NationStates Jolt Archive

Just think about this--- no 2nd Admendment means nothing for anti-gun control advocates to hide behind. But here goes a few reasons:

1) How loosely is one to narrow what type of arms? Since the admendment doesn't specify, it could, using the broadest interpretation, include the right to bear nuclear arms. I doubt anyone would get away arguing that, but if it can be restricted that way, how much more restrictive should it be?
2) Why not let the states and cities decide the matter? Isn't that, for all intents and purposes, how it's pretty much already done already?
3) What better way for anti-gun control advocates to make their case when, once those areas which start restricting arms suddenly become uncontrollable?

You've just proven that the second amendment is necessary by wanting to repeal it.

Maybe you should just amend it.

The funny thing about gun nuts is they don't actually read the 2nd ammendment. They only believe it gives them the right to have firearms, but they forget the why.

"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."

The why is the "well regulated Militia". Do people honestly believe that a bunch of drunken bubbas with shotguns and AK-47s are a "well regulated Militia"?

I believe that if you're going to own a firearm, a prerequisite of proper training should be mandatory.

I have never heard anyone who was against gun ownership who understood the arguments we make in favour of it. It's depressing.

I believe that if you're going to own a firearm, a prerequisite of proper training should be mandatory.
So untrained people don't have a right to defend themselves?

First off, let's actually list the second amendment (just for anyone who may not know how it is worded).....

"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."

Now for your questions.....

1) if you specific any type of right to bear arms then you would need the 2nd amendment.

2)True, but you still need a federal law allowing the states to all agree for the most part.

3)If they are uncontrollable, wouldn't there still be a need for gun laws....


edit: Someone else posted the amendment while I was typing my answer...oh, well.

So untrained people don't have a right to defend themselves?


Of course they have the right to defend themselves. But would you like to be standing in the area they might shot in if they are completely untrained? No one says they need to be sharp- shooters for goodness sakes......

Of course they have the right to defend themselves. But would you like to be standing in the area they might shot in if they are completely untrained? No one says they need to be sharp- shooters for goodness sakes......
Would you rather be there when an unarmed woman was raped and nobody did anything?

just a quote that i saw once in a book while researching this topic a 2 years ago in highschool, it was one of those 2 viewpoint deals. anyway it was- "have you ever heard of a drive-by knifing?"

So untrained people don't have a right to defend themselves?For once I agree with Libby. If a state has a right to guns so should it's people. One thing not mentioned much by either of the sides of the debate in the US is that the Second Amendment was a major factor in allowing the Black Panthers to defend themselves against police brutality. And the fact that the NRA did and said nothing when those rights were attacked shows them up as racist hypocrites.

but to be honest, the 2nd amendment is good, as long as certian ppl do not have guns. such as ppl who go on shooting rampages and criminals. a gun in the wrong hands is bad. But ultimately remember: people kill people, a gun is merely a vehicle of doing so. in the old days they used swords and what not. so there you have it. guns can be ok in the right hands. and there is no better way to save my garden from ground hogs then some fun .22 rifle target practice.

So untrained people don't have a right to defend themselves?

Yes, of course they do, but without proper training, a person cannot really defend themselves. Ever seen someone who has never fired a gun try? It's comical.

The 2nd ammendment calls for a "well regulated Militia", not for any idiot with some extra cash to own a deadly weapon. What that leads to is people shooting their kids when the kid makes too much noise getting a midnight snack.

I think if you're going to own a firearm, you should take it upon yourself to be responsible for its proper care and use.

I have never heard anyone who was against gun ownership who understood the arguments we make in favour of it. It's depressing.

I know the reasons for gun ownership and in fact would rather see gun laws but not a gun ban.
I agree with the concepts of limiting gun availability to stop madmen having them and limiting the range so that high calibre, fully automatic rifles and high explosive RPG launchers are not readily availible to anyone outside the military.
I disagree with the concept of not being allowed to defend your home, property and person with your own discretion and I disagree with a 'total' gun ban as now only criminals have powerful weapons.

Living in England I've seen the problems that come with no guns for the public. Now, 'hot' burglaries have gone up (when the people are clearly still in the house), street crime has seen little change in the amount of killings and muggers feel more at ease offending.
Because of this, I carry a small, 'legal', but extremely sharp knife around and am willing and nearly have used it. The thing about knives though is that you have to be willing to use them, you can't bluff with them like you can with a gun and you can't use one like mine as a threat; it's there to be used as soon as it's drawn. In our house we also have an arsenal of 'legal' weapons such as a bow with which I am proficient and several bladed weapons including a Chinese sword named Mr Sword. As we are not allowed to defend our home with resonable force, all we are 'allowed' to do is kill the intruder and hide the evidence in the river.

So untrained people don't have a right to defend themselves?
Untrained people don't have the ability to defend themselves. You wouldn't go mountain climbing without proper precautions would you? And gun ownership is even more dangerous than that.

So untrained people don't have a right to defend themselves?

Apparently...

The funny thing about gun nuts is they don't actually read the 2nd ammendment. They only believe it gives them the right to have firearms, but they forget the why.

"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."

The why is the "well regulated Militia". Do people honestly believe that a bunch of drunken bubbas with shotguns and AK-47s are a "well regulated Militia"?

Your generalization and gross mischaracterization notwithstanding, there is ample legal language describing the militia as all able-bodied men in a region (e.g., state).

Maybe applying for a gun licence should include basic firearms training.

Would you rather be there when an unarmed woman was raped and nobody did anything?

I hate to tell you, but I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed. I only said that they should have some training - like how to handle the weapon.

Second, why would you assume just because someone didn't have a gun that they are completely defenseless? You don't know if that woman has had professional training or not.

Third, even without a gun in my hand, I would still try to help her - even if it meant getting hurt myself.

Your generalization and gross mischaracterization notwithstanding, there is ample legal language describing the militia as all able-bodied men in a region (e.g., state).

Able-bodied ... define.

Yes, of course they do, but without proper training, a person cannot really defend themselves. Ever seen someone who has never fired a gun try? It's comical.

The 2nd ammendment calls for a "well regulated Militia", not for any idiot with some extra cash to own a deadly weapon. What that leads to is people shooting their kids when the kid makes too much noise getting a midnight snack.

I think if you're going to own a firearm, you should take it upon yourself to be responsible for its proper care and use.But that way you're adding to the cost of a gun leading to them only being owned by the well off. Why not provide proper training for free in all locations?

Maybe applying for a gun licence should include basic firearms training.

There are no licensing requirements in the State of Texas.

I think if you're going to own a firearm, you should take it upon yourself to be responsible for its proper care and use.

It looks like your position is shifting already. A few posts before this one, it sounded like you wanted a course to be mandated by the government. Now you say individual gun owners should "take it upon [themselves]."

News flash: most already do.

But that way you're adding to the cost of a gun leading to them only being owned by the well off. Why not provide proper training for free in all locations?

Good point! I agree, training should be "free" ... I use quotes because nothing is really free ... tax payers will have to foot the bill.

However, yes, I agree. Prior to the purchase of a firearm, proper training should be obtained. State sponsored training would be a good idea.

Of course, this leads to beaurocracy and, thus, delays. You know the old mantra of the gun nut when presented with a 5 day waiting period ... "But I ain't gonna be angry no more in 5 days!"

There are no licensing requirements in the State of Texas.

So there should be some.
I don't agree with either extreme, I think a middle ground should be reached.

It looks like your position is shifting already. A few posts before this one, it sounded like you wanted a course to be mandated by the government. Now you say individual gun owners should "take it upon [themselves]."

Not really. I still believe firmly that State sponsored training be mandatory.

News flash: most already do.

Ummm ... since when?

Able-bodied ... define.

HA HA HA HA...reduced to making semantic demands, eh?

It's defined in every state code. State codes are posted on state government websites. Look it up, it's not my job to do your research for you.

The probblem is not whether or not the Second Ammendment is to be kept but what is the proper interpretation of it.

In colonial times a "well regulated militia" contained an enrollment, a list of names of people who owned weapons and what weapons they owned. Total gun registration and ballistic fingerprinting are totally in keeping with the meaning of this law when taken in context with the times in which it was written. None of our founding fathers, AFAIK, were in favour of laws to allow people to fire anonymously or to keep their armament a secret.

Also aside from the militia, there were no police, only an army. This was prior to the Posse Commitates Act(sp?), so the people were essentially policed by a standing army under the British, followed by the American Army (although when there was not social unrest the local citizen militia was usually sufficient). In keeping with the conditions of the time in which the law was written, and in knowledge of the horrifying advances of military technology that the framers could hardly have forseen, I would interpret it thus: there is a compelling state interest to keep large scale modern military weapons off the streets, but at the same time, whatever weaponry (and armour) can be used by those government agents who are directly governing us (police), we have the right to have the same level of weaponry.

We also have a compelling state interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously insane. However a five day waiting period is not really needed in the 21st century. Really with the proper hardware five minutes is more than needed.

We also have the right to carry weapons anywhere, barring ligitimate security concerns (courtrooms, schools, etc.). Back in the day a musket could hardly be concealed, so it is not an infringement on the original terms to require special licencing for concealed carrying. However a musket could be carried in arm's reach in a buggy, so those laws that prohibit weaponry within reach of the passenger area in a car are infringements. And to borrow from a well worn N.R.A. tactic: who do such laws effect? Is the bank robber or car jacker or drug dealer going to stash his weapons in the trunk before he drives off? No, but the law-abiding citizen cannot defend himself from the carjacker, because our well-armed cops are afraid that he will kill them over a speeding ticket.

HA HA HA HA...reduced to making semantic demands, eh?

No, just asking you to qualify your argument. You obviously can't.

It's defined in every state code. State codes are posted on state government websites. Look it up, it's not my job to do your research for you.

See?

Now, allow me to destroy your argument:

According to Jefferson, the Militia is "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

This implies the government has the right to regulate ownership of firearms. It also states that men over 50 (Heston!) and women cannot be part of the Militia and, thus, cannot own firearms.

It is not defined state by state, but by mandate of the Federal Government.

In his 6th annual message, Jefferson said in 1806 that "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities , should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."

Again, this takes away privatization of gun ownership and use by the same guy who argued in Congress for the 2nd Amendment.

In 1808 in his eighth annual message: "for a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us, at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion."

Yeah .... looks like we've done that oh so well. Tim McVeigh would be proud.

In short, the "well regulated Militia" of the Second Amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the Constitution. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers (1) gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the state militias and (2) made the President Commander in Chief of the Militia.

In 1916 the National Defence Act provided for drafting the state militias, which we now call the National Guard, into United States service under certain circumstances and under authority granted by the Constitution as approved by the states in 1788.

What does this mean? It means that average joe citizen DOES NOT constitute a "well regulated Militia".

Deal with it.

Responding to the 'extent of arms' thing in the 1st post - the government already regluates how powerful civillian arms can be.

I, for one, believe that you have the right to a firearm (if of age), yet I also believe that we should also register them, and have background checks, so we screen out the few psychos who would make all other sensible users of firearms loook crazy

Yes yes, it's important that criminals don't have guns. I agree with that whole heartedly.

Unfortunately, I find it a necessity that the people (at least to some degree) are armed enough that criminals will have the element of fear in attempting theft or other crimes. It is also necessary to have an armed populous in case of the government becoming oppressive, and a rebellion is needed. Ok, sure it sounds stupid, but our nation takes away our guns. Fine. Then they tell us that we have to march in straight lines, all wear color coded garments and send our women and children to camps. What are we going to do to protest this eh? Wave little banners or protest while we are mowed down by secret service agents?

We live in a safe America, and we've come to take it for granted. Many african nations would never dream of it, simply that the people would whip out their guns at such a suggestion and start another revolution. We need to be able to have our own government fear us to a degree, and we aren't just talking in the election booth. The government needs to be kept in line. I'm not saying that armed rebellion is a GOOD thing, I'm saying that in America, we have always based ourselves on having options, choices and a balanced system.

Why shouldn't we have guns though? Yes, people die. It's sad and I don't like it either. But thousands more will die per year without that fear of arms.

If you want to reply, send a telegram to "United Christiandom" and I'll respond.

-Fury

You've just proven that the second amendment is necessary by wanting to repeal it.
:rolleyes: Hard to argue against such, er, "logic"? Mind going over the premises that lead to such a conclusion, just so we know what we're debating here.

I have never heard anyone who was against gun ownership who understood the arguments we make in favour of it. It's depressing.

Then explain it to us once more... slowly if necessary ;) .

The second ammendment exists so that independent states could have independent militias, necessary according to the document to keep the large centralized government in check. The idea that it couldn't become corrupt due to checks and balences was further pushed with the 2nd ammendment stating: "If it corrupts, then tear it down and start over"
I am a gun owner, my firearms would probably pass just about any scrutiny as being sporting arms, short of one of my pistols which is for self defense. I have no problem with the ban of Assault weapons, I know no use for a M60 in the civilian market, or any other fully automatic. However I do believe whole heartedly that the citizens of this country are better off able to own sporting and self defense arms. Not only because, should the need ever arise, armed citizens can keep a bad politician on his toes, but also because they are a means of national security. Several sources indicated the reason why Japan never attempted an actual invasion force was due to the fact that they'd not only have to deal with regular army, but the average civilian as well.
If all guns are banned, then with our current drug problems, then there would be a rash of gangs able to overpower neighborhoods and move around without fear. While the average citizens do not keep these gangs in check, other gangs do. In short there is no quick fix to gun control in America, we're a country founded on the principal of an armed population, changing that is fundamentaly changing the country.
Me, I'm keeping the right to vote from a roof top should the need ever be...

No, just asking you to qualify your argument. You obviously can't.

Your laziness does not constitute an inability on my part. Every state code is posted on the state's website. Again, do your own research.

Now, allow me to destroy your argument:

According to Jefferson, the Militia is "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

This implies the government has the right to regulate ownership of firearms. It also states that men over 50 (Heston!) and women cannot be part of the Militia and, thus, cannot own firearms.

It is not defined state by state, but by mandate of the Federal Government.

In his 6th annual message, Jefferson said in 1806 that "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities , should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."

Again, this takes away privatization of gun ownership and use by the same guy who argued in Congress for the 2nd Amendment.

In 1808 in his eighth annual message: "for a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us, at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion."

Yeah .... looks like we've done that oh so well. Tim McVeigh would be proud.

In short, the "well regulated Militia" of the Second Amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the Constitution. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers (1) gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the state militias and (2) made the President Commander in Chief of the Militia.

In 1916 the National Defence Act provided for drafting the state militias, which we now call the National Guard, into United States service under certain circumstances and under authority granted by the Constitution as approved by the states in 1788.

What does this mean? It means that average joe citizen DOES NOT constitute a "well regulated Militia".

Deal with it.

It's dealt with. Look at the state codes. Your info is a hundred years old, at best. The current state laws define different categories of militia. For instance, California defines differences between National Guard, state militias (including the "Naval Militia"), and what it calls the "unorganized militia" (which is the "every able-bodied" militia).

California Military and Veterans Code, Section 122:

"The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State."

I have never heard anyone who was against gun ownership who understood the arguments we make in favour of it. It's depressing.
Heh. I understand, I just disagree. Sort of.

California Military and Veterans Code, Section 122:

"The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State."


So, once again, in California, women and Charlton Heston are not allowed 2nd ammendment rights because they do not constitue that which is a "well regulated Militia". Keep going, though ...

My favorite argument of right wing gun nets is quite ironic.

That argument being that the Second amendment exists so that people can hold guns in order to protect themselves from a government bent on taking away right protected in the other amendments.

The irony comes in when you realise the fact that it is these same gun nets who whole heartedly support the hard right wing agenda of removing any and all freedoms of the people that they disagree with.

The Second Amendment was set up so militias could be formed.

For militias to be formed, private citizens must own firearms.

Thus, private citizens have the right to firearms.

My favorite argument of right wing gun nets is quite ironic.

That argument being that the Second amendment exists so that people can hold guns in order to protect themselves from a government bent on taking away right protected in the other amendments.

The irony comes in when you realise the fact that it is these same gun nets who whole heartedly support the hard right wing agenda of removing any and all freedoms of the people that they disagree with.And that's precisely why the American left should exercise your second amendment rights. The right aren't going to give up their guns. Why should the left not exercise the same principle?

So, once again, in California, women and Charlton Heston are not allowed 2nd ammendment [sic] rights because they do not constitue that which is a "well regulated Militia". Keep going, though ...

You're being absurd. Our argument was what constitutes a militia. You say "average joe citizen" does not constitute a militia. Well, the state of California (and EVERY OTHER state; don't believe me? Look it up.) disagrees with you.

These laws do not restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone. A state's definition of militia does not override the 2nd Amendment. There is ample case law at every level from state courts, through the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, ruling that women and the elderly retain their 2nd Amendment rights. I suppose you want me to post this caselaw now, right?

Twist hard, maybe you can squirm out of your absurd position.

Just think about this--- no 2nd Admendment means nothing for anti-gun control advocates to hide behind. But here goes a few reasons:

1) How loosely is one to narrow what type of arms? Since the admendment doesn't specify, it could, using the broadest interpretation, include the right to bear nuclear arms. I doubt anyone would get away arguing that, but if it can be restricted that way, how much more restrictive should it be?
2) Why not let the states and cities decide the matter? Isn't that, for all intents and purposes, how it's pretty much already done already?
3) What better way for anti-gun control advocates to make their case when, once those areas which start restricting arms suddenly become uncontrollable?

No. I think screwing around with the Bill of Rights is a very bad move.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This should be all that's needed to close this debate.

The funny thing about gun nuts is they don't actually read the 2nd ammendment. They only believe it gives them the right to have firearms, but they forget the why.

"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."

The why is the "well regulated Militia". Do people honestly believe that a bunch of drunken bubbas with shotguns and AK-47s are a "well regulated Militia"?

I believe that if you're going to own a firearm, a prerequisite of proper training should be mandatory.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788




It doesn't matter what gun laws you pass. You ban possession of AR-15s and such, I'm not turning my in... You mandate registration, I'm not doing it. Registration is always step one to a ban! We're not idiots. Guns=power, guns=freedom, guns=independence. No dictator or person who means to make himself one, has ever allowed his populace to remain armed. Once you give up your gun, you're nothing better than a slave. Because then you need to government to protect you, and if they don't want to... Well maybe not only that, maybe the government wants you dead.

And as for militias:

There are an estimated 200,000-300,000 people in "Right-wing" "White militias" in the USA. Many of these people are ex-armed forces, current armed forces, and some even ex-special forces. So how is that for drunken idiots. It's a quiet army, waiting for the day when the marxists attempt to seize power... Then they'll crush the left and save the nation.

And by the way, most in the Militia use the AR-15 or a 308 rifle (M1-A, Hk-91, Fn-Fal) But it does vary, some have standardized equipment for obvious reasons. In the upcoming war with the federal government, which I sincerely believe the government is going to start, it'll be easier to resupply if we use the same calibers and sorts of weapons they'll be using.

Oh and I know of some folks who have an awful lot of hard hitting firepower.(think Stingers)


So how is that for "Drunken bubbas with shotguns", we're talking people who are well trained, well equipped, and well motivated, and determined to preserve freedom no matter what the cost. Does that scare you... Comrade..




Check this out


http://www.militiaofmontana.com/Militabk.htm#SMALL%20ARMS%20DEFENSE%20AGAINST%20AIR

This should be all that's needed to close this debate.

Not really - I believe the main arguing point of this debate was what constitutes a militia; the part that you missed out in your quote:

"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."

Guns=power, guns=freedom, guns=independence. No dictator or person who means to make himself one, has ever allowed his populace to remain armed. Once you give up your gun, you're nothing better than a slave. Because then you need to government to protect you, and if they don't want to... Well maybe not only that, maybe the government wants you dead.
Only problem: the government and the press tell you you're free just because a stupid piece of paper tells you you have the right to a gun and freedom of speech. It's hogwash. We're not free. Concentrated power is antithetical to freedom. And the only way to empower the people is not by giving them guns and keeping them brainwashed. Guns are irrelevant. Maybe they're a protection in the long-run. But the US has gotten around the problem of violent revolt by subtly brainwashing the masses. The first step is to admit we have a problem. The US is no better than the USSR. Transnational corporations are violent, coercive, and brutal, and our government does their bidding because if it didn't it wouldn't be our government anymore. We have to build participatory coalitions. I'm not saying abandon the guns; I'm saying they're not the main thing.

Just think about this--- no 2nd Admendment means nothing for anti-gun control advocates to hide behind. But here goes a few reasons:



Nothing to hide behind except my Ar-15 and other rifles. I tell you what, all you Hoplophobia (Irrational fear of weapons) freaks, without guns, can come try to take mine! Go ahead!


I don't need a 2nd Amendment because Jesus Christ himself commands us to be armed!

Luke 22:36

Luke 22
35 And He said to them, "(1) When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."

36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

37 "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, '(2) AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for (3) that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."

Not really - I believe the main arguing point of this debate was what constitutes a militia; the part that you missed out in your quote:

"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."

Which I addressed above.

Would you rather be there when an unarmed woman was raped and nobody did anything?

What an asinine and completely frivolous thing to say! What has that got to do with his suggestion that some sort of training be a pre-requisite to owning a firearm? A driving licence requires training, so why not guns? They're equally deadly when used by ppl who aren't skilled in their usage. And remember the 2nd admendment says "well regulated Militia".
So how do you achieve this leap of logic that equates arguing for firearm-training to an unarmed woman being raped?
I may as well ask: Would you much rather be there when a woman is attacked and an untrained idiot with a gun shoots her cause he doesn't know how to use the damn thing?

According to Jefferson, the Militia is "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

This implies the government has the right to regulate ownership of firearms. It also states that men over 50 (Heston!) and women cannot be part of the Militia and, thus, cannot own firearms.

It is not defined state by state, but by mandate of the Federal Government.

In his 6th annual message, Jefferson said in 1806 that "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities , should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."

Again, this takes away privatization of gun ownership and use by the same guy who argued in Congress for the 2nd Amendment.

In 1808 in his eighth annual message: "for a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us, at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion."

Yeah .... looks like we've done that oh so well. Tim McVeigh would be proud.

In short, the "well regulated Militia" of the Second Amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the Constitution. It is very clear that the Founding Fathers (1) gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the state militias and (2) made the President Commander in Chief of the Militia.

In 1916 the National Defence Act provided for drafting the state militias, which we now call the National Guard, into United States service under certain circumstances and under authority granted by the Constitution as approved by the states in 1788.

What does this mean? It means that average joe citizen DOES NOT constitute a "well regulated Militia".

Deal with it.[/QUOTE]

The quotes by Jefferson, though possibly accurate(i have no idea one way or the other) were not part of the Constitution and thus have no bearing on this discussion. In the body of the Constitution, it is listed what Congress's powers are, it is stated in the bill of rights that all powers not given to the federal government nor denied to the states are reserved to the states.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to regulate the ownership or sale of guns, therefore Congress does NOT have the power to pass a gun-regulation law. Only the individual states have that power. The Second amendment does NOT grant members of the militia the right to bear arms. The first eight amendments are there for emphasis. The body of the Constitution lists what areas the Federal Government is authorised to control. The Bill of Rights basically says ' Just in case you did not get the message the first time, You can NOT pass any laws in these areas.' The Bill of Rights do NOT pertain to the state governments. They have the sole power to regulate the sale and ownership of guns(any type)

What an asinine and completely frivolous thing to say! What has that got to do with his suggestion that some sort of training be a pre-requisite to owning a firearm? A driving licence requires training, so why not guns? They're equally deadly when used by ppl who aren't skilled in their usage. And remember the 2nd admendment says "well regulated Militia".
So how do you achieve this leap of logic that equates arguing for firearm-training to an unarmed woman being raped?
I may as well ask: Would you much rather be there when a woman is attacked and an untrained idiot with a gun shoots her cause he doesn't know how to use the damn thing?


I've taken over 12 hours of safety classes and got 100 out of 100 questions correct on my safety test. I've also been shooting guns for over 5 years and had 0 accidents. Well I did trip and fall once, but that can hardly be blamed on my gun.

You've just proven that the second amendment is necessary by wanting to repeal it.

How does advocating for the repeal of an amendment make said amendment necessary? Was Prohibition necessary?

And that's precisely why the American left should exercise your second amendment rights. The right aren't going to give up their guns. Why should the left not exercise the same principle?
then we would have to shoot people for taking away our rights

You're being absurd. Our argument was what constitutes a militia. You say "average joe citizen" does not constitute a militia. Well, the state of California (and EVERY OTHER state; don't believe me? Look it up.) disagrees with you.

These laws do not restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone. A state's definition of militia does not override the 2nd Amendment. There is ample case law at every level from state courts, through the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, ruling that women and the elderly retain their 2nd Amendment rights. I suppose you want me to post this caselaw now, right?

Twist hard, maybe you can squirm out of your absurd position.
states and/or counties have the right to ban guns in their state or county

This is quite an interesting analysis of the Second Ammendment:

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm

states and/or counties have the right to ban guns in their state or county



I once saw a bumper sticker, "We can fire politicians, because we can fire guns". I agree with that, 100%, when some loon tries to make himself the "Glorious Comrade" or "Premier" of the USA, you can fire him all you want, but only if you're smart enough to have a gun and never turn it over when they ask/tell you to.

It doesn't matter what gun laws you pass. You ban possession of AR-15s and such, I'm not turning my in... You mandate registration, I'm not doing it. Registration is always step one to a ban!
Slippery slope sense..TINGLING!!
registration MAY be the first step to a ban, OR it MAY NOT BE. BUT registration is the firsts tep to an effective control of guns that both safeguards the right to own guns, and if done right can increase those rights, and to safeguard people against those who should not have gun. un registered guns should be confiscated and owners at least fined, well warned, then fined, then jailed

We're not idiots.
that, sir, is highly questionable

Guns=power, guns=freedom, guns=independence. No dictator or person who means to make himself one, has ever allowed his populace to remain armed. Once you give up your gun, you're nothing better than a slave. Because then you need to government to protect you, and if they don't want to... Well maybe not only that, maybe the government wants you dead. Once you give up your gun, you're nothing better than a slave. Because then you need to government to protect you, and if they don't want to...
i laugh at you, please read my previous post about gun nuts and their explanation of the second amendment



Once you give up your gun, you're nothing better than a slave. Because then you need to government to protect you, and if they don't want to... Well maybe not only that, maybe the government wants you dead.There are an estimated 200,000-300,000 people in "Right-wing" "White militias" in the USA. Many of these people are ex-armed forces, current armed forces, and some even ex-special forces. So how is that for drunken idiots. It's a quiet army, waiting for the day when the marxists attempt to seize power... Then they'll crush the left and save the nation.
a militia is a state controlled mini-army of the common people, private militias are NOT legal militias as a militia is a state controlled group of people, it is not the left you need to watch out for, i you would like to pelase read my previous post

And by the way, most in the Militia use the AR-15 or a 308 rifle (M1-A, Hk-91, Fn-Fal) But it does vary, some have standardized equipment for obvious reasons. In the upcoming war with the federal government, which I sincerely believe the government is going to start, it'll be easier to resupply if we use the same calibers and sorts of weapons they'll be using.
that should not be a legal militia weapon, a militia should be armed with their own weapons, which is the definition of a milita.




So how is that for "Drunken bubbas with shotguns", we're talking people who are well trained, well equipped, and well motivated, and determined to preserve freedom no matter what the cost. Does that scare you... Comrade..
sadly that is the truest, those drunken bubbas are the most well trained people outside of the military and more than likely more proficient and safer with a gun than the police force. they have grown up around guns and learned to shoot guns, its the city slickers with guns that you need to be afraid of.

I once saw a bumper sticker, "We can fire politicians, because we can fire guns". I agree with that, 100%, when some loon tries to make himself the "Glorious Comrade" or "Premier" of the USA, you can fire him all you want, but only if you're smart enough to have a gun and never turn it over when they ask/tell you to.

Just a question out of curiosity, CM - why do you seem to neccesarily hold that it would be the Left Wing to try and take America as a dictatorship? Isn't it also equally likely for the Right Wing to try and do so? Right Wing Dictatorships have been known to happen. :)

I once saw a bumper sticker, "We can fire politicians, because we can fire guns". I agree with that, 100%, when some loon tries to make himself the "Glorious Comrade" or "Premier" of the USA, you can fire him all you want, but only if you're smart enough to have a gun and never turn it over when they ask/tell you to.
i request you read my post on page 3 about gun nuts and their explanation of the 2nd amendment, i do love irony

My favorite argument of right wing gun nets is quite ironic.

That argument being that the Second amendment exists so that people can hold guns in order to protect themselves from a government bent on taking away right protected in the other amendments.

The irony comes in when you realise the fact that it is these same gun nets who whole heartedly support the hard right wing agenda of removing any and all freedoms of the people that they disagree with.



We right-wingers we know what this country is truly meant to be. So by backing hard right agendas, we are living out the founders vision for America.

I've taken over 12 hours of safety classes and got 100 out of 100 questions correct on my safety test. I've also been shooting guns for over 5 years and had 0 accidents. Well I did trip and fall once, but that can hardly be blamed on my gun.

what do you mean by safety classes? Are you refering to guns or to cars? I'm just a tad confused. :confused:

On another topic, could ppl please please PLEASE not quote the Original Post by Misfitasia. The BIG HORRID COLOURS ARE REALLY PAINFUL.

Slippery slope sense..TINGLING!!
registration MAY be the first step to a ban, OR it MAY NOT BE. BUT registration is the firsts tep to an effective control of guns that both safeguards the right to own guns, and if done right can increase those rights, and to safeguard people against those who should not have gun. un registered guns should be confiscated and owners at least fined, well warned, then fined, then jailed






.


The only way they'd take me in, is dead, and after I take out dozens of their death squad troopers. It's called guerilla warfare, draw them into the hills and mountains away from their bases of supply, then ambush them. When the New World Orders kicks into full-swing, and UN troops are landed at all major cities by helicopters and C-130s, etc, we'll know the war has begun. I think the war is already in its early stages. Rubdy Ridge and Waco were just to test the American people to see what their response would be to blatant and overt government tyranny. What the government has planned for us will make Waco look like a picnic.

what do you mean by safety classes? Are you refering to guns or to cars? I'm just a tad confused. :confused:

On another topic, could ppl please please PLEASE not quote the Original Post by Misfitasia. The BIG HORRID COLOURS ARE REALLY PAINFUL.



Gun classes.

We right-wingers we know what this country is truly meant to be. So by backing hard right agendas, we are living out the founders vision for America.
that is ignorant and egotistical

i do believe that the founders never intended for the government to be able to limit the freedom of speech, press, or assembly as they saw fit directly or indirectly

The only way they'd take me in, is dead, and after I take out dozens of their death squad troopers. It's called guerilla warfare, draw them into the hills and mountains away from their bases of supply, then ambush them. When the New World Orders kicks into full-swing, and UN troops are landed at all major cities by helicopters and C-130s, etc, we'll know the war has begun. I think the war is already in its early stages. Rubdy Ridge and Waco were just to test the American people to see what their response would be to blatant and overt government tyranny. What the government has planned for us will make Waco look like a picnic.
why the FUCK are you against registering your gun? wow, go to a gun store or something, give them your gun, get a picture taken, get an id number for your gun, tag it somehow, get a finger print of you, you go home

what the hell are you whining about, crazy psycho gun nut

why the FUCK are you against registering your gun? wow, go to a gun store or something, give them your gun, get a picture taken, get an id number for your gun, tag it somehow, get a finger print of you, you go home

what the hell are you whining about, crazy psycho gun nut



WHY! Nobody has the right to know what I have. A tyrannical government uses the list to find us, or say a foreign occupation army automatically knows who has guns, they take them, and then they figure the guys with the serious stuff are likely to still try to resist. We get put in camps, that is what you want, every right-wing white man, woman, and child, suffering in gulags!

Some people are copers. Personal weapons are one small aspect of coping.

Others can't. They need mommy government to hold their hand. Danger isn't something you do something about, it's something you call the police for.

Seeing stronger men cope on their own infuriates these people, because it rubs in their own weakness. Seeing others as helpless and dependent as they are reassures them.

why the FUCK are you against registering your gun? wow, go to a gun store or something, give them your gun, get a picture taken, get an id number for your gun, tag it somehow, get a finger print of you, you go home

what the hell are you whining about, crazy psycho gun nut



If you want to register my guns, you can send 500+ armed agents, like they sent after brave Mr. Weaver, and you can register my guns as evidence after you kill me. But know I'll take down as many of the death squad storm troopers as I can.

Just in case my question got buried:

Just a question out of curiosity, CM - why do you seem to neccesarily hold that it would be the Left Wing to try and take America as a dictatorship? Isn't it also equally likely for the Right Wing to try and do so? Right Wing Dictatorships have been known to happen. :)

Some people are copers. Personal weapons are one small aspect of coping.

Others can't. They need mommy government to hold their hand. Danger isn't something you do something about, it's something you call the police for.

Seeing stronger men cope on their own infuriates these people, because it rubs in their own weakness. Seeing others as helpless and dependent as they are reassures them.

Exactly.

"A man more able than his brothers insults them by implication."
Ellsworth Monkton Toohey

I believe that a person who wishes to own a gun must first be put through a backround check, a psychological test, a computer search, and answer a series of questions such as "Why do you want a gun?", "How do you intend to use it?", "Do you have a safe place for it in the home that a child cannot get to", and after all this they will be put on a list, have their finger prints and photo taken, a DNA sample given, and a handwriting sample given. I also believe that only a person with a passing grade on the SATs should own a gun. The government has every right to do this.

WHY! Nobody has the right to know what I have. A tyrannical government uses the list to find us, or say a foreign occupation army automatically knows who has guns, they take them, and then they figure the guys with the serious stuff are likely to still try to resist. We get put in camps, that is what you want, every right-wing white man, woman, and child, suffering in gulags!
that is the most inane, far fetched, conspiracy theory infested bullshit i have ever heard

why the FUCK are you against registering your gun? wow, go to a gun store or something, give them your gun, get a picture taken, get an id number for your gun, tag it somehow, get a finger print of you, you go home

what the hell are you whining about, crazy psycho gun nut

Again, Squares, you are doing what people have repeatedly asked you not to do. You are screaming, cursing, calling people names, and insulting them.

Why can't you control yourself? Do you really want everyone to think that you are a spoiled child?

Some people are copers. Personal weapons are one small aspect of coping.

Others can't. They need mommy government to hold their hand. Danger isn't something you do something about, it's something you call the police for.

Seeing stronger men cope on their own infuriates these people, because it rubs in their own weakness. Seeing others as helpless and dependent as they are reassures them.
Or perhaps some people are strong enough not to need a weapon to make them feel better.

Hey - and this goes out to all of y'all - why don't we just respect the fact that people have different views and shouldn't be condemned for them. It's my belief that gun ownership is a grey area. I don't want a gun - this doesn't make me a 'pussy', as I've been described in the past. Others do want guns - this doesn't make them triggerhappy loons.

Gun classes.

Then you're definitely the sort of person I'd want to have a gun, as you're fully aware of just how potentially dangerous they are and, I guess, would only use it as a last resort if put in a threatening situation. And that's what the 2nd admendment, IMHO, is implying.
My big problem with guns and America is that there isn't enforced training, so you get idiots brought up on action movies who think pulling on out first chance they get is the best way to solve any problem. It's only once you are taught about their proper usage, do you fully appreciate just how dangerous they are.

Again, Squares, you are doing what people have repeatedly asked you not to do. You are screaming, cursing, calling people names, and insulting them.

Why can't you control yourself? Do you really want everyone to think that you are a spoiled child?
he is one of the craziest, most psycho, thickest gun NUT i've seen talk

*looks at topic title*

HELL NO!

*watches Bush get relected and grabs a rifle*

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

I believe that a person who wishes to own a gun must first be put through a backround check, a psychological test, a computer search, and answer a series of questions such as "Why do you want a gun?", "How do you intend to use it?", "Do you have a safe place for it in the home that a child cannot get to", and after all this they will be put on a list, have their finger prints and photo taken, a DNA sample given, and a handwriting sample given. I also believe that only a person with a passing grade on the SATs should own a gun. The government has every right to do this.

No, the 2nd Amendment says the government does NOT have a right to do this. (Actually, governments don't really have ANY rights, only the people have rights.) The background check/computer search is already performed on everyone buying a gun. The law already prohibits sale of guns to persons who are not mentally competent. Fingerprints and handwriting samples are already on file with any state ID or driver's license issued to a gun owner/buyer. And the DNA sample and SAT requirements you suggest are exactly the types of "infringement" the 2nd Amendment is meant to prohibit. Would you want to be required to give a DNA sample and disclose your SAT scores to get a driver's license? Driving is a privilege given by the state, bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Then you're definitely the sort of person I'd want to have a gun
I dunno, CM is someone who I'd love to deny a gun. Not for ethical reasons, not for his charming conspiracy theories, just because it would really wind him up and make me laugh 'cos he is a triggerhappy loon. Assuming he's not all talk, that is.

Ach, ignore my grouchiness, it's been a long day.

No, the 2nd Amendment says the government does NOT have a right to do this. (Actually, governments don't really have ANY rights, only the people have rights.) The background check/computer search is already performed on everyone buying a gun. The law already prohibits sale of guns to persons who are not mentally competent. Fingerprints and handwriting samples are already on file with any state ID or driver's license issued to a gun owner/buyer. And the DNA sample and SAT requirements you suggest are exactly the types of "infringement" the 2nd Amendment is meant to prohibit. Would you want to be required to give a DNA sample and disclose your SAT scores to get a driver's license? Driving is a privilege given by the state, bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
2nd amendment has not been applied to the states last i checked, the states do not have to let you own a gun

why the FUCK are you against registering your gun? wow, go to a gun store or something, give them your gun, get a picture taken, get an id number for your gun, tag it somehow, get a finger print of you, you go home

what the hell are you whining about, crazy psycho gun nut


Why don't you register your family with the government. So they can keep track of them.

Also that "One gun" a month crap liberals try to push on us. You get to screw your wife once a month, whoever needs to do it more is a sex addict.


That gun is too big! To many "assault features!" "It's a semi-automatic version of a military weapon!"

You Hummer is too big! Too many "Military style features!" "It's a civilian version of a military vehicle!"


Do you really want other people telling you how to live?

2nd amendment has not been applied to the states last i checked, the states do not have to let you own a gun



Yeah and for over 200 years, most states had laws against miscegenation. So you want to make the states the ultimate authority? Then I guess that means we can start lobbying for Secession!


"The Midwestern Confederation of Free States" that has a nice ring to it.

"have you ever heard of a drive-by knifing?"
I'm 100% positive it could (and would happen), but...eh...people will still have guns no matter what regulations you put on them. People still do drugs, eh?

Why don't you register your family with the government. So they can keep track of them.

Also that "One gun" a month crap liberals try to push on us. You get to screw your wife once a month, whoever needs to do it more is a sex addict.


That gun is too big! To many "assault features!" "It's a semi-automatic version of a military weapon!"

You Hummer is too big! Too many "Military style features!" "It's a civilian version of a military vehicle!"


Do you really want other people telling you how to live?

Are you implying that we should let people run around the streets with AK-47s? Next thing you know we'll have RPGs on the streets and it'll look more like Baghdad here. Look people, there is a rational compromise in the middle of this issue...let's be rational, please.

I'm 100% positive it could (and would happen), but...eh...people will still have guns no matter what regulations you put on them. People still do drugs, eh?



They have grenade launchers listed as a banned feature on "Assault rifles", despite the fact to get grenades, you need a Class III tax stamp, it takes 200 dollar fee and a six month extensive background check to get one. The grenades are controlled very tightly. Bayonet mounts are also banned.

When is the last time you heard of a drive-by "bayonetting" or somebody being killed by an M-203 grenade. (In the USA)

I'm 100% positive it could (and would happen), but...eh...people will still have guns no matter what regulations you put on them. People still do drugs, eh?
Compare the percentage of people who do drugs now to the percentage before the controlled substances act. Same applies here.
I'd love to ban the second amendment. Not going to happen, though.

Yeah and for over 200 years, most states had laws against miscegenation. So you want to make the states the ultimate authority? Then I guess that means we can start lobbying for Secession!


"The Midwestern Confederation of Free States" that has a nice ring to it.
*remembers the blunders of the Articles of Confederation and the Confederacy's huge mistakes*

Are you implying that we should let people run around the streets with AK-47s? Next thing you know we'll have RPGs on the streets and it'll look more like Baghdad here. Look people, there is a rational compromise in the middle of this issue...let's be rational, please.


You're forgetting, Iraq has problems because of basically they're in a civil-war. I think the avg American is better than the avg Iraqi, so we shouldn't have problems letting people carry rifles in public, well we may, but not like the problems they have in Somalia or Iraq.

They have grenade launchers listed as a banned feature on "Assault rifles", despite the fact to get grenades, you need a Class III tax stamp, it takes 200 dollar fee and a six month extensive background check to get one. The grenades are controlled very tightly. Bayonet mounts are also banned.

When is the last time you heard of a drive-by "bayonetting" or somebody being killed by an M-203 grenade. (In the USA)
And now you're implying that we should allow our civilians to use M203 grenade launchers? Jesus christ, people can't even use those well in video games...

Compare the percentage of people who do drugs now to the percentage before the controlled substances act. Same applies here.
I'd love to ban the second amendment. Not going to happen, though.Think about what happened between the passage of the 18th and 21st ammendments.

You're forgetting, Iraq has problems because of basically they're in a civil-war. I think the avg American is better than the avg Iraqi, so we shouldn't have problems letting people carry rifles in public, well we may, but not like the problems they have in Somalia or Iraq.
And now you're implying that because America holds the appearance of stability that there won't be random acts of terrorism when we allow people to have automatic rifles and grenade launchers.

And now you're implying that we should allow our civilians to use M203 grenade launchers? Jesus christ, people can't even use those well in video games...

Hey, speak for yourself! THUNK...BOOM

I'm deadly with an M203 in Ghost Recon! :D

i'd love it if guns were legal, so long as everyone that wanted to use one against another living thing was shot.

Driving is a privilege given by the state, bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I think this is only cause cars hadn't been invented when the constitution was written. ;)

Hey, speak for yourself! THUNK...BOOM

I'm deadly with an M203 in Ghost Recon! :D
M203 in Ghost Recon is highly unrealistic as it fires more like a missile launcher. Try 203ing in a game like America's Army where they actualy factor in things like gravity and propulsion...

i'd love it if guns were legal, so long as everyone that wanted to use one against another living thing was shot.


You've just expressed your desire to shoot other living things. And besides, we need to hunt animals.

I think this is only cause cars hadn't been invented when the constitution was written. ;)
Well...there is nothing in the constitution abour riding a horse...
I think it's because a car is not a tool meant for the destruction of a living being (althouth shit happens).

Just to stick my oar in...

The Second Ammendment has points I can see would be beneficial, namely Self-Defence. I live in England, and we have no 'reasonable force' laws here, meaning basically you are not legally able to defend yourself if someone attacks you - this happened to friend of mine recently when somebody jumped him and he retaliated, so I do believe that self-defence is something that should be allowed as a right.
However, I do have dim views of those who wish to own military grade weapons. In the interest of self-defence, surely a handgun is enough? And surely one handgun is enough?

In the argument of the people protecting themselves against government tyranny, my view is this; firstly, I can never see the people of the USA electing anybody who would declare themselves a dictator, and secondly I would imagine the US House of Representatives would have something to say themselves about anyone trying that. :) Although I admit that this may have been the original reason for the Second Amendment in my opinion , so I am prepared to accept a number of views here.

Another point is the idealistic view behind the "right to bear arms" which I find would be an argument against. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights probably meant for the Second Amendment to be a clause for the defence of the people's freedoms. However, it would not be cynical to say that the Second Amendment is not used as an excuse for street gangs to legally own firearms to settle their disputes. Here, i think, is a good argument in favour of gun ownership checking and registration.

My view therefore; ownership of firearms to protect oneself is something guranteed to the people of the US. However, the Second Amendment does not specifiy what 'arms' the people have a right to, and I agree with the banning of automatic weapons and other heavy weapons (what need would one have for stingers?) I also think registration of weapons would keep firearms moreso out of the hands of street gangs who want to settle their territorial disputes with 7.62mm NATO rounds (you can't get all of them, because some people will get weapons illegally.)

That's my view. :)

I think the avg American is better than the avg Iraqi,

whoah, what are you?
good god, pal, that's immensely racist.

You've just expressed your desire to shoot other living things. And besides, we need to hunt animals.


it's known as irony, darling.

the banning of automatic weapons and other heavy weapons (what need would one have for stingers?) I also think registration of weapons would keep firearms moreso out of the hands of street gangs who want to settle their territorial disputes with 7.62mm NATO rounds (you can't get all of them, because some people will get weapons illegally.)

That's my view. :)



We need heavy weapons such as stingers and Squad Automatic Weapons to defend against the coming invasion by the United Nations forces and the New World Order. I think it's my God given right to own 10+ guns, AK-47s, AR-15s, etc.

We need heavy weapons such as stingers and Squad Automatic Weapons to defend against the coming invasion by the United Nations forces and the New World Order. I think it's my God given right to own 10+ guns, AK-47s, AR-15s, etc.
It's not funny anymore. Besides, you have a pretty shitty choice in weapons.

In the argument of the people protecting themselves against government tyranny, my view is this; firstly, I can never see the people of the USA electing anybody who would declare themselves a dictator, and secondly I would imagine the US House of Representatives would have something to say themselves about anyone trying that. :) Although I admit that this may have been the original reason for the Second Amendment in my opinion , so I am prepared to accept a number of views here.


mind you, we'd've thought the same about the Germans and the Italians in the 20s and early 30s...

whoah, what are you?
good god, pal, that's immensely racist.



How so? It's the truth... We've known for quite a while now that Europeans are better than non-Europeans. And America is a mixture of the best of Europe, so Americans are naturally the best. That's the truth, plain and simple, there are certain things we know but many don't like to admit. American Supremacy is one such thing.

I try to be as even-handed on issues as possible. My political mantra is "left wing, right wing, same bird." So, here's my take on it.

I find it funny that the left and the right think of the other as the ultimate bad guy. Let it be known that the Founding Fathers had a rather serious distrust of the "commoners" (just look at the Electoral College. They didn't even trust the population to pick their own President). The original Constitution had no guarantee of freedom of any kind, it only outlined the processes of running the government. Had the left not threatened to refuse ratification without a Bill of Rights, there would be no guarantee of freedom of speech, press, or the right to bear arms that we are currently arguing over.

So, right-wing gun-toting nutjob, next time you see a left-wing pinko commie, thank him/her for giving you the Second Amendment. And left-wing pink commies, next time you see a ring-wing gun-toting nutjob, thank him/her for making other countries afraid enough of the USA to actually make the Constitution in general worth the paper it's written on.

Why don't you register your family with the government. So they can keep track of them.
my family is not a lethal weapon

Also that "One gun" a month crap liberals try to push on us. You get to screw your wife once a month, whoever needs to do it more is a sex addict.
what inane bullshit is that, and who cares about one gun a month? you dont need to buy 20 guns a day, thats called stockpiling, and if you do that, thats suspicious, expect to have a tlak with the FBI or at least local law enforcement


That gun is too big! To many "assault features!" "It's a semi-automatic version of a military weapon!"
semi-auto weapons wernt banned in the brady act, full auto were banned, if you're going to whine know what you are talking about

You Hummer is too big! Too many "Military style features!" "It's a civilian version of a military vehicle!"
look straw man, straw man!

**waits for mod to stick his/her head in**

It's not funny anymore. Besides, you have a pretty shitty choice in weapons.

it is, and they'd do at a stretch...

oh, come on CM - the UN couldn't organise the invasion of my bedroom, let alone the United States.

It's not funny anymore. Besides, you have a pretty shitty choice in weapons.


Just waiting for my chance to get an G-3, G-36, MP-5N, MILAN ATGM, I've got some good weapons ideas. I really want to get an M1-A (Modern M-14)

semi-auto weapons wernt banned in the brady act, full auto were banned, if you're going to whine know what you are talking about

!


They banned semi-automatic weapons with more than 1 "Assault feature"

Folding stock:

Pistol grip:

Forward grip:

Bayonet Mount:

Grenade Launcher:

Flash suppressor:

etc.

oh, come on CM - the UN couldn't organise the invasion of my bedroom, let alone the United States.
wait, isn't it supposed to be United States first, let alone your room?


No wait, your room would require a military rivalling the U.S.

Sorry. Modern M4 is the M8 which is slowly but surely replacing the M4 in the United States Army now, and the M8 is only a temporary gun until they can finish off the M28 (the OICW from Ghost Recon).

wait, isn't it supposed to be United States first, let alone your room?


No wait, your room would require a military rivalling the U.S.

I'm not too clear on what you're saying here - could you clarify that, please? :)

Then you're definitely the sort of person I'd want to have a gun, as you're fully aware of just how potentially dangerous they are and, I guess, would only use it as a last resort if put in a threatening situation. And that's what the 2nd admendment, IMHO, is implying.
My big problem with guns and America is that there isn't enforced training, so you get idiots brought up on action movies who think pulling on out first chance they get is the best way to solve any problem. It's only once you are taught about their proper usage, do you fully appreciate just how dangerous they are.
How so? It's the truth... We've known for quite a while now that Europeans are better than non-Europeans. And America is a mixture of the best of Europe, so Americans are naturally the best. That's the truth, plain and simple, there are certain things we know but many don't like to admit. American Supremacy is one such thing.
This is why CM is exactly the sort of person I DON'T want with a gun: he's proven himself to be a dangerous racist in several threads.

Sorry. Modern M4 is the M8 which is slowly but surely replacing the M4 in the United States Army now, and the M8 is only a temporary gun until they can finish off the M28 (the OICW from Ghost Recon).


I said M-14, as in the vietnam 308 rifle.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/ComMiss/M14.jpg

I'm not too clear on what you're saying here - could you clarify that, please? :)
just me contradicting myself

just me contradicting myself

Ahh, okay then.

This is why CM is exactly the sort of person I DON'T want with a gun: he's proven himself to be a dangerous racist in several threads.


Well us folks with "unpopular" views, need guns all the more, so we can defend our right to believe what we want. I want to live in the hills away from most folks, only coming out to go to work and go to town to buy supplies.

Well us folks with "unpopular" views, need guns all the more, so we can defend our right to believe what we want. I want to live in the hills away from most folks, only coming out to go to work and go to town to buy supplies.
The sort of people who disagree with your views aren't the sort to go after you with guns. They have more sense, I would hope.

that is ignorant and egotistical

i do believe that the founders never intended for the government to be able to limit the freedom of speech, press, or assembly as they saw fit directly or indirectly
In all reality the founding fathers would probably drop dead if they saw what America had evolved into. As to the points your making, it must be pointed out that the first Amendment, although not directly stated, is really an overtly political right, in the sense that, in a limited scope, it was created to guard against libel and slander suits, etc, from politicians against either news agencies (newspapers at the time [i.e. Zenger Trial]) or private individuals (see: Alien and Sedition Act and Repercussions). The original intent was truly political, free political speech, free political press, and free political assembly. These were all things that the British had in one way or another stopped the colonists for exercising. It must be remembered that one cannot interpose modern ideas onto past figures actions. Our interpretation may change, but the original intent does not, which brings us to the Second Amendment.

As has been talked of before, during the Constitutional Era there was no police force. As a Standing Army constituted the only FEDERAL government instituted policing force, the Militia, existant since the founding of the original colonies, was infinitely more important. Again thanks to the British's use of army troops as police, and the major problems resulting from that, from jobs taken by off-duty soldiers, etc, the Constitution utilized Militia as a citizen force for any number of uses, from policing to national defence. To apply it to modern day usage is almost impossible, with a modern army no longer policing, and specialized security forces available from any number of venues.

Thereby in terms of gun control the Second Amendment is truly a gray area. By a strict interpretation, in modern view, it is best applicable to a police force. This extremely strict interpretation of police as a modern militia, citizenry whom protect the rest of the citizens, would seemingly make gun control a null issue, as there would be no rights protected by the constitution to everyone else. However this is far too strict an analysis, thereby the loose interpretation comes into play. In a loose interpretation Militia would be, as above stated, shown to be "able-bodied men", i.e. in modern terms, mentally, physically, and psychologically proficient individuals. Standard tests already accomplish this loose an interpretation.

Unfortunately neither of these models deal with the issue that, today at least, is largest in the minds of most anti-gun advocates: How much weaponry is too much weaponry? Can a seemingly open ended statement such as the Second Amendment give me the right to buy a T-90 from a Chechynian black-market arms dealer?

It is from this that we must realize that the Second Amendment is not truly sufficient, and thereby clarifying legislation is necessary. Now, no gun advocate worth their marbles would claim a need to own a Automatic weapon for self-defense, they just wouldn't. Those who do are just fodder for the anti-gun advocates. Even lighter weaponry is unnecessary for the most common argument: Self Defense.

From here we may reach a reasonable settlement. Utilizing the Second Amendment to guarantee a right to carry arms by the standards above stated, but not as a qualification on what arms entails, and passing legislation setting a basic limits on only light arms as legal, keeping our current level of regulations, but making sure they are completely enforced, we eliminate most arguments on either side. For those who claim national defense is at issue, I urge you to contact your congressman or state representative to urge either the construction, or reform, of a state militia with access to much heavier weaponry, and go on from there. With State Arsenals of heavy weapons (i.e. automatic rifles, possibly anti-tank, RPG, etc as well) available to a trained militia to complement national guard on a local scale should satisfy both ends.

Definitions:
Able Bodied: Proficient mentally, physically, and pyschologically to handle a weapon with care, security, and understanding. (There, thats open ended enough to satisfy both sides of the equation)

Current Regulations: I.E. Background/Computer screenings. Handwriting and fingerprints already on file via licence (though in my view we should institute mandatory retinal scans as well, much harder to fake those, and aren't exactly a hassle to get). However, state provided training is an unacceptable expense. The problem that many anti-gun advocates have, and a problem many people in general have, is that Federal and State funds, no matter how large, can't do everything. People are always willing to say that one or the other should provide any number of things, without being willing to take a major tax hike to provide it. If you want a gun, pay for the training yourself.

How so? It's the truth... We've known for quite a while now that Europeans are better than non-Europeans. And America is a mixture of the best of Europe, so Americans are naturally the best. That's the truth, plain and simple, there are certain things we know but many don't like to admit. American Supremacy is one such thing.


you should do stand up comedy.
you're fucking hilarious.

I like the second amendment and there will always be people with guns and I know alot of untrained people, never shot a gun in there life, and man they were better than you think just thought I'd get that off my chest. ;)

Well us folks with "unpopular" views, need guns all the more, so we can defend our right to believe what we want. I want to live in the hills away from most folks, only coming out to go to work and go to town to buy supplies.

Knowing what response he will give only convinces me to bring it up. Nothing quite like stirring the pot...

How about the ACLU? They were formed in order to defend unpopular causes (they've defended Neo-Nazis whenever they weren't busy trying to force the government to spend billions of dollars in order to take any reference to God off of anything remotely related to government).

*hides behind the First Amendment, but only to avoid the bullets that will naturally come flying over from the Second*

The 2nd Amendment is the easiest to misread, since it's basically...well, badly phrased. If you wrote something like that in school, people would look at you weird because it can be hard to make sense of. Of course, then again, the Constitution can be badly phrased at times, but this is comparable to "All your base are belong to us." It's hard to tell if the writers intended for private citizens to own a gun for their personal use or just to fight off the British.

My personal opinion of the Second Amendment: I hate guns. Communist Mississippi insists they will have to kill him to take his guns away...well, they will have to kill me and bury me with a gun to make me carry one. I wouldn't mid if they repealed the Second Amendment and said no one could have guns. That doesn't mean that no one would mind it, so I doubt it will happen. It may be reasonable, even if it's not feasible, to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something a little more explicit, like something that defines the issue as being up to states or something.

i have decided CM is a joke like the nazi guy and will no longer respond to him

The sort of people who disagree with your views aren't the sort to go after you with guns. They have more sense, I would hope.

They'll just swarm after you in a massive pack of 20-30 and beat you senseless. I'm sorry, I just cannot fight 20 people with my hands, I think very few could.

In all reality the founding fathers would probably drop dead if they saw what America had evolved into. As to the points your making, it must be pointed out that the first Amendment, although not directly stated, is really an overtly political right, in the sense that, in a limited scope, it was created to guard against libel and slander suits, etc, from politicians against either news agencies (newspapers at the time [i.e. Zenger Trial]) or private individuals (see: Alien and Sedition Act and Repercussions). The original intent was truly political, free political speech, free political press, and free political assembly. These were all things that the British had in one way or another stopped the colonists for exercising. It must be remembered that one cannot interpose modern ideas onto past figures actions. Our interpretation may change, but the original intent does not, which brings us to the Second Amendment.

As has been talked of before, during the Constitutional Era there was no police force. As a Standing Army constituted the only FEDERAL government instituted policing force, the Militia, existant since the founding of the original colonies, was infinitely more important. Again thanks to the British's use of army troops as police, and the major problems resulting from that, from jobs taken by off-duty soldiers, etc, the Constitution utilized Militia as a citizen force for any number of uses, from policing to national defence. To apply it to modern day usage is almost impossible, with a modern army no longer policing, and specialized security forces available from any number of venues.

Thereby in terms of gun control the Second Amendment is truly a gray area. By a strict interpretation, in modern view, it is best applicable to a police force. This extremely strict interpretation of police as a modern militia, citizenry whom protect the rest of the citizens, would seemingly make gun control a null issue, as there would be no rights protected by the constitution to everyone else. However this is far too strict an analysis, thereby the loose interpretation comes into play. In a loose interpretation Militia would be, as above stated, shown to be "able-bodied men", i.e. in modern terms, mentally, physically, and psychologically proficient individuals. Standard tests already accomplish this loose an interpretation.

Unfortunately neither of these models deal with the issue that, today at least, is largest in the minds of most anti-gun advocates: How much weaponry is too much weaponry? Can a seemingly open ended statement such as the Second Amendment give me the right to buy a T-90 from a Chechynian black-market arms dealer?

It is from this that we must realize that the Second Amendment is not truly sufficient, and thereby clarifying legislation is necessary. Now, no gun advocate worth their marbles would claim a need to own a Automatic weapon for self-defense, they just wouldn't. Those who do are just fodder for the anti-gun advocates. Even lighter weaponry is unnecessary for the most common argument: Self Defense.

From here we may reach a reasonable settlement. Utilizing the Second Amendment to guarantee a right to carry arms by the standards above stated, but not as a qualification on what arms entails, and passing legislation setting a basic limits on only light arms as legal, keeping our current level of regulations, but making sure they are completely enforced, we eliminate most arguments on either side. For those who claim national defense is at issue, I urge you to contact your congressman or state representative to urge either the construction, or reform, of a state militia with access to much heavier weaponry, and go on from there. With State Arsenals of heavy weapons (i.e. automatic rifles, possibly anti-tank, RPG, etc as well) available to a trained militia to complement national guard on a local scale should satisfy both ends.

Definitions:
Able Bodied: Proficient mentally, physically, and pyschologically to handle a weapon with care, security, and understanding. (There, thats open ended enough to satisfy both sides of the equation)

Current Regulations: I.E. Background/Computer screenings. Handwriting and fingerprints already on file via licence (though in my view we should institute mandatory retinal scans as well, much harder to fake those, and aren't exactly a hassle to get). However, state provided training is an unacceptable expense. The problem that many anti-gun advocates have, and a problem many people in general have, is that Federal and State funds, no matter how large, can't do everything. People are always willing to say that one or the other should provide any number of things, without being willing to take a major tax hike to provide it. If you want a gun, pay for the training yourself.

I totally agree - much in line with what I was saying a few posts back. :)

Well us folks with "unpopular" views, need guns all the more, so we can defend our right to believe what we want. I want to live in the hills away from most folks, only coming out to go to work and go to town to buy supplies.

Um...you want to be the Unibomber? Is that your point? Oh wait, how could I forget, the Unibomber was a genious (quite serious here, he was truly a very gifted individual), I doubt we have that worry here.

Honestly, how could the UN, with the majority of its forces being provided by the US, invade the US? Much of the world calls the UN our puppet and you are waiting for it to invade? If your not joking, you need help.

Unfortunately neither of these models deal with the issue that, today at least, is largest in the minds of most anti-gun advocates: How much weaponry is too much weaponry? Can a seemingly open ended statement such as the Second Amendment give me the right to buy a T-90 from a Chechynian black-market arms dealer?
.

It is my God given right, and your right, to buy a tank if you want to.

They'll just swarm after you in a massive pack of 20-30 and beat you senseless. I'm sorry, I just cannot fight 20 people with my hands, I think very few could.
If your so scared of that, why don't you get knives to complement your arsenal? You could scatter them about your person ya know?

Or better yet, you could become a full fledged samurai pirate ninja. Nobody would mess with you then/

If your so scared of that, why don't you get knives to complement your arsenal? You could scatter them about your person ya know?

Or better yet, you could become a full fledged samurai pirate ninja. Nobody would mess with you then/


I have 10+ Knives and a sword. I've got a little of everything.

Right now my main interest is finding a way to get a few RPG-7s. I'm wondering about getting the permit, but then they know you have them!

It is my God given right, and your right, to buy a tank if you want to.

It isn't a right given by God, it's a right given by those who wrote the Bill of Rights. And the Second Amendment doesn't say you can own one anymore then it says you can't, so I think Federal officials would be legally justified in taking your T-90 away.

It is my God given right, and your right, to buy a tank if you want to.
lol yep you can also buy the ak-47's now on sle at walmart o wait or is it k-mart

(imagines martha stewart with a gun)

It is my God given right, and your right, to buy a tank if you want to.
When did God give me that right? To the best of my knowledge God's only right given to me was to live. Unfortunately for you God only ranks third in rights we care about today, those provided by the Constitution, then by legislation, then lastly whatever else gets spewed at us by raving madmen.

Well...there is nothing in the constitution abour riding a horse...
I think it's because a car is not a tool meant for the destruction of a living being (althouth shit happens).

Actually, the law is very clear on this. All courts have ruled, time and again, that driving is a privilege and not a right.

It isn't a right given by God, it's a right given by those who wrote the Bill of Rights. And the Second Amendment doesn't say you can own one anymore then it says you can't, so I think Federal officials would be legally justified in taking your T-90 away.


I'd love to see the feds try to take a T-90 from me! When that guy in California stole an M60A3 tank, they couldn't even get him, they had to wait for him to crash it!

I have 10+ Knives and a sword. I've got a little of everything.

Right now my main interest is finding a way to get a few RPG-7s. I'm wondering about getting the permit, but then they know you have them!
You going plane shooting or something man? Honestly, if your older than 12, your being watched by the FBI, if your not...well either way no surprise in store.

But here, look, its a sweet costume that nobody will mess with.

http://www.badplanet.com/bpimages/8735y.jpg
I wish it was legal to have one of these, oh wait, it is!

*Watches the long worked on reply slowly drift away, pushed off by the force of unrelenting absurdity*
By by rationality, hello absurdity.

I'd love to see the feds try to take a T-90 from me! When that guy in California stole an M60A3 tank, they couldn't even get him, they had to wait for him to crash it!

Yes, and then they pried open the hatch and shot him.

Yes, and then they pried open the hatch and shot him.


You need to lock the hatch better! And have a gun of your own!

Also having infantry cover would help! Then again don't crash into the freeway divider, at such a high angle... If he hit it straight on, he'd have made it.

Everyone I've seen so far is talking about the use of guns against people, well what about people like me and my neighbors who hunt. We get enough meat every year to freeze and barely buy any meat at all. We also farm and have rifles and shotguns to take out animals(And chase some people) that pose a threat to our livelyhood. Besides, what would us dumb rednecks do without our primer and rust red Ford 4x4s with shotguns in the window and six packs on the seat next to us?

As for criminals not being able to get their hands on guns with stricter gun laws or without the right to bear arms:
1. If someone really wants to get their hands on a gun, there would always be a way,
2. If someone really wanted to kill another person, a knife, or in many cases, simple brute force would suffice.. And I don't think anyone plans on banning knives or a person's right to literally bear arms(haha, gotta write that one down),
3. Well, a list is supposed to have at least three items.. so.. <insert good 3rd point here>

It is my God given right, and your right, to buy a tank if you want to.
No it isn't. Tanks aren't street legal because they don't fit inside the lanes. However, you do have a right to own any army vehicle that fits in the lanes, provided its weapons have been removed (and it fits some other laws).

You need to lock the hatch better! And have a gun of your own!

Also having infantry cover would help! Then again don't crash into the freeway divider, at such a high angle... If he hit it straight on, he'd have made it.

That guy wasn't exercising his right to defend himself - he was a manic depressive with experience in driving tanks.

semi-auto weapons wernt banned in the brady act, full auto were banned, if you're going to whine know what you are talking about

Actually, some of them were banned, in the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban. In true idiotic government style, the weapons were chosen more on appearance than on rational criteria.

No it isn't. Tanks aren't street legal because they don't fit inside the lanes. However, you do have a right to own any army vehicle that fits in the lanes, provided its weapons have been removed (and it fits some other laws).


Actually there is a rich elite snob in the UK who owns a tank and drives it around on the street. If you get a tank that fits in the lanes, you're good to go. But they are rare.

Now what I really want is a BMP-3 or maybe an Eland MK-7. With weaponry of course.

Why are you talking about things that happen in the UK when the discussion is about the 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States?

How so? It's the truth... We've known for quite a while now that Europeans are better than non-Europeans. And America is a mixture of the best of Europe, so Americans are naturally the best. That's the truth, plain and simple, there are certain things we know but many don't like to admit. American Supremacy is one such thing.
Perhaps you could show us the proof here. I have yet to find any substancial evidence that would have me belive in your opinion that you stated above. Except for the supposed "science" that Hitler used to define what the master race is. I think that it was eugenics combined with the measurements of the cranium in which the shape and size of ones head would determine certain characteristics of that person. THis stuff is about as reliable as plam reading.
However CM, I do agree with you on that I also believe that globalists are slowly taking over and getting ready for a final invasion. Waco and Ruby ridge were tests of the american people. And while I may not agree with some of the things you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Additionally, I know that tanks would not be legal to drive on most interstate highways due to their weight. They would just tear up the roads. It's not economically feasable to allow tanks out on the streets.

Perhaps you could show us the proof here. I have yet to find any substancial evidence that would have me belive in your opinion that you stated above. Except for the supposed "science" that Hitler used to define what the master race is. I think that it was eugenics combined with the measurements of the cranium in which the shape and size of ones head would determine certain characteristics of that person. THis stuff is about as reliable as plam reading.
However CM, I do agree with you on that I also believe that globalists are slowly taking over and getting ready for a final invasion. Waco and Ruby ridge were tests of the american people. And while I may not agree with some of the things you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Measuring the cranium and other ratios of facial features, is called Phrenology.

Measuring the cranium and other ratios of facial features, is called Phrenology.
By that logic...a dumptruck is better than a Lamborghini. After all, the dump truck is bigger and it has a bigger, more powerful engine, right?

Perhaps you could show us the proof here. I have yet to find any substancial evidence that would have me belive in your opinion that you stated above.


According to Essai sur l'inegalite des races humaines. (The Inequality of Human Races) by French Nobleman Count Arthur De Gobineau.

The following data regarding cranial capacity for skulls, all the openings were carefully filled with cotton except for the foramen magnum and then completely filled up with dried grains of pepper of equal size and shape. Done by a one Dr. Owen in the 19th century. Dr. Morton, and Dr. Carus also worked on this study.


The exact table as follows:



White races:
Avg number of grains:87
Max number of grains:109
Min number of grains: 75




Yellow Races (Malays and Mongols):
Avg number of grains (Malays):83
Avg number of grains (Mongols):81
Max number of grains (Malays):93
Max number of grains (Mongols):89
Min number of grains (Malays):69
Min number of grains (Mongols):64



North American Indians:
Avg number of grains:82
Max number of grains:100
Min number of grains:60



Black Races:
Avg number of grains:78
Max number of grains:94
Min number of grains:65

By that logic...a dumptruck is better than a Lamborghini. After all, the dump truck is bigger and it has a bigger, more powerful engine, right?

Ratios are the important thing. Not size! Ratio!

By that logic...a dumptruck is better than a Lamborghini. After all, the dump truck is bigger and it has a bigger, more powerful engine, right?

What makes you think a Lambourghini is better than a dump truck? Dump trucks are an imtegral part of construction and mining operations which support our economy and the economies of most nations. Lambourghinis are just fast cars. Yes they play a small portion in the economy by making money for automotive corporations and dealerships. But I'd say the dump truck is still more important. Besides, you try and haul several tons of dirt and rock in a sports car. I think we're getting off topic here.

According to Essai sur l'inegalite des races humaines. (The Inequality of Human Races) by French Nobleman Count Arthur De Gobineau.

The following data regarding cranial capacity for skulls, all the openings were carefully filled with cotton except for the foramen magnum and then completely filled up with dried grains of pepper of equal size and shape. Done by a one Dr. Owen in the 19th century. Dr. Morton, and Dr. Carus also worked on this study.

Yes, because 19th century science done by French Aristocratic Fascists is always incredibly reliable...

Cranial capacity doesn't really determine superiority. I imagine that my skull could hold a lot of pepper, and I am considered to be rather smart (majoring in mathematics in one of the top technical schools in the country). However, I know people with much smaller skulls that are smarter than me, some Asian, some Muslim, some white, some black.

So, if the bigger cranium theory is supposed to prove superiority with a bigger skull=bigger brain=bigger intelligence, the people I know who are smarter than me do not support it.

Edit: Also, science tends to prove the theories of whoever is paying for the experiment. Notice how all experiments done by tobacco companies show no connection between cigarettes and cancer while every single one done by anti-smoking groups shows a direct correlation?

What makes you think a Lambourghini is better than a dump truck? Dump trucks are an imtegral part of construction and mining operations which support our economy and the economies of most nations. Lambourghinis are just fast cars. Yes they play a small portion in the economy by making money for automotive corporations and dealerships. But I'd say the dump truck is still more important. Besides, you try and haul several tons of dirt and rock in a sports car. I think we're getting off topic here.
That's my point exactly. People of all races play integral parts of the world. In fact, I wouldn't say that all races are equal because some are stereotypically better at some things. For instance, I would assume that a black guy will beat me in sports every time. In fact, yesterday my friend referred to me as "an adopted Asian child" because I have supreme math skills. Races are different, but no race is superior/inferior--and the stereotypes aren't 100%.

That's my point exactly. People of all races play integral parts of the world. In fact, I wouldn't say that all races are equal because some are stereotypically better at some things. For instance, I would assume that a black guy will beat me in sports every time. In fact, yesterday my friend referred to me as "an adopted Asian child" because I have supreme math skills. Races are different, but no race is superior/inferior--and the stereotypes aren't 100%.


I agree that each race seems to have an area they specialize in.

Read "The Inequality of Human Races" and Gobineau points out which races excell in areas, and which don't. It is a strengths/weakness of each race in each area.

I agree that each race seems to have an area they specialize in.

Read "The Inequality of Human Races" and Gobineau points out which races excell in areas, and which don't. It is a strengths/weakness of each race in each area.
But you also seem to think that Americans (which isn't a race) are superior to Arabs...that I can't agree with.

That's my point exactly. People of all races play integral parts of the world. In fact, I wouldn't say that all races are equal because some are stereotypically better at some things. For instance, I would assume that a black guy will beat me in sports every time. In fact, yesterday my friend referred to me as "an adopted Asian child" because I have supreme math skills. Races are different, but no race is superior/inferior--and the stereotypes aren't 100%.

I am reminded of something I read by Frederich Nietzsche a while back. He wrote that the Master Race would be the result of a complete mixing of all different races of humans, so that all the strengths of each individual group would be factored into the equation. I think the specific example he gave were the Jews and, as he said, their ability to perservere in spite of the efforts of other groups to get rid of them.

Driving is a privilege given by the state, bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Incorrect sir, driving on State Roads is a privilege granted by the State. You are free to drive without a license on your own property should you so choose.

But you also seem to think that Americans (which isn't a race) are superior to Arabs...that I can't agree with.


When I say American I mean Europeans, because the founders of the nation of United States of America, were English speaking Europeans.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” People will argue that this is the reason why the second amendment is there to begin with. Which is true. However it is not restricted to simply the police force or the military and whatnot. It can even include a neighborhood watch organization or any type of survivalist groups. They are the real organized militias. Now just because a militia doesn’t exist at present, doesn’t mean that a militia cant be made in time of an emergency. Which is why in general most people should be allowed to at least have access to a gun should the need arise. It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than it is to need one and not have it.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
"2nd amendment has not been applied to the states last i checked, the states do not have to let you own a gun"

Under the constitution every state does ensure our second ammendment, however it is up to the states to decide which guns people are allowed to have. When i was in the service and stationed in california, I legally could not own a pre-ban ak-47, however when I moved to Oregon I was able to own one.

It has to do with community's and the peoples choice. If person A is raised in a city environment and taught that guns have no part in life, and person B is raised in a rural one and tuaght that guns are in every part of life. Who is to say that A is right for everyone or B is right for everyone, the only answer that is right is allowing A to do thier thing and B to to do thiers. This ensures equality and diverseness through this freedom of choice in a diplomatic non-invasive way. That is why states rights are held so dear to so many American's and we will never see a repeal of any ammendment currently in our constitution.

Our federal governement is described in our federalist papers and in it, it states that the federal authority's sole purpose is to provide national security, and to ensure the safety of one state from another (from physical action of war, to implied restrictions that another state holds). It was also created to induce Americans patriotism of ones state into ones country. Knowing that the two go hand in hand over fist in fist makes a polite society that respects each individual states laws as long as they ensure the constitutional authority our federal governement is responsible of maintaining. That is why freedom works, because if you don't like the second ammendment you can live in california or new york and be free from it, or contrary if you believe in the second ammendment you can live in oregon or vermont and be free with it. No telling you or I how to live, just pick how yourself chooses to live.

I bet the current government would be eager to get a hand on our guns since it is obvious they do not trust Americans with all the new laws being written and confirmed smoothly by Congress and Senate.

Though, with an annual 40 Billion budget, people in US are no opposition to the National Guard homeland defence corporation.

A gun can be good defence against people with intent to do harm, but what if you are on the federal black list? A lot of people have been locked up, expelled, tortured for years on fluffy or zero legal grounds, based on military law.

So if voting, signing petitions, writing babble on internet, go Greenpeace, run for president, stop traffic on nr 5, if all peaceful else is a waste of energy that does not make a bit of difference,

I would suggest do nothing, keep working low profile, keep eyes open and ready to make a run for shelter. You keep your life as normal and meanwhile keep a double safety policy just in case.

Almost all presidents seem to be blood related and the double Bush Whammy can be traced back to royalty from euro land, just like finding DNA or credit cards when the plane evaporates after making a way to small hole to get through the outer Pentagon wall.

Wonderful amazing impossible things do really happen, so father so son.

So after you run for cover, you still need resources which can be provided by Mother Nature but that takes training, will and strength.
Making a run for some border would be an option, seek unpopulated areas like Baja or northern Canada. Stay on the move.

A war against incorporated control means against western government, against the Feds and everybody else, you will not have many friends to begin with.

Since I would bring my wife, son and others, exposing yourself to risk would be foolish unless lethal other threats are in the game such as starvation.
So the thing to do would be to hide and survive as long as possible.
Would be wise to learn hunting with rifles, small calibre lightweight but lethal to your enemy from a long way.

But first, to begin at all, we need a collapse of wealth to begin with extreme federal force and that will surely take some years, 5 or so maybe even more.

Plenty time to start packing.....hihi

19th century.

anything that's more, y'know, recent?
up to date?
that uses real science?

And now you're implying that because America holds the appearance of stability that there won't be random acts of terrorism when we allow people to have automatic rifles and grenade launchers.

You do know that more people die (in America) from fists than assault rifles and grenade launchers, right?

Anyway, I think we all need to face some facts.

Right now, the American Government says we have the right to own firearms--if they didn't think so, they'd have banned it already.

So the second amendment is here to stay, at least for a little while longer.

Random fact: Canada has more guns per household (a little under 1) than the United States.

No we shouldn't. The Founding Framers created it so that, in case an autocracy formed, it'd have a hard time ruling. After all, an armed populace is the last, and possibly greatest obstacle to establish tyranny. So think of the Second Amendment as an insurance policy.

Maybe applying for a gun licence should include basic firearms training.


In Michigan if you want to carry a concealed weapon you have to take a firearms course before they will issue you your license.

Would you rather be there when an unarmed woman was raped and nobody did anything?

Guns aren't the only means of defense. it's much easier to subdue an assailant when his pants are down.

Everyone I've seen so far is talking about the use of guns against people, well what about people like me and my neighbors who hunt. We get enough meat every year to freeze and barely buy any meat at all. We also farm and have rifles and shotguns to take out animals(And chase some people) that pose a threat to our livelyhood. Besides, what would us dumb rednecks do without our primer and rust red Ford 4x4s with shotguns in the window and six packs on the seat next to us?

Works for me, unless for some reason you don't want anybody knowing what guns you have, what their balistic patterns are, etc. that's just not a well regulated militia.

As for criminals not being able to get their hands on guns with stricter gun laws or without the right to bear arms:
1. If someone really wants to get their hands on a gun, there would always be a way,

If the Second Ammendment were repealed, and all guns confiscated, only cops and military personel would legally have guns. Criminals could steal them or buy them from corrupt personel, but it would be harder, there would be fewer of them and they would be very expensive and those with them would eventually be caught. Gun crime would go down to levels comparible with Britain, Japan, etc.

By the same token increased control, such as through balistic fingerprinting and through zealous prosecution of those who fail to report lost or stolen guns, would also decrease gun crime, although by a lesser measure, and would not require a constitutional ammendment.

2. If someone really wanted to kill another person, a knife, or in many cases, simple brute force would suffice.. And I don't think anyone plans on banning knives or a person's right to literally bear arms(haha, gotta write that one down),

Guns don't kill people, but they sure do make it easier! Try to deny that!! I double-dawg-dare you!!!

If someone tries to kill me with a gun he has a pretty good chance of succeeding if I am unarmed and he is close but not in arm's reach. If he tries to kill me with a knife and I am unarmed he has a better than even chance of succeeding, but less that if he had a gun. If he tries to kill me with his bare hands, all else being equal, he will have something like a 50% chance of success.

Sorry but I am so sick of hearing that guns don't kill people. "Cause of death was blood loss through entry and exit wounds of a .22 caliber bullet passing through the victim's cardiac organ."

How about a new slogan:

"Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people."

Or this one:

"Bombs don't kill people, people kill people."

Or:

"Biochemical agents don't kill people, people kill people."

Or:

"Briefcase nukes don't kill people, people kill people."
(This reminds me of the one thing I have against the N.R.A.: they have done NOTHING to restore my right to aquire and use fissionable materials. :( )

But I think I will go back to my favourite:

Guns don't kill people, guns help kill people.

3. Well, a list is supposed to have at least three items.. so.. <insert good 3rd point here>

<insert supportive agreement &/or effective rebutal here>

Nothing in the nature of the weapon changes the nature of man.

Humans have been killing each other for thousands of years. Guns are an invention of man, to promote war and the ease of killing. If it were not in the nature of man to kill, such refinements would never have come about. Look to your nature, not to the law.

Eliminate all guns, and people will still kill each other. Is it easier with a gun? Maybe so, but I'd rather be shot quickly than strangled slowly, or beaten with a rock, or stabbed.

If my crazy, untrained, unregistered, bigoted, hill-livin', mail-bombin' neighbor is a gun-totin' threat, I can shoot him in defense of myself when his militia buddies try to come on my property. Ain't that beautiful? My right to bear arms is no less significant than his.

We take tests to drive automobiles. We license them, register them, and license ourselves as operators. We insure them, and billions of dollars go toward making them safer each year. Yet every year, tens of thousands of people die in auto-related accidents, in one form or another, a number significantly higher than those killed by guns, by several orders of magnitude.

No one here is advocating the ban of automobiles, is he? That is because an automobile is a tool whose useful value outweighs its potential for disaster. What the anti-gun activists don't recognize is that a gun is exactly the same kind of tool, and its potential for good far outweighs its dangerous nature.

(Oh, and by the way, I'm not right, left, or any other classification you care to use. Unlike many of the people debating this, I have served my country in a military capacity, but I don't blindly support the government. Frankly, I fear a right wing agenda, with their frightening desire to impose their "morality" on the rest of society far more than the left's blind ignorance. However, in this, the conservative support of the 2nd amendment is right on.)

WHY! Nobody has the right to know what I have. A tyrannical government uses the list to find us, or say a foreign occupation army automatically knows who has guns, they take them, and then they figure the guys with the serious stuff are likely to still try to resist. We get put in camps, that is what you want, every right-wing white man, woman, and child, suffering in gulags!
Not poking fun at you, but why exactly, in this specific day and age, are you either unaware of or ignorant of the current United States administration's efforts UNDER THE GUISE AND PRETENSE of the RIGHT WING, AS COMPLIANT AS THEY MAY BE, to be doing EXACTLY what you are preparing yourself against? The PATRIOT I -AND- PATRIOT II ACTS as well as the MATRIX project to adapt to the lack of full funding of the first two?
You don't see the correlation here? THIS right wing agenda is what you want? PATRIOT ACTS and suspension and/or circumvention of as many as 5 rights of the Bill of Rights?
?

I would rather be strangled slowly, unless I was completely tied up or something similarly helpless. You can't stop a bullet with an eye-gouge, now can you?

Here's something to chew upon.

2nd Amendment states "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"

Title 10 United States Code, Section 311 says:

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(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 the National Guard or the Naval Militia



So if you are a male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, and thus are constitutionally obliged by the 2nd amendment to be "well-regulated" which in the language of the time, meant armed and trained in the use of ones firearm.

BTW Druthulhu have you ever strangled someone, or seen someone strangled? It is a painful, painful death. The feeling of helplessness is overwhelming. Compare that to being shot, with an instant of pain and then nothing.

Here's something to chew upon.

2nd Amendment states "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"



So if you are a male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, and thus are constitutionally obliged by the 2nd amendment to be "well-regulated" which in the language of the time, meant armed and trained in the use of ones firearm.

BTW Druthulhu have you ever strangled someone, or seen someone strangled? It is a painful, painful death. The feeling of helplessness is overwhelming. Compare that to being shot, with an instant of pain and then nothing.

"Could be worse."

"HOW could it be WORSE???"

*shrugs* "Could be stabbed."



You kind of missed my point, didn't you? If someone tries to strangle me I will gouge out his eyes, or break his metatarsil bones with my heal, or punch him really hard in his temple (edit: or throat). If someone tries to shoot me, if he does not miss I will be shot, and fairly unable to fight back.



"We found this spoon, sir."



Edit: an arm lock is not a bad idea either, if I can get enough leverage.

"Could be worse."




You kind of missed my point, didn't you? If someone tries to strangle me I will gouge out his eyes, or break his metatarsil bones with my heal, or punch him really hard in his temple (edit: or throat).




What about the elderly, the weak, the small, etc, those who cannot fight back?

The only people in favor of gun laws are strong criminals, because they realize guns are the great equalizer!

In a district of Baltimore in the late 1800s, a criminal gang sponsored a candidate for elections. There was a certain district of this city where they did most of their muggings and robberies, but the people started carrying guns. So the gang lobbied for a gun ban on this district for "public safety", needless to say, they got the ban, and crime went through the roof.

Blah blah blah. Either deal with your moth-eaten constitution, or just go blow each other's brains out with surface-to-air missiles every fourth of July. Go on, it'd be fun. Well, fun for the rest of the World to watch, anyway.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"Works for me, unless for some reason you don't want anybody knowing what guns you have, what their balistic patterns are, etc. that's just not a well regulated militia."

Please read up on US history and our federalist papers and constitution.
Well regulated malitia has nothing to do with controling a weapon, but has everything to do with ensuring the *common citizen* that will be protecting the *common citizen* will be trained and proficient with thier personal weapon of choice on the battle field. The federal authority would be responsible to ensure the firearm chosen by a designated malitia (any law abiding and able bodied age male 17-45) is sufficient for the act of repelling an invasion or protection of state,country,life, property and liberty.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"If the Second Ammendment were repealed, and all guns confiscated, only cops and military personel would legally have guns. Criminals could steal them or buy them from corrupt personel, but it would be harder, there would be fewer of them and they would be very expensive and those with them would eventually be caught. Gun crime would go down to levels comparible with Britain, Japan, etc.By the same token increased control, such as through balistic fingerprinting and through zealous prosecution of those who fail to report lost or stolen guns, would also decrease gun crime, although by a lesser measure, and would not require a constitutional ammendment."

Funny how you forget to include that not only would military and police have guns but also every criminal that do not listen to paper laws, like a criminal is going to turn in his gun LMAO!! Its thier bread maker and they already knew what they are doing is illegal, that is why we call them criminals (im sure they would be shaking if we banned guns, only shaking with angst to know they have virtually no chance of getting killed for entering into a persons home)
Your Idea is virtually identical to the US drug war, thats worked great hasn't it? Lets ban guns like drugs so only drug dealers and illegal gun dealers make that enourmous mark up in price, we dont want them to be criminals but rich criminals at that. Makes perfect sense to me. Even the far left wing has changed thier mind on a complete ban of guns because they see what the drug war has created.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"If someone tries to kill me with a gun he has a pretty good chance of succeeding if I am unarmed and he is close but not in arm's reach. If he tries to kill me with a knife and I am unarmed he has a better than even chance of succeeding, but less that if he had a gun. If he tries to kill me with his bare hands, all else being equal, he will have something like a 50% chance of success."

Actually studies have shown and you would be taught this if you have had military or police training or any kind of small arms training what so ever, that a assailent with a knife can overtake a unarmed person within 21 feet, better than if the assailant was armed with a gun. Reason being, is it takes in police studies a person up to that 21 feet to draw a gun and hit a target accuratly, Anotherwards a knife within 21 feet is more dangerous than a gun assuming the gun is down at the persons side or holstered.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"(This reminds me of the one thing I have against the N.R.A.: they have done NOTHING to restore my right to aquire and use fissionable materials."

National rifle association= small arms, not CBR related material, even though I don't support the NRA much anymore, you still need to have some facts, instead of emotion. Now that we understand that there is no way to ever rid the world of every gun, especially through a ban, cause criminals just don't listen no matter how nice you ask them. That is why we will forever continue to fight fire with fire, gun to gun no matter how the criminal intends to use a law against the law abiding citizen.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"Works for me, unless for some reason you don't want anybody knowing what guns you have, what their balistic patterns are, etc. that's just not a well regulated militia."

Please read up on US history and our federalist papers and constitution.
Well regulated malitia has nothing to do with controling a weapon, but has everything to do with ensuring the *common citizen* that will be protecting the *common citizen* will be trained and proficient with thier personal weapon of choice on the battle field. The federal authority would be responsible to ensure the firearm chosen by a designated malitia (any law abiding and able bodied age male 17-45) is sufficient for the act of repelling an invasion or protection of state,country,life, property and liberty.

Please read the title of this thread and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. "...the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Some of the U.S. Code that has been quoted sounds like it requires a mandatory draft of sorts and obligatory gun ownership. At the very least, in the conditions that we now live in, it places the government in the position of regulating well those who are armed.

'Sall I'm saying here. If you want to bring back obligatory militia enrollment go for it.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"If the Second Ammendment were repealed, and all guns confiscated, only cops and military personel would legally have guns. Criminals could steal them or buy them from corrupt personel, but it would be harder, there would be fewer of them and they would be very expensive and those with them would eventually be caught. Gun crime would go down to levels comparible with Britain, Japan, etc.By the same token increased control, such as through balistic fingerprinting and through zealous prosecution of those who fail to report lost or stolen guns, would also decrease gun crime, although by a lesser measure, and would not require a constitutional ammendment."

Funny how you forget to include that not only would military and police have guns but also every criminal that do not listen to paper laws, like a criminal is going to turn in his gun LMAO!! Its thier bread maker and they already knew what they are doing is illegal, that is why we call them criminals (im sure they would be shaking if we banned guns, only shaking with angst to know they have virtually no chance of getting killed for entering into a persons home)
Your Idea is virtually identical to the US drug war, thats worked great hasn't it? Lets ban guns like drugs so only drug dealers and illegal gun dealers make that enourmous mark up in price, we dont want them to be criminals but rich criminals at that. Makes perfect sense to me. Even the far left wing has changed thier mind on a complete ban of guns because they see what the drug war has created.

First of all, I am not suggesting repeal of the Second Amendment.

Secondly a lack of legal guns would eventually result in the reduction of the guns that were not turned in, as all those who keep them would be criminals per se and as most criminals are not smart enough to go uncaught. The fact that they have guns and guns tend to draw attention would increase their tendency to get caught. Guns also cannot be produced or smuggled as easily as drugs can. Finally, the prohibition against guns themselves, as opposed to other prohibitions such as alcohol and other drugs, prostitution, loansharking, etc. whose violators use easily available guns to commit their crimes, would greatly reduce, although you are correct not wholey eliminate, those very guns themselves, making all crimes easier to prosecute. There is no reason to believe that should we outlaw guns, which I do not advocate, we would not enjoy low levels of violent crime comparable to Britain or Japan.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"If someone tries to kill me with a gun he has a pretty good chance of succeeding if I am unarmed and he is close but not in arm's reach. If he tries to kill me with a knife and I am unarmed he has a better than even chance of succeeding, but less that if he had a gun. If he tries to kill me with his bare hands, all else being equal, he will have something like a 50% chance of success."

Actually studies have shown and you would be taught this if you have had military or police training or any kind of small arms training what so ever, that a assailent with a knife can overtake a unarmed person within 21 feet, better than if the assailant was armed with a gun. Reason being, is it takes in police studies a person up to that 21 feet to draw a gun and hit a target accuratly, Anotherwards a knife within 21 feet is more dangerous than a gun assuming the gun is down at the persons side or holstered.

If I have small arms training so what if I don't also have a gun. I am talking about the so-overused saying that a criminal can kill you with or without a gun. You could also quote at what distance an unarmed person is "more dangerous".

If the guy is in arm's reach I personally would rather have him armed with a gun than with a knife. Why? The first thing I will do is try to take control of his weapon arm, obviously with the ultimate intent of disarming him. I will hopefully close to within his arm's length and if I am successful in grappling him I can probably keep the gun pointed away from me. Then I will try to take it from him, or if I have been sufficiently successful to take him down with an arm lock that will direct the barrel of his gun at his own head. If he is using a knife it will be easier for him to slash at me with its edge, even if he cannot thrust it into me, and it will be harder for me to control the weapon itself because it has sharp edges. Yeah I'm probably stupid to prefer a gun, and it goes against my point...

All of this assumes that I am unarmed, btw. If the guy with the gun is 21 feet away he does not need to close in order to shoot me, so I'd rather he had a knife, so I could prepare. I don't know anything about the police studies that you refer to but it sounds to me like they assume, since you mention "any kind of small arms training what so ever", that the target is also armed with a gun. If I have a gun, yeah, the guy with the knife is more dangerous if he is close enough to close before I can draw, since he can come to within the range of my firing arm and try to stick to me as he stabs me.

You know what? I would still rather he was unarmed. "A criminal can kill you with or without a weapon". Well yeah. but he will have a better chance of success with one. And that's a pretty defeatist attitude anyway.

Druthulhu wrote :>

"(This reminds me of the one thing I have against the N.R.A.: they have done NOTHING to restore my right to aquire and use fissionable materials."

National rifle association= small arms, not CBR related material, even though I don't support the NRA much anymore, you still need to have some facts, instead of emotion. Now that we understand that there is no way to ever rid the world of every gun, especially through a ban, cause criminals just don't listen no matter how nice you ask them. That is why we will forever continue to fight fire with fire, gun to gun no matter how the criminal intends to use a law against the law abiding citizen.

I need to have some facts and you need to recognize sarcasm. ;) Anyway they are the most gung-ho about the Second Amendment, but they still don't give a shit about my right to own W.M.D.s. THEY HAVE BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION!!!

i'd love it if guns were legal, so long as everyone that wanted to use one against another living thing was shot.

Guns ARE legal you moron! Read a f-u-cking book and learn something about the country you live in before you make statements about it.

What about the elderly, the weak, the small, etc, those who cannot fight back?

'Swhy I said "all else being equal". If a small weak elderly guy tries to strangle me, it's even easier. ;) In fact, since he's unarmed, I can probably save myself without hurting him.

The only people in favor of gun laws are strong criminals, because they realize guns are the great equalizer!

So all of the families of the victims of gun crimes, those that want better gun laws, and those that support them, are "strong criminals"? Only "strong criminals" want guns to be "well regulated"?

In a district of Baltimore in the late 1800s, a criminal gang sponsored a candidate for elections. There was a certain district of this city where they did most of their muggings and robberies, but the people started carrying guns. So the gang lobbied for a gun ban on this district for "public safety", needless to say, they got the ban, and crime went through the roof.

A single district in a single city governed by mob puppets and without the backing of a strong federal government tried unsuccessfully to ban guns. What a shock it didn't work! But that's moot in comparison to a nation wide ban backed up by the F.B.I.



Before posting anything else, please reread my first posts in this thread and remember my position on the Second Amendment. All I am saying now is that I am sick of hearing that it's just as easy to kill someone with bare hands as it is with a gun. That's just total bullshit.

Guns ARE legal you moron! Read a f-u-cking book and learn something about the country you live in before you make statements about it.

Has it been confirmed that that poster is a U.S. citizen? Or are you just being an ass?

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/leftovers/showpics.cgi?americas_original_homeland_security

Someone who does not understand American case law wrote ;-):>

"Please read the title of this thread and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. "...the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Some of the U.S. Code that has been quoted sounds like it requires a mandatory draft of sorts and obligatory gun ownership. At the very least, in the conditions that we now live in, it places the government in the position of regulating well those who are armed."

Well regulated by your definition is a completly new idea, I recommend you to keep pushing this idea and see how many liberal or conservative judges will agree with you, cause as of yet there is a big fat 0......It makes no different what kind of world you live in, you still have to abide by the law and not make up your own, unless your a legislator. Iv'e refered many times the articles in our federalst papers and cosntitution that show that the governement has no jurisdiction over the states except in national defense, When the federal government tries to regulate a state in every case in history it will refer to a small paragraph the 3rd from last , last sentence in the concluding remarks of the federalist papers written by alexander hamilton. Read it.. know it... then try to change it.... its not my fault its thier just my duty to make sure it remains. Anotherwards if you want to ban any firearms or anything at all you better get 2/3 of the states to back you until then keep trying.

Then they wrote:>

"Secondly a lack of legal guns would eventually result in the reduction of the guns that were not turned in, as all those who keep them would be criminals per se and as most criminals are not smart enough to go uncaught."

Ok now why didnt you just come out and say this before. If the USA was under your dictatorship you would have faith in the criminal to "not be smart enough to go uncaught" over having faith in the law abiding citizen to protect themselves with a legal gun. See how much sense this makes?


.

Someone who does not understand American case law wrote ;-):>

"Please read the title of this thread and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. "...the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Some of the U.S. Code that has been quoted sounds like it requires a mandatory draft of sorts and obligatory gun ownership. At the very least, in the conditions that we now live in, it places the government in the position of regulating well those who are armed."

Well regulated by your definition is a completly new idea,

Really? Gun registration is a completely new idea? Keeping heavy military weaponry out of people's hands is too? Hey what do I know? I thought we already had it. Or is it balistic fingerprinting that's a new idea? Maybe... it just came to me after I heard about that awful shooting in that school in Columbine just yesterday.

I recommend you to keep pushing this idea and see how many liberal or conservative judges will agree with you, cause as of yet there is a big fat 0......It makes no different what kind of world you live in, you still have to abide by the law and not make up your own, unless your a legislator. Iv'e refered many times the articles in our federalst papers and cosntitution that show that the governement has no jurisdiction over the states except in national defense, When the federal government tries to regulate a state in every case in history it will refer to a small paragraph the 3rd from last , last sentence in the concluding remarks of the federalist papers written by alexander hamilton. Read it.. know it... then try to change it.... its not my fault its thier just my duty to make sure it remains. Anotherwards if you want to ban any firearms or anything at all you better get 2/3 of the states to back you until then keep trying.

Read it. Did you bother to take my advice and read my first posts to this thread?

Then they wrote:>

"Secondly a lack of legal guns would eventually result in the reduction of the guns that were not turned in, as all those who keep them would be criminals per se and as most criminals are not smart enough to go uncaught."

Ok now why didnt you just come out and say this before. If the USA was under your dictatorship you would have faith in the criminal to "not be smart enough to go uncaught" over having faith in the law abiding citizen to protect themselves with a legal gun. See how much sense this makes?


.

Again, reread my first posts before you start saying what things would be like "under [my] dictatorship".

Yeah your right, though... if we did outlaw guns our city streets would be ruled by well armed gangsta gangs, just like the streets of Tokyo and London. :rolleyes: Oh, wait... they don't have that problem, do they?

Someone that does not know anything about american case law wrote:>

"Really? Gun registration is a completely new idea? Keeping heavy military weaponry out of people's hands is too? Hey what do I know? I thought we already had it. Or is it balistic fingerprinting that's a new idea? Maybe... it just came to me after I heard about that awful shooting in that school in Columbine just yesterday."

Your idea that well regulated in the second ammendment has anything to do with reulating the gun it self is a new idea, find one case study in USA history to back this up.... iv'e been waiting... Keeping heavy military weaponry out of peoples hands? So I can not go buy a fully automatic 50 cal. or a M16-A1 or A2? Yes I can and so can any law abiding american, If you obey the law you can get a class III license. You can also get explosives of an aray of flavors! On top of that I can go into any gun store in my state (as well as any other law abiding american) and buy a ak-47 or a ar-15 or any other semi automatic weapon with an instant background check all the while I am carrying my 357 J frame in my front pocket, all legal. In fact just talking to you today reminds me that I need to get another FN-Fal...

Something that you are not getting is that even ballistic fingerprinting is only in the few states that choose to do so through the vote of thier populace, now if 2/3 of our states decide that is the right direction someday then so be it, but until then stay in reality.

listen you can not polish a terd, so quit trying to polish the untruths that have no history of ever happening in this country. Dude be real lol

someone wrote:>

"Yeah your right, though... if we did outlaw guns our city streets would be ruled by well armed gangsta gangs, just like the streets of Tokyo and London. Oh, wait... they don't have that problem, do they?"

Did the USA just all of a sudden become the same country as japan and england? You dont have alot of freedoms that America has, get over it or change it. Gangs in the US are no doubt a problem for the US, but please do this ...move away from the few cities in california and new york and tell me how much gang activity there is, this is a demographic problem within a city and state.

I better watch out or the oregon and 48 other state bloods and crips might come after me LMAO.... get over it... gangs suck I am in agreeance with you there m8, outside of that it is obvious that you are unwilling to understand American law, until you bring facts that support an argument of taking away a freedom from Americans (even freedoms I disagree with) it sounds like this.....blah...blah....blah...blah... All i am asking for is the truth back by more truth, not feelings backed by more feelings.

Gun crime would go down to levels comparible with Britain, Japan, etc.


Britain? Wow, that's pretty spooky.

According to the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, in the year 1999, England's violent crime rate per 100,000 citizens was higher than the U.S.'s!

http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf

Britain? Wow, that's pretty spooky.

According to the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, in the year 1999, England's violent crime rate per 100,000 citizens was higher than the U.S.'s!

http://www.undcp.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf


Gun crime goes down because there are fewer accidents to be counted as crime. But then you just see the strongest people preying on the elderly, youthful, sickly, and weak. You see the muscular men able to rob the wheelchair bound.

A woman with a whistle and a set of keys is no match for two big men who are intent on raping her.

Guns are necessary because they equalize.

Someone that does not know anything about american case law wrote:>

"Really? Gun registration is a completely new idea? Keeping heavy military weaponry out of people's hands is too? Hey what do I know? I thought we already had it. Or is it balistic fingerprinting that's a new idea? Maybe... it just came to me after I heard about that awful shooting in that school in Columbine just yesterday."

Your idea that well regulated in the second ammendment has anything to do with reulating the gun it self is a new idea, find one case study in USA history to back this up.... iv'e been waiting... Keeping heavy military weaponry out of peoples hands? So I can not go buy a fully automatic 50 cal. or a M16-A1 or A2? Yes I can and so can any law abiding american, If you obey the law you can get a class III license. You can also get explosives of an aray of flavors! On top of that I can go into any gun store in my state (as well as any other law abiding american) and buy a ak-47 or a ar-15 or any other semi automatic weapon with an instant background check all the while I am carrying my 357 J frame in my front pocket, all legal. In fact just talking to you today reminds me that I need to get another FN-Fal...

1) When did I say anything about anything that would require me to back it up with case precedent? Never to my knowledge. I have offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is in keeping with both its wording and what we know of its intent. I have never stated that this is how things are done, and have in fact called certain existing gun control laws infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

2) Did the well regulated militias of colonial times keep enrollment records that listed the guns and ammunition owned by each member? Yes, they did. It wasn't my idea.

3) Has gun registration been proposed, and legislated, and enforced, in modern America, or is it a new idea? Yes it has, it is not a new idea, nor was it my idea, nor is it an idea that only I support.

4) Has any form of assault weapon ban been proposed, and legislated, and enforced, in modern America? Yes it has, it is not a new idea, nor was it my idea, nor is it an idea that only I support, nor is it even an idea that I do support when it comes to equipment available to the F.B.I., A.T.F., etc. It's the reason you got that 357 J frame, remember? It is not some novel pipe dream of my own invention.

However the principle of allowing the citizenry access to any armaments used by any of the forces that directly govern them is, as a legal principle, as far as I know my own idea (although it is in keeping with the framers' stated intent). So? Did I ever say that this idea was backed up by case law? No, I did not. But you might want to consider that the principle of allowing you the same level of weaponry that those who police you have access too is in increase in your liberties. For example, whether by law or by corporate choice the Bushmaster AR15 16" A3 Carbine LE cannot be purchased without a written request on a governmental law enforcement orginization's supervisor's letterhead.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/le_howto.html

Am I saying that this is how it should be? No. I am not. My crazy whacky hair-brained idea would change that, though. Bad idea? Do you want the cops, their S.W.A.T. teams, the F.B.I., the A.T.F., any military troops depolyed on American soil under the Posse Comitatus Act, etc. to have the power to come after you using weapons and other equipment that you as an American citizen are not allowed to have? Personally I do not. If you wish to argue that those who police us should have superior firepower, be my guest. Or if you want to argue that private citizens should have access to the full arsenel of our military's equipment, go right ahead as well. When do I get my plutonium?

5) it sounds to me like you are saying that you practice the illegal conversion of semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. Please tell us your name and where you live, so we can inform the proper authorities. BTW you can buy a machinegun manufactured before May 1986. Go for it, buckaroo. Just remember to pay your taxes and arrive at court if and whenever ordered to as you pile up your killpower. Also I'd be very careful if I were you and I became interested in polygamy or cult foundation.

Is this the way I think things should be? I never said that either, so read it again and don't even bother to go there.

Something that you are not getting is that even ballistic fingerprinting is only in the few states that choose to do so through the vote of thier populace, now if 2/3 of our states decide that is the right direction someday then so be it, but until then stay in reality.

There are three more things you are not getting:

First you've just further demonstrated that my ideas are not my own invention, by refering to the legal precedent of balistic fingerprinting in a few states.

Second what I am talking about is clarification and specification of the Second Amendment that would not require any constitutional amendments, for the sum of the following reasons:

...a) gun registration, as shown by the history of the practice of enrollment lists of weapons, ammo and owners in colonial times, is not an ingfringement on any liberties that were enjoyed at the time that the highest U.S. laws were written. Nor is balistic fingerprinting;

...b) prohibiting the private ownership of weapons that did not exist yet at the time of writing is technically not an infringement on those rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment. It may be argued to be so in principle, but for that argument we must revisit the associated private writings of the framers;

...c) we can read those writings (b) and we know that our framers were concerned with the ability of the people to defend themselves against tyranny;

...d) we know that at the time of writing the highest police force in the land was the army, since this was prior to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Until recently it was the F.B.I. and now it is the H.S.D.;

...e) there is a long-standing precedent in constitutional law called "Compelling State Interest" which can be used to negate contitutional rights in certain specific situations. Most notable examples are freedom of speach (false emergency, incitement to crime, slander, state secrets, etc.) and freedom of religion (child marriage, human sacrifice, polygamy, stoning, etc.);

...f) Compelling State Interest keeps me from being legally allowed to own plutonium, anthrax precursors, ricin, an Abrams tank, S.C.U.D. missiles, and a number of other things (dagnabbit! :( ). Whether you agree that it should or not, clearly there is precedence;

...g) allowing citizens the same firepower as the cops have to use against them is in keeping with the framers' stated intent that the people should have access to the tools needed to overthrow tyranny. Yes it would be even easier with military firepower, but Compelling State Interest has to come into play somewhere if we don't want the local crack gangs getting ahold of daisy cutters.

Third you speak as if I have said that the laws &/or legal precedents are in place for exactly the solution I envision. I have not said that ever.


listen you can not polish a terd, so quit trying to polish the untruths that have no history of ever happening in this country. Dude be real lol

Stop arguing against what you wish I had said lol, reread what I have actually said lol, and understand that I am making an interpretation of the wording and intent of the Second Amendment lol without changing the Amendment itself lol and have never said that it has ever been practically done this way lol or that there is legal precedent for all of my suggestions lol all I am saying is that this is in keeping with the wording and underlying principles lol of the Second Amendment itself lol lol foomcrotflmao&pimp.

What the flying fuck is the matter with you? Can't you fucking read? What "untruths" have I stated?

The probblem is not whether or not the Second Ammendment is to be kept but what is the proper interpretation of it.

In colonial times a "well regulated militia" contained an enrollment, a list of names of people who owned weapons and what weapons they owned*. Total gun registration and ballistic fingerprinting are totally in keeping with the meaning of this law when taken in context with the times in which it was written. None of our founding fathers, AFAIK, were in favour of laws to allow people to fire anonymously or to keep their armament a secret.

Also aside from the militia, there were no police, only an army. This was prior to the Posse Commitates Act(sp?), so the people were essentially policed by a standing army under the British, followed by the American Army*** (although when there was not social unrest the local citizen militia was usually sufficient). In keeping with the conditions of the time in which the law was written, and in knowledge of the horrifying advances of military technology that the framers could hardly have forseen, I would interpret it thus: there is a compelling state interest** to keep large scale modern military weapons off the streets, but at the same time, whatever weaponry (and armour) can be used by those government agents who are directly governing us (police), we have the right to have the same level of weaponry*.

We also have a compelling state interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously insane**. However a five day waiting period is not really needed in the 21st century. Really with the proper hardware five minutes is more than needed.

We also have the right to carry weapons anywhere, barring ligitimate security concerns (courtrooms, schools, etc.)**. Back in the day a musket could hardly be concealed, so it is not an infringement on the original terms to require special licencing for concealed carrying*. However a musket could be carried in arm's reach in a buggy, so those laws that prohibit weaponry within reach of the passenger area in a car are infringements. And to borrow from a well worn N.R.A. tactic: who do such laws effect? Is the bank robber or car jacker or drug dealer going to stash his weapons in the trunk before he drives off? No, but the law-abiding citizen cannot defend himself from the carjacker, because our well-armed cops are afraid that he will kill them over a speeding ticket.

* historical precedent

** legal precedent

*** correction :eep: the Colonial Army.

Would you rather be there when an unarmed woman was raped and nobody did anything?

Honestly, how often does that happen? Why think of stupid hypothetical situations? Seriously, where would the rape be occuring that someone can actually be carrying a gun?

Someone that does not know anything about american case law wrote:>

") When did I say anything about anything that would require me to back it up with case precedent? Never to my knowledge. I have offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is in keeping with both its wording and what we know of its intent. I have never stated that this is how things are done, and have in fact called certain existing gun control laws infringements on our Second Amendment rights."


Your offering a interpretation of our second ammendment means as much as nothing more than an opinion that has no case law backing it. Therfore complete hogwash drivel opinion, you and I can have these, but means absolutly nothing according to law. So what?

then they wrote:>
" Did the well regulated militias of colonial times keep enrollment records that listed the guns and ammunition owned by each member? Yes, they did. It wasn't my idea."


:) PLEASE show all of us an example of this record you moron! LMAO!! Did you think they were registering thier single shot muskets to be sure that they did in deed have a single shot musket? There is no record what so ever on the arms they were carrying, only the muster of the able bodied male. Present or UA. Anotherwards this is in deed your idea. LMAO


Then they wrote:>

") Has gun registration been proposed, and legislated, and enforced, in modern America, or is it a new idea? Yes it has, it is not a new idea, nor was it my idea, nor is it an idea that only I support."


No shit shirlock? Nobody denies that there is a such thing as gun control,just not any one instance of the controls you are saying are happening outside of 1 or 2 states out of 50 doing this ballistic fingerprinting. So what, you got 48 more to go, so in about another 225 years I'll check back with you to see if you finally made the 2/3 required to make it mandatory for all.


Then they wrote:>

") Has any form of assault weapon ban been proposed, and legislated, and enforced, in modern America? Yes it has, it is not a new idea, nor was it my idea, nor is it an idea that only I support, nor is it even an idea that I do support when it comes to equipment available to the F.B.I., A.T.F., etc. It's the reason you got that 357 J frame, remember? It is not some novel pipe dream of my own invention."


? Assualt weapon ban only banned the future manufacture of these weapons that meet more than 2characteristics, therefore there is still millions upon millions of these guns in law abiding Americans homes as we speak. The reason I got my 357 J frame is because its a perfect conceal carry weapon, unless there is some premonintion you have that can explain another reason? Please share


They then wrote:>

"However the principle of allowing the citizenry access to any armaments used by any of the forces that directly govern them is, as a legal principle, as far as I know my own idea (although it is in keeping with the framers' stated intent). So? Did I ever say that this idea was backed up by case law? No, I did not. But you might want to consider that the principle of allowing you the same level of weaponry that those who police you have access too is in increase in your liberties. For example, whether by law or by corporate choice the Bushmaster AR15 16" A3 Carbine LE cannot be purchased without a written request on a governmental law enforcement orginization's supervisor's letterhead."

These are brand spankin new bushmasters, you can go right into any gun store here in Oregon or gun show and walk right out with a bushmaster ar15 16" that was produced prior to 94 and go on your marry way.


Then they wrote:>

"Am I saying that this is how it should be? No. I am not. My crazy whacky hair-brained idea would change that, though. Bad idea? Do you want the cops, their S.W.A.T. teams, the F.B.I., the A.T.F., any military troops depolyed on American soil under the Posse Comitatus Act, etc. to have the power to come after you using weapons and other equipment that you as an American citizen are not allowed to have? Personally I do not. If you wish to argue that those who police us should have superior firepower, be my guest. Or if you want to argue that private citizens should have access to the full arsenel of our military's equipment, go right ahead as well. When do I get my plutonium?"

Do you not get that with a class III permit you can have the same toys? You can buy an apache helicopter gun ship (if you can afford one) Do you not get that if you are a law abiding American and you choose to get a class III weapons permit then you can have just about any conventional weapon made on earth. Change that law if you do not like it, but do not make up false hoods.

they then wrote:>

") it sounds to me like you are saying that you practice the illegal conversion of semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. Please tell us your name and where you live, so we can inform the proper authorities. BTW you can buy a machinegun manufactured before May 1986. Go for it, buckaroo. Just remember to pay your taxes and arrive at court if and whenever ordered to as you pile up your killpower. Also I'd be very careful if I were you and I became interested in polygamy or cult foundation."

LMAO!
Illegal? Are you smoking a crack pipe right now? With a federal class III firearms permit you can have fully automatic machine guns, do you understand that? When I speak of nursery fire to make a semi-auto apear to be shooting fully auto I am talking of doing something with any semi-auto with no new additions other than your finger on the trigger, you really are that dumb? The last sentence you made makes absolutly no sense what so ever, cult and polygamy, why do I care if you are a member or practice such
acts? Thats your private life and I want no part of that.

The ballistic fingerprinting is now your idea? You made this up? I was speaking of your interpretation of our second ammendment, that is all it is, is your interpretation, so what, they are words, your words, meaningless words.

they then wrote:>

"..a) gun registration, as shown by the history of the practice of enrollment lists of weapons, ammo and owners in colonial times, is not an ingfringement on any liberties that were enjoyed at the time that the highest U.S. laws were written. Nor is balistic fingerprinting;"

LMAO please show us the registration of anything other than the muster sheets of the malitia personel, Quit making this up as you go and please draw up these imaginary muster sheets that also included the weapon, B E,R E A L

then they wrote:>

"..b) prohibiting the private ownership of weapons that did not exist yet at the time of writing is technically not an infringement on those rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment. It may be argued to be so in principle, but for that argument we must revisit the associated private writings of the framers;"

These are called the federalist papers, please refer to them when you want to find out an interpretation of our Constitution instead of your tv show star trek.

then they wrote:>
"..c) we can read those writings (b) and we know that our framers were concerned with the ability of the people to defend themselves against tyranny;"

Bravo! bravo! You have yet found an answer, your not as dumb as you sound.


Then they wrote:>

"..f) Compelling State Interest keeps me from being legally allowed to own plutonium, anthrax precursors, ricin, an Abrams tank, S.C.U.D. missiles, and a number of other things (dagnabbit! ). Whether you agree that it should or not, clearly there is precedence;"

Again ricin beans are not illegal and you can own a Abrams tank as well as a cobra or apache or many other military vehicles,including our jet fighters and then place a 50 cal on them also (assuming you aquire a class III permit)
The idea that you should also be allowed to own CBR class warfare weapons, is beyond any individual status and belongs solely to the nature of a country.

Then they wrote:>

"Third you speak as if I have said that the laws &/or legal precedents are in place for exactly the solution I envision. I have not said that ever."

This I will concede to you, that I did think you were trying to interpret a past case law differently than what was ruled and trying to put it off as more than just your interpretation. Therfore you are right, you are allowed to interpret anything ,anyway you like, it just doesnt make it any more law than my own interpretation, the only interpretations that matter are the ones that legal scholors go off of, not ours.

G'day m8 and have a merry life, We all are allowed opinions in legal matters but its our judges,legislators and for constitutional purposes 2/3 of our states opinions that actually matters

Honestly, how often does that happen? Why think of stupid hypothetical situations? Seriously, where would the rape be occuring that someone can actually be carrying a gun?


A lot of rapes occur in the late hours of the night, early hours of the morning in public areas.

Low Reading Comprehension Guy -

You have said that I would get 0 support for my ideas and also

Well regulated by your definition is a completly new idea,

that such things as I suggest have sprung anew from my own head with no support from anything in the past.

The things I have suggested are:

1) firearms registration, which is already the law of the land and therefor is not a new idea of my own invention. I am currently looking up certain items to cite, as you have requested, the history of gun registration in the regulation of the colonial militias;

2) balistic fingerprinting, which no matter how few the states that have enacted it are is still not an idea I am making up;

3) restriction of firearms from violent criminals and the insane, again, not my own personal pipe dream;

4) freedom to own any weaponry available to the government, which you may well enjoy in your own (unnamed?) state but which not all Americans currently do (by the way are you licensed to privately own an I.C.B.M.? No? I didn't think you were). This goes right to the heart of the legal principle as described in the writings of our founding fathers: that the people should be free to possess the means to overthrow tyranny. Also not my idea. Now, you can try to look smart by demanding I quote them, but we all know they're there, we've all seen them quoted numerous times elsewhere, so if you want me to dig them up, fine, but don't delude yourself that it makes you look more or me look less intelligent.

The only matter that could possibly be called a new idea is that, although Compelling State Interest keeps us from having our own nukes and such, we should at least be guaranteed whatever weapons the state and federal forces who police us have access too. In your state, you are ... well, at least you have access to their functional equivalents, right? That you cannot buy an AR15 16" A3 Carbine LE is no skin off of your nose because you can buy an AR15 16" manufactured before 1994. Great. Glad to see you're so willing to give up an "inconsequencial" right. In other states, Americans cannot even do that. Your own satisfaction with leaving such matters a states' rights issue is looking the other way at an infringement of Second Amendment rights. Many of your fellow countrymen are currently denied the right to own weapons that those entrusted with policing them are equiped with, even 10 year old models.

Oh btw if we ever do have to overthrow a true tyranny of our own governnment on our own soil, you'll wish you had been allowed to aquire C.B.R. class warfare weapons, won't you? And castor beans are legal. Ricin is not... is it? I leave it to your no doubt highly educated in such matters self.

5) concealed carry laws are not an infringement since muskets could not have been concealed on a person the way that modern firearms can be. Concealed carry laws are in place in various places so although I am unaware of whether or not my rationale has been used in precedent it is clearly also not a novel new idea of mine to outlaw or regulate concealed carry.

6) unless someone can show me a precedent of not allowing weapons within reach of the driver or passengers of a moving conveyance that dates back to the days of the Continental Congress, forbidding such is an infringement. Is this a new idea? Only if there were no N.R.A. types fighting the laws we now have, whether state or otherwise, that forbid it. In fact, forbidding it is the new idea.



OK, here ya go: http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.html#DEMilitiaLaws

Since most of the colonial militia were compulsory, the laws of that time required an accounting not of weapons owned beyond the requirements of the law but rather an accounting to ensure that all members possesed the minimum of weaponry as required by law. There were also restrictions in the laws of certain of the colonies as to who could even be allowed to own arms, prohibitting them to Blacks, slaves and indentured servents, Native Americans, heretics, those refusing loyalty oaths, etc. At your leave, sirrah, I continue to look for evidence that records kept track of all guns owned, not merely those owned up to the minimum required.

This I will concede to you, that I did think you were trying to interpret a past case law differently than what was ruled and trying to put it off as more than just your interpretation.

Apology accepted. Moron.

Therfore you are right, you are allowed to interpret anything ,anyway you like,
Wow! You're conversent in the First Amendment too!
it just doesnt make it any more law than my own interpretation, the only interpretations that matter are the ones that legal scholors go off of, not ours.

Wrong again. My interpretations, my opinions, matter, as do yours. As far as the law is concerned it is the interpretation of presiding judges that matters, not that of legal scholars. However since certain laws and rulings, tacit or active, on those laws currently, as I have pointed out in my interpretation and opinion, infringe upon our Second Amendment rights, I have pointed that out.

The purpose of these forums is to discuss different opinions. If after all of your crap you are saying that it comes down to the fact that what I am saying is my own opinion.... CONGRATULATIONS!!! You have taken the first step into a brave new world of reading comprehension. What wonders now await you!



P.S.: you bought the flat because you could not buy the weapon with an installed flat plus another already-installed feature, or someother such legal prohibition, didn't you? Really, "m8", how well DID you do on your S.A.T. verbals? :rolleyes:

I'm opposed to all violence, but I realize that it takes government violence to stop the ownership of guns.

I'm opposed to all violence, but I realize that it takes government violence to stop the ownership of guns.

So you advocate government violence to infringe upon Second Amendment rights? Don't you realize that this is the very sort of tyranny that our founding fathers wrote that Amendment to allow us to protect ourselves from?

Hey Low Reading Comprehension Guy, wouldn't your antics be better directed against this poster?

----") firearms registration, which is already the law of the land and therefor is not a new idea of my own invention. I am currently looking up certain items to cite, as you have requested, the history of gun registration in the regulation of the colonial militias;"

Not the law of the land, the NICS system is required to dispose of all records within a 30 day period (actually I think bush changed to to even less now *EDIT* Now it is within 24 hours)
The registration of guns in a malitia is a falsehood you made up, it was a muster of the individual for a attendance purposes only. Now they did require under provisional acts that they did place a minumum standards on the weapon to be used, and if they did not have the specified equipment, the governor could arm them with weapons that fit that bill.

----"2) balistic fingerprinting, which no matter how few the states that have enacted it are is still not an idea I am making up;"

Nope not a new idea, just an idea that hasn't caught on I guess.

----"3) restriction of firearms from violent criminals and the insane, again, not my own personal pipe dream;"

Nope an actual common sense restriction.

----"4) freedom to own any weaponry available to the government, which you may well enjoy in your own (unnamed?) state but which not all Americans currently do (by the way are you licensed to privately own an I.C.B.M.? No? I didn't think you were). This goes right to the heart of the legal principle as described in the writings of our founding fathers: that the people should be free to possess the means to overthrow tyranny. Also not my idea. Now, you can try to look smart by demanding I quote them, but we all know they're there, we've all seen them quoted numerous times elsewhere, so if you want me to dig them up, fine, but don't delude yourself that it makes you look more or me look less intelligent."

I have said it over a dozen times O R Y G U N :) Again you can be a resident of any of the 50 states and aquire a federal class III permit and then become a endorsed dealer to our police,swat and military as long as you are not some crazy loon that thinks about overthrowing thier government.

----"The only matter that could possibly be called a new idea is that, although Compelling State Interest keeps us from having our own nukes and such, we should at least be guaranteed whatever weapons the state and federal forces who police us have access too. In your state, you are ... well, at least you have access to their functional equivalents, right? That you cannot buy an AR15 16" A3 Carbine LE is no skin off of your nose because you can buy an AR15 16" manufactured before 1994. Great. Glad to see you're so willing to give up an "inconsequencial" right. In other states, Americans cannot even do that. Your own satisfaction with leaving such matters a states' rights issue is looking the other way at an infringement of Second Amendment rights. Many of your fellow countrymen are currently denied the right to own weapons that those entrusted with policing them are equiped with, even 10 year old models."

You are obviously a loon, because I will tell you one more time, if you could pass a background check, then you could get a class III permit, that includes having the ability to go anywhere on the net and purchasing the AR15 16" A3 C Law enforcement model delivered to your doorstep in less than a week.

----"Oh btw if we ever do have to overthrow a true tyranny of our own governnment on our own soil, you'll wish you had been allowed to aquire C.B.R. class warfare weapons, won't you? And castor beans are legal. Ricin is not... is it? I leave it to your no doubt highly educated in such matters self."

No I wouldn't you jack ass nor would our government want to use it upon any fellow American, regardless of the circumstances. I was a CBR Decon instructor for two and half years in my battalion, and you would actually want to use such weaponry on any living creature? Do I need to make a call for not only your safety but your neighbors? Are you really that fucked up?

----"5) concealed carry laws are not an infringement since muskets could not have been concealed on a person the way that modern firearms can be. Concealed carry laws are in place in various places so although I am unaware of whether or not my rationale has been used in precedent it is clearly also not a novel new idea of mine to outlaw or regulate concealed carry."

35 states have open conceal carry laws for our law abiding citizens, and some states require a 4 hour NRA class for basic knowledge ensurement. Whatever the state decides is cool with me, because shall not be infringed can be construed to both extremes, as California and New york and Oregon and Vermont have proven.

----"6) unless someone can show me a precedent of not allowing weapons within reach of the driver or passengers of a moving conveyance that dates back to the days of the Continental Congress, forbidding such is an infringement. Is this a new idea? Only if there were no N.R.A. types fighting the laws we now have, whether state or otherwise, that forbid it. In fact, forbidding it is the new idea."

I know here in Oregon I can drive anywhere in the state with the gun on my body or anywhere in my vehicle.

----"OK, here ya go: http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary.html#DEMilitiaLaws
Since most of the colonial militia were compulsory, the laws of that time required an accounting not of weapons owned beyond the requirements of the law but rather an accounting to ensure that all members possesed the minimum of weaponry as required by law. There were also restrictions in the laws of certain of the colonies as to who could even be allowed to own arms, prohibitting them to Blacks, slaves and indentured servents, Native Americans, heretics, those refusing loyalty oaths, etc. At your leave, sirrah, I continue to look for evidence that records kept track of all guns owned, not merely those owned up to the minimum required."

Ahh you found the truth, good job man.

----"wrong again. My interpretations, my opinions, matter, as do yours. As far as the law is concerned it is the interpretation of presiding judges that matters, not that of legal scholars. However since certain laws and rulings, tacit or active, on those laws currently, as I have pointed out in my interpretation and opinion, infringe upon our Second Amendment rights, I have pointed that out."

O K so our judges dont utilize anyone for clarification findings? Possibly legal scholars? Possibly Constitutional legal scholars? Couldn't be

:confused: 740 :confused: