything from a quarterstaff to a cruise missile.

Or try general classification of use, meaning they are both intended to cause harm, just on potentially different scales. If economy is really what we're going for here, then why stop at giving away weapons that cause only limited harm. Why not give away free weapons that cause widespread harm? It's more efficient.

There are some problems with gun control. But there are more problems with lots of people having guns.

Still more riddled with problems is your analogy to marijuana. A lot of people who use guns aren't responsible (like marijuana), but unlike marijuana, its not a personal choice issue as generally the person who's life is affected by a gun isn't the person who owns the said gun. Also, unlike guns, the total number of deaths from marijuana last year: 0.

first off, the people I know who own guns are a hell of alot more resposible than the people I know who smoke

and what about the innocent bystanders who are killed when a hopped up driver careens off the road? were those deaths in you statistics?No they aren't, and for the same reason that deaths by drunk driving go in the automobile accidents statistics and not the alcohol deaths ones.

would those people have died if the guy behind the wheel wasn't stoned

(and it might be different where you live but here they put those down as a sub-catagory in the alcohol section)

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

hay, maybe colombine would have been a little different if the gym teacher wipped out a 1911, I know you could see that as solving a problem with a bigger problem

but remeber what life was like in the western fronter, a few proficient gunmen with the right, hard to get equipment could control whole counties untill Sam Colt made guns cheap and easy enough for every one to have

"God may have created men equal, but Sam Colt made them equal."Except the black people who weren't allowed to own guns of course.

now ask youself, would the situation be better if they tried to take the guns away from everybody who wasn't black or just let blacks own guns?

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them
Try the word "arms", an umbrella term that describes everything from a quarterstaff to a cruise missile.

Or try general classification of use, meaning they are both intended to cause harm, just on potentially different scales. If economy is really what we're going for here, then why stop at giving away weapons that cause only limited harm. Why not give away free weapons that cause widespread harm? It's more efficient.

potentialy different scales?

VASTLY different scales

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them
Try the word "arms", an umbrella term that describes everything from a quarterstaff to a cruise missile.

Or try general classification of use, meaning they are both intended to cause harm, just on potentially different scales. If economy is really what we're going for here, then why stop at giving away weapons that cause only limited harm. Why not give away free weapons that cause widespread harm? It's more efficient.

potentialy different scales?

VASTLY different scales

Ah, so one innocent death is okay, but more than, say, 1000 is a problem?

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

hay, maybe colombine would have been a little different if the gym teacher wipped out a 1911, I know you could see that as solving a problem with a bigger problem

but remeber what life was like in the western fronter, a few proficient gunmen with the right, hard to get equipment could control whole counties untill Sam Colt made guns cheap and easy enough for every one to have

"God may have created men equal, but Sam Colt made them equal."Except the black people who weren't allowed to own guns of course.

now ask youself, would the situation be better if they tried to take the guns away from everybody who wasn't black or just let blacks own guns?Taking them away from everyone, stoping them shooting people, that sounds like a good idea to me. But then I'm a Liberal, what do I know?

would those people have died if the guy behind the wheel wasn't stonedWould the people have died if there were no bullets in the gun? Ahha! Not gun control we need, but bullet control!

In answer to your question, no, probably not. But the number of cannabis-automobile related deaths is still exceptionally low, lower than alcohol, alcohol-automobile, automobile OR gun related deaths.

Ah, so one innocent death is okay, but more than, say, 1000 is a problem?Stalin says no.

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them
Try the word "arms", an umbrella term that describes everything from a quarterstaff to a cruise missile.

Or try general classification of use, meaning they are both intended to cause harm, just on potentially different scales. If economy is really what we're going for here, then why stop at giving away weapons that cause only limited harm. Why not give away free weapons that cause widespread harm? It's more efficient.

potentialy different scales?

a gun built to kill one man or a dear has an aplicable purpose in a peaceful world

there is no aplication for a trident nuke but to kill tens of millions of people

VASTLY different scales

Ah, so one innocent death is okay, but more than, say, 1000 is a problem?

Yeah Spoffin. Diffusing a tense situation with humor - always my favorite tactic.

I'm sure nuclear proliferation and the seccond amendment are deffinantly liked...some how...oh, they both have E's in them
Try the word "arms", an umbrella term that describes everything from a quarterstaff to a cruise missile.

Or try general classification of use, meaning they are both intended to cause harm, just on potentially different scales. If economy is really what we're going for here, then why stop at giving away weapons that cause only limited harm. Why not give away free weapons that cause widespread harm? It's more efficient.

potentialy different scales?

a gun built to kill one man or a dear has an aplicable purpose in a peaceful world

there is no aplication for a trident nuke but to kill tens of millions of people

VASTLY different scales

Ah, so one innocent death is okay, but more than, say, 1000 is a problem?

I still don't see how your edit justifies the difference.

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

hay, maybe colombine would have been a little different if the gym teacher wipped out a 1911, I know you could see that as solving a problem with a bigger problem

but remeber what life was like in the western fronter, a few proficient gunmen with the right, hard to get equipment could control whole counties untill Sam Colt made guns cheap and easy enough for every one to have

"God may have created men equal, but Sam Colt made them equal."Except the black people who weren't allowed to own guns of course.

now ask youself, would the situation be better if they tried to take the guns away from everybody who wasn't black or just let blacks own guns?Taking them away from everyone, stoping them shooting people, that sounds like a good idea to me. But then I'm a Liberal, what do I know?

look at England, you know you can never get them all and more will be made, and God help the poor man without one

Taking them away from everyone, stoping them shooting people, that sounds like a good idea to me. But then I'm a Liberal, what do I know?

look at England, you know you can never get them all and more will be made, and God help the poor man without oneI live in England (Britain), and I don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about.

Taking them away from everyone, stoping them shooting people, that sounds like a good idea to me. But then I'm a Liberal, what do I know?

look at England, you know you can never get them all and more will be made, and God help the poor man without oneI live in England (Britain), and I don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about.

criminals still have guns

Taking them away from everyone, stoping them shooting people, that sounds like a good idea to me. But then I'm a Liberal, what do I know?

look at England, you know you can never get them all and more will be made, and God help the poor man without oneI live in England (Britain), and I don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about.

criminals still have gunsWell, under British law, pretty much ONLY criminals have guns (as having a gun almost always means you're breaking the law), however the actual number of people with guns is exceptionally low, and the number of gun deaths is also very low.

I turned this post into my very first poll, so go there and have at it.

If guns were free I wouldnt take them. And Im sure it has already been mentioned that it would simply mak the government more vicious in its regulation. Plus it could simply monitor or outlaw the parts needed to make the guns.

If guns were free, only free people would have guns...

Not.

Actually, that raises an interesting point. Guns are illegal for private ownership in England, yet criminals have guns. As there are many UK residents who post here, do you feel either safer for not having a gun, even though crimals may have them, or do you feel more at risk without your own gun?I do not feel at risk without a gun, I am not that worried that a criminal might have a gun (statistical improbability). I do not believe I would feel safer if I was allowed to carry a gun, even if no-one else had one.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims


Polititions prefer unarmed pesants


if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


and my three favorites:


STOP HONKING! I'M RELOADING! -- bumper sticker I have

When in doubt, EMPTY THE MAGAZINE!

and of course,

GUN CONTROL IS HITTING YOUR TARGET

Using a broad interpretation of Constitutional law, at least in the US, it seems that people do have a right to own firearms

Whoa there. First let me tell you I don't like the idea of guns at all, and I personally think the world is better off without them. I also try to stay out of gun control arguments because any argument against guns can also be used against my precious archery pretty much...

BUT. It is not a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. People have argued that the main purpose of the amendment was guaranteeing the state a militia, but the fact is the exact wording says "the right of the free people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No matter how narrowly you interpret it, you deny that this specifically gives us the right to, well, keep and bear arms. Even though I don't personally like that idea, I can't argue that that's what the Bill of Rights says.

Wow. I never thought someone would actually AGREE with me that it is plain and blatant that the Second Amendment allows me to keep a gun.

I kinda go overboard, I admit, but I like things that go BOOM!

Using a broad interpretation of Constitutional law, at least in the US, it seems that people do have a right to own firearms

Whoa there. First let me tell you I don't like the idea of guns at all, and I personally think the world is better off without them. I also try to stay out of gun control arguments because any argument against guns can also be used against my precious archery pretty much...

BUT. It is not a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. People have argued that the main purpose of the amendment was guaranteeing the state a militia, but the fact is the exact wording says "the right of the free people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No matter how narrowly you interpret it, you deny that this specifically gives us the right to, well, keep and bear arms. Even though I don't personally like that idea, I can't argue that that's what the Bill of Rights says.

Um, no offense, but reread my post. That's what I said. I agree with you. The Second Amendment does give the right to bear arms. The broad interpretation I was referring to comes in when you consider the whole text:


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.

Specifically, this grants the right to bear arms to those serving in militias. However, under a broad interpretation, it seems obvious that the intent was to allow people to keep those same arms outside of active militia duty so that, should they need them, they would have them.

So, actually, we agree.

*Sarcasm* Yeah now I can pull my own highschool massacre! I too can bust into a workplace and shoot up everyone who ever annoyed me! I can go to McDonalds and recklessly kill others because my life sucks and I'm too much of an impotent idiot to work it out using hard work and determination! Yea! Thankyou sooo much for helping me see the light!

You can already do that! The difference would be that multiple people with these guns would stop the perp before he kills too many... :idea:

Actually it would mean multiple people could kill the multiple people who would try to kill the original perp. So then the problem multiples infinitely, sprialing out of control.

Riiiggghhtt... Anyway now to get sarcastistic:

Senario 1:
I feel the need to protect myself from jews, blacks, liberals, heathens, the rich, the other poor, and pretty much anyone who isn't a semi-literate, redneck wannabe and/or his folks with delusions of a superior Aryan race that is completely white and meant for greatest. So I'm gonna mass-produce guns like there ain't no tomorrow!

Conclusion: America goes to hell while worldwide celebrations are held.

Senario 2:
I feel the need to protect myself from punks, greedy hoes, wannabe pimps, the system, the rival gangs, and whitey's police. I also need to go handle some business regarding a bank robbery. So I'ma start makin' some guns and I'ma blaze it up! Holla at ya' boy!

Conclusion: Murder sky-rockets; crime is crippling; cities become lawless as the police cannot keep up with the problem.

Senario 3:
Life sucks, everyone but me sucks inculding God and excluding Satan. I have to teach everyone a lesson about picking on their betters like the occultic messages in my Korn c.d. said. That's why I'm going to make a buttload of guns and shoot up the town with my fellow cult members. Of course I could just buy the guys since I'm upper middle class-lower upper class, but then maybe in a million years my parents might suspect and stop me.

Conclusion: After the massacre copycat crimes began to pop up everywhere leading to anarchy nationwide.

That's enough I'm tire.

newsflash: those scenarios are already in play all across the world, maybe the innocent sane people should have some leveling power?

You miss the point-- if everyone can make as many guns as they want, who the f*ck are gonna to stop them? Yeah.

First of all, you must look at the English and the structure of the sentence here. "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."

What does "being necessary" mean? It means, probably, "because it's necessary".
In other words, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What does "Right of the people" mean? It means "right of the individuals" - not the "states". I can prove this very easily. First of all, everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, the word "people" is used to mean "individuals".
Second, because the constitution directly BANS the states from keeping armed forces in times of peace.
So, to go on with my translation:
"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
So is that right an individual right? You betcha.

But wait. What's a militia? No, not the guys in camo playing soldier in the woods. "Militia", under current U.S. law, means everybody capable of bearing arms in times of war.

[quote="United States Code"
HEAD Sec. 311. Militia: composition and class


STATUTE (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of National Guard or the Naval Militia

I will further continue to comment that the Founders mean the word "well-regulated" to mean "properly disciplined", like soldiers.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:


[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

So the text means:

"Because, for the security of a free states, we need to have the people who can carry weapons in war to be trained to do that, the individual right to carry and own weapons will not be infringed".

Note that the text does not grant any rights. It merely prohibits infringing upon them.

Sources:
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/who_mlta.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

I fail to see where the 2nd amendment says the word GUNS. All I see is the word ARMS. That can be taken quite a few different ways.

[quote:5d5135295a="Berkylvania"
Specifically, this grants the right to bear arms to those serving in militias. However, under a broad interpretation, it seems obvious that the intent was to allow people to keep those same arms outside of active militia duty so that, should they need them, they would have them.

So, actually, we agree.

First of all, you must look at the English and the structure of the sentence here. "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."

What does "being necessary" mean? It means, probably, "because it's necessary".
In other words, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

What does "Right of the people" mean? It means "right of the individuals" - not the "states". I can prove this very easily. First of all, everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, the word "people" is used to mean "individuals".
Second, because the constitution directly BANS the states from keeping armed forces in times of peace.
So, to go on with my translation:
"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state, the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
So is that right an individual right? You betcha.

But wait. What's a militia? No, not the guys in camo playing soldier in the woods. "Militia", under current U.S. law, means everybody capable of bearing arms in times of war.

all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.[/b]

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of National Guard or the Naval Militia

I will further continue to comment that the Founders mean the word "well-regulated" to mean "properly disciplined", like soldiers.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:


[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

So the text means:

"Because, for the security of a free states, we need to have the people who can carry weapons in war to be trained to do that, the individual right to carry and own weapons will not be infringed".

Note that the text does not grant any rights. It merely prohibits infringing upon them.

Sources:
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/who_mlta.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html[/quote:5d5135295a]

Er, yes...and?

So the text means:

"Because, for the security of a free states, we need to have the people who can carry weapons in war to be trained to do that, the individual right to carry and own weapons will not be infringed".

Note that the text does not grant any rights. It merely prohibits infringing upon them.

Sources:
http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/who_mlta.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

I hate to point out your error, since you seemed quite excited about your post, but you completely omitted the phrase "WELL REGULATED" in your translation.

Berkylvania, thank you for your words of wisdom. I'm not going to forget that. In fact, if you don't mind, I'm gonna steal your research (properly referencing you) in all anti-gun duels (no pun intended) that I'm involved in.

7h3 - I have not. Re read.

Berkylvania : it seems your point about the Second Amendment being limited to National Guardsmen is wrong.

7h3 - I have not. Re read.

Berkylvania : it seems your point about the Second Amendment being limited to National Guardsmen is wrong.

Berkylvania, thank you for your words of wisdom. I'm not going to forget that. In fact, if you don't mind, I'm gonna steal your research (properly referencing you) in all anti-gun duels (no pun intended) that I'm involved in.

Er, okay. Have fun with that. :D

The only part of your post that seems to vaguely hint at regulation is the part where you say that we need a well trained militia.

Training is not the same as regulation.



What does regulate mean?

"To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law. "

Think about it. The Bill of Rights grants freedom of the press, but we still disallow libel and slander. That means that although the press is free, they aren't completely free.

Following the other precedents of the Bill of Rights, it seems only natural that although the people should be allowed to bear arms, those arms should be regulated.

7h3 - I have not. Re read.

Berkylvania : it seems your point about the Second Amendment being limited to National Guardsmen is wrong.

No, it's not, although it's irrelevant. A narrow interpretation of constitutional law does indeed argue that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own guns so that, should a milita need to be formed, be it to defend US soil or to forcibly take back control of the government (or whatever else a militia might be called on to do).

7h3: re-read.

Meanings change.

Berkylvania: So you agree?

Berkylvania: So you agree?

I never disagreed that in both broad and narrow interpretations of the Constitution, US citizens are allowed to own firearms. Much as I have the right to campaign against guns and work to convince people to not want them in the first place. My argument was for the intent of that gun ownership, but that's not a direct attack against the right to own them.

I do draw the line, however, at certain classes of weapons and ammunition that I do not believe the founding fathers anticipated or would have approved of and private citizens have no business owning. Most handguns, hunting rifles and collectors pieces are not among these. If you need bullets that shoot through houses or guns that fire 20,000 rounds a second, then I don't believe that the Second Amendment covers your need.

The Second Amendment covers mainly those weapons useful for "militia purposes" - "military" and "paramilitary" weapons that is.