NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to get me an AK-47, YeeeHaw!!!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I'll get a few thousand rounds for the next time they ban them again, but I'll be grandfathered in. Automatic weapons owner here!!!!

I'll shoot at all sort of stuff, like tree trunk, trash cans, old cars deserted in the virgin forests. Fill'em full of lead, till their dead!!!

Hmmmmm....there are lots of juicy targets protesting Republican conventions...be back later...I have an idea....

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I'm going to get me an AK-47, YeeeHaw!!!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I'll get a few thousand rounds for the next time they ban them again, but I'll be grandfathered in. Automatic weapons owner here!!!!

I'll shoot at all sort of stuff, like tree trunk, trash cans, old cars deserted in the virgin forests. Fill'em full of lead, till their dead!!!

Hmmmmm....there are lots of juicy targets protesting Republican conventions...be back later...I have an idea....

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Semi-autos not Autos.

But you are legally allowed to attach a Genade Launcher to your gun now.
Previously this was illegal...

Sigh...

Semi-autos not Autos.

But you are legally allowed to attach a Genade Launcher to your gun now.
Previously this was illegal...

Sigh...

well, the grenade launcher is still illegal

well, the grenade launcher is still illegal
I'm not sure, couldn't a NRA person argue that since ban is lifted that might allow the launcher?
Hard case but possible.

The common misconception is that we can all now go out and by an AK. The fact is, we've always been able to do that with a class three liscense. The assault ban really is a ban on cosmetic parts of a gun (collapsable stock, silencer, etc.), as well as we can know purchase 15 instead of ten round magazines. The best thing I can advise anyone to do is to read the actual gun ban itself, and see the what is legal. For example, you can by a GL for a gun, but it cant be more than 40mm, and it can only fire flares and illumination rounds.

Semi-autos not Autos.

But you are legally allowed to attach a Genade Launcher to your gun now.
Previously this was illegal...

Sigh...

Actually, you could have a grenade launcher or a bayonet mount, but not both.

Um BastardSword, do you even know what the Ban eliminated? It got rid of "Scary and Violent" features like folding stocks, big clips, and front grips, Not Grenade launchers. If you are gonna post on a topic, know what you are talking about 1st. Any grenade Launcher that you might have out on your Gun was already legal as they banned any of them made after 1986 from being privatly owned and the Assault Rifle Ban did not go into effect untill 1994, and only on Guns and parts made after 1994.

I'm going to get me an AK-47, YeeeHaw!!!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I'll get a few thousand rounds for the next time they ban them again, but I'll be grandfathered in. Automatic weapons owner here!!!!

I'll shoot at all sort of stuff, like tree trunk, trash cans, old cars deserted in the virgin forests. Fill'em full of lead, till their dead!!!

Hmmmmm....there are lots of juicy targets protesting Republican conventions...be back later...I have an idea....

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
what are you? MADE of money?

Um BastardSword, do you even know what the Ban eliminated? It got rid of "Scary and Violent" features like folding stocks, big clips, and front grips, Not Grenade launchers. If you are gonna post on a topic, know what you are talking about 1st. Any grenade Launcher that you might have out on your Gun was already legal as they banned any of them made after 1986 from being privatly owned and the Assault Rifle Ban did not go into effect untill 1994, and only on Guns and parts made after 1994.
Ahem *cough Grenade was included Cough* I bolded part.

The semi auto assault wpn ban included (according to the law):
A) Any of the firearms or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber known as
i. Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalishnikovs (all models);
ii. Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
iii. Beretta Ar70 (SC70);
iv. Colt AR 15;
v. Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FN/FNC;
vi. SWD M10, M11, M11/9, M12;
vii. Steyr Aug;
viii. Intratec TEC9, TEC DC9, TEC 22; and
ix. Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and the Stryker 12;

B) A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable box magazine and has at least 2 of-
i. Folding or telescoping stock,
ii. Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
iii. Bayonet mount,
iv. Flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and
v. Grenade launcher;

C) A semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip,
ii. threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer,
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,
iv. manufacture weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

D) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-
i. folding or telescopic stock
ii. pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
iii. fixed magazine in excess of 5 rounds
iv. capability to accept a detachable magazine

Yes but as I said, that was a pointless clause as no new Grenade Launchers were going into public hands, the only ones that were there were ones that were made before 1986, thus grandfathered and acceptable for mounting under the Assault Rifle Ban.

Hey, this is great news!! Now if I get attacked by loads of criminals at once I can blow them all away in one go.

Semi-autos not Autos.

But you are legally allowed to attach a Genade Launcher to your gun now.
Previously this was illegal...

Sigh...

Yea there was so many people running around with gernades around here. Find any use in the US ever with this? Ever?

Also it is not a gernade launcher as in seperate of the FS. This multi-use FS can be made very quickly by any basic metal worker.

Ahem *cough Grenade was included Cough* I bolded part.

The semi auto assault wpn ban included (according to the law):
A) Any of the firearms or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber known as
i. Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalishnikovs (all models);
ii. Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
iii. Beretta Ar70 (SC70);
iv. Colt AR 15;
v. Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FN/FNC;
vi. SWD M10, M11, M11/9, M12;
vii. Steyr Aug;
viii. Intratec TEC9, TEC DC9, TEC 22; and
ix. Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and the Stryker 12;

B) A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable box magazine and has at least 2 of-
i. Folding or telescoping stock,
ii. Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
iii. Bayonet mount,
iv. Flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and
v. Grenade launcher;

C) A semiautomatic pistol that has a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip,
ii. threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer,
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,
iv. manufacture weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

D) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-
i. folding or telescopic stock
ii. pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
iii. fixed magazine in excess of 5 rounds
iv. capability to accept a detachable magazine


read it again CAREFULLY this time.

Take special note of B) A semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable box magazine and has at least 2 of-

above the part that mentions grenade launcher.

I'm still trying to figure out why the government would lift the ban. It makes no sense given their other recent actions, such as the patriot act.

I'm still trying to figure out why the government would lift the ban. It makes no sense given their other recent actions, such as the patriot act.

Because it is a hard thing to understand that they really want to protect America and each of our states and each of our lives if possible and practical.
They dont care about taking away any rights, they care about someone taking our lives. Heck they most likely are glad our law abiding citizens will have thier gunzz.

I'm still trying to figure out why the government would lift the ban. It makes no sense given their other recent actions, such as the patriot act.
the right realise if they let gun ntus have their guns they will let the right wing government get away with whatever the hell they want

Ok, we (right wing nuts) get to keep our guns, and you (left wing limpwrists) get to keep your lawyers and judges. That pretty much makes it a fair fight.

I'm in lol

They lifted the ban for a simple reason. It infringed on our rights, while doing absolutely nothing at all. If you look at real statists (FBI, BATF, DEA), gun crime was totally uneffected by the ban. People think this is going to lead to more crime, but it isnt. See, crime, being illegal, means that the weapon was obtained illegaly (at least by the criminal) so a ban on LEGAL wepons has no effect.

Further, for people like moi, who enjoy tactical shooting as a hobby, it makes life easier, and more fun. For people who enjoy collecting working military firearms (as many perfectly law abiding citizens do), it makes life easier and more fun. And again I state, its not the Bill of Needs, its not the Bill of Wants, its the Bill of Rights. Sure, I may not need a fully automatic M4 with a 15 round magaize, forward pistol grip, collapsable stock, and silencer, but if I have the money, and want one, then why not? It is my right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to own one.

However, will this ban lower crime, or stop it? No. A criminal is just as likely to rob a house that has a Beretta as he is a house that has a AK47. Afterall, he probably has illegaly attained one of these weapons as well. However, crime will NOT go up. Think about it. Are you gonna wanna kill a police officer with an MP5 registered in your name? I didn't think so.

They lifted the ban for a simple reason. It infringed on our rights, while doing absolutely nothing at all. If you look at real statists (FBI, BATF, DEA), gun crime was totally uneffected by the ban. People think this is going to lead to more crime, but it isnt. See, crime, being illegal, means that the weapon was obtained illegaly (at least by the criminal) so a ban on LEGAL wepons has no effect.

Further, for people like moi, who enjoy tactical shooting as a hobby, it makes life easier, and more fun. For people who enjoy collecting working military firearms (as many perfectly law abiding citizens do), it makes life easier and more fun. And again I state, its not the Bill of Needs, its not the Bill of Wants, its the Bill of Rights. Sure, I may not need a fully automatic M4 with a 15 round magaize, forward pistol grip, collapsable stock, and silencer, but if I have the money, and want one, then why not? It is my right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to own one.

However, will this ban lower crime, or stop it? No. A criminal is just as likely to rob a house that has a Beretta as he is a house that has a AK47. Afterall, he probably has illegaly attained one of these weapons as well. However, crime will NOT go up. Think about it. Are you gonna wanna kill a police officer with an MP5 registered in your name? I didn't think so.


Okay, okay, okay.....the ban was not lifted by anyone.

It EXPIRED. It had the built in mechanism to fizzle out. It was an experiment. One that didn't work, as the NIJ stated.

I like the way it was put in place. Try something out, and if it doesn't work, it just goes away on its own.

This is why the US is stupid..

I'm still trying to figure out why the government would lift the ban. It makes no sense given their other recent actions, such as the patriot act.

didnt lift, it sunsetted

This is why the US is stupid..

Yeah, your right.

thats why the rest of the world isnt voting with their feet and their family's lives by tryingto come here even though its a large ocean away.

This is why the US is stupid..
Yes, darn laws that allow only criminals to have guns...

they should stay unbanned to.

My senator larry craig (see craig.senate.gov) has an article on this and how the ban was ineffective and folks like kerry are misleading the public also.

Not true I'm a "right winger" and a gun nut who happens to also oppose the patriot act as many other conservatives say in the southern states do. We're just a minority in the republican party these days

Hey yeah I think I wanna shoot some things up to, like a school, my teachers, all the kids in the street, and when I go blowing up deer you can get killed but the shrapnel, but hey that's my rights! Don't infringe man!

Nothing is wrong with blowing up deer. Around my state...Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, we have to many damn deer most seasons and either they ask hunters to step it up a notch or they end up hearding them up and killing them anyways. Is that what you would prefer? It provides a necessary balance since there are no wolves eating them anymore.

Shootings in schools...well...with that logic, why don't you bitch about cars? Cars kill a few million more people than guns in the public sector, unless of course you live in Iraq at the moment...actually, they have car bombs, it might hold up in Iraq as well...

Your basically against guns, not the effects of them...well, I don't like twinkies, so let's ban them too...not to mention they make your ass look like chewed bubble gum....damn twinkies

Nothing is wrong with blowing up deer. Around my state...Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, we have to many damn deer most seasons and either they ask hunters to step it up a notch or they end up hearding them up and killing them anyways. Is that what you would prefer? It provides a necessary balance since there are no wolves eating them anymore.

Shootings in schools...well...with that logic, why don't you bitch about cars? Cars kill a few million more people than guns in the public sector, unless of course you live in Iraq at the moment...actually, they have car bombs, it might hold up in Iraq as well...

Your basically against guns, not the effects of them...well, I don't like twinkies, so let's ban them too...not to mention they make your ass look like chewed bubble gum....damn twinkies

Hey you make it seem like I'm against guns! Oh I love them, I sleep with my assault rifle, don't you! Oh and I agree those cars and dangerous, lucky they weren't actually designed to kill things. And hey I'll just be sure not to accidently throw my twinky at you and kill you by accident. Jeez lucky I don't live in Amer-I-raq then eh.

I cannot believed Ahnult signed the bill banning .50 caliber rifles here in California.

Since their existence of over 81 years, they have not been used in a single crime once.

I cannot believed Ahnult signed the bill banning .50 caliber rifles here in California.

Since their existence of over 81 years, they have not been used in a single crime once.

look t the state, gotta play some politics.

Its not like anyone sits around and figures out that why would a criminal looking to make a few $$$ would use a gun that costs thousands and requires training and is not usefull in a criminal act should be legal/illegal. how many tv sounds bites would that take to convey the message? easier to just say no.

look t the state, gotta play some politics.

Its not like anyone sits around and figures out that why would a criminal looking to make a few $$$ would use a gun that costs thousands and requires training and is not usefull in a criminal act should be legal/illegal. how many tv sounds bites would that take to convey the message? easier to just say no.

So why not let us have nuclear weapons too? I mean I don't know anyone who could afford that. HA Actually I'll be a partriotic American say "It's my God Given right to have Nuclear Weapons!"

Long live the second amendment!

the grenade launcher came already on the rifle,also the bayonet.i addded the ati ultralite and 50rnd bannana.Nothing else is modded or changed from original.Yugo sks 59/66 7.62x39.

i think clinton was worried about drive by bayonetings. :) i get lots of looks at the local indoor range with my sks and blade bayonet.The law limited "sporterizing" semi autos.Visual Mods thats it.

I'm going to get me an AK-47, YeeeHaw!!!

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

I'll get a few thousand rounds for the next time they ban them again, but I'll be grandfathered in. Automatic weapons owner here!!!!

I'll shoot at all sort of stuff, like tree trunk, trash cans, old cars deserted in the virgin forests. Fill'em full of lead, till their dead!!!

Hmmmmm....there are lots of juicy targets protesting Republican conventions...be back later...I have an idea....

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:


i have to say the whole idea of making assault weapons legal is pretty idiotic but. if its happens dont waste ur money on ak-47..they suck..especially if you want to hit the thing your aiming at

i have to say the whole idea of making assault weapons legal is pretty idiotic but. if its happens dont waste ur money on ak-47..they suck..especially if you want to hit the thing your aiming at

Are you stupid, he was using satire to say how stupid the unbanning of the law is. F''''DUUUH!!!

i have to say the whole idea of making assault weapons legal is pretty idiotic but. if its happens dont waste ur money on ak-47..they suck..especially if you want to hit the thing your aiming at

Don't know where you heard that. I own a Semi-auto version and am a fairly decent shot w/ it. It's no sniper rifle but it's a lot more accurate than most people believe.

This is why the US is stupid..

And the proof to back up your oh so eloquent statement is where again?

Hey yeah I think I wanna shoot some things up to, like a school, my teachers, all the kids in the street, and when I go blowing up deer you can get killed but the shrapnel, but hey that's my rights! Don't infringe man!

Actually killing someone else that's not coming after you or your property isn't a right.

Is that what you really think we do? There are over 80 million guns in this country. Don't you think you'd be hearing about all this stuff all the time, were that the case?

it is the 2nd amendmant plain and simple. you don't think? criminals could get these guns on the black market before the ban? it will still be easier for them to get them on the black market, and they can get fully auto as well...

it is the 2nd amendmant plain and simple. you don't think? criminals could get these guns on the black market before the ban? it will still be easier for them to get them on the black market, and they can get fully auto as well...
oh yes of course because we all know PETTY THIEVES conslt the black market to buy guns, now they can go to a pawn shop and buy an uzi

oh yes of course because we all know PETTY THIEVES conslt the black market to buy guns, now they can go to a pawn shop and buy an uzi

No they can't, and you know it. You just want to sensationalize the actual situation. Learn to actually debate.

here is something that I wrote on another forum that I frequent.



So the media is coming strongly on the side of the anti-gun nuts in this assault weapons ban expiry issue. Even Jon Stewart, who I usually agree with was strangely shortsighted — and forgetful — in his mocking of assault weapons and their owners. Kerry is of course against the guns, and remember that it was Bush Sr. that created the ban in the first place. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, and both Giuliani and Pataki have run the most anti-gun administrations in history.
The second amendment, the right to form a militia and of the people to keep and bear Arms, was enacted by the Founding Fathers for a very clear reason;


"A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington

"An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man... Let your gun be your constant companion of your walks."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

- James Madison

Thomas Jefferson also said that "all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right" — and, most importantly their "duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson didn't think people needed guns for hunting or self defense. They were all very clear and singular — an armed populace is the final check-and-balance protecting the liberty of the people of the United States against a government running amok. They'd seen it happen in Europe, and they wanted to make sure it could never happen in America.

To defend America against foreign and domestic threats, an assault weapon is an ideal and highly effective tool for the individual doing so — as Stephen Colbert pointed out on the Daily Show, it's been very successful for the Iraqi insurgents! Now, maybe you're saying it could never happen in modern times, or to a culture as sophisticated as America. Don't bet on it. The German government, democratically elected by a well educated and culturally sophisticated populace killed ten million people in death camps, and the people never resisted it once. It's also happened across several Eastern European nations in recent time as well. It is not uncommon. It will happen again, and it could easily happen in America.

You probably won't get in a car accident either, but hey, why buy car insurance?

Maybe you're saying the odds of all this is slim, and in any case, most people support the ban, so democracy says the ban should stay. Wrong. Most people don't think piercing should be legal either. In the past, most people thought blacks shouldn't vote. The point of the Constitution and Bills of Rights all over the world is to protect the minority from the majority — to make sure the nation can protect against a worst case scenario. When we start violating these radical freedoms because "most people don't mind", we set the stage not just for losing our rights, but losing our freedom completely or even our lives.

Do you want to die in a death camp, or do you want to die free?

Yeah, I'm sure you're thinking you're real clever, getting ready to reply "well i don't want to die at all". Well, put your head back into the sand. It's not always your decision what day you're going to die on. It is however always your decision whether you die with your liberty intact.

here is something that I wrote on another forum that I frequent.



So the media is coming strongly on the side of the anti-gun nuts in this assault weapons ban expiry issue. Even Jon Stewart, who I usually agree with was strangely shortsighted — and forgetful — in his mocking of assault weapons and their owners. Kerry is of course against the guns, and remember that it was Bush Sr. that created the ban in the first place. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, and both Giuliani and Pataki have run the most anti-gun administrations in history.
The second amendment, the right to form a militia and of the people to keep and bear Arms, was enacted by the Founding Fathers for a very clear reason;


"A free people ought to be armed."

- George Washington

"An unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man... Let your gun be your constant companion of your walks."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."

- James Madison

Thomas Jefferson also said that "all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right" — and, most importantly their "duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson didn't think people needed guns for hunting or self defense. They were all very clear and singular — an armed populace is the final check-and-balance protecting the liberty of the people of the United States against a government running amok. They'd seen it happen in Europe, and they wanted to make sure it could never happen in America.

To defend America against foreign and domestic threats, an assault weapon is an ideal and highly effective tool for the individual doing so — as Stephen Colbert pointed out on the Daily Show, it's been very successful for the Iraqi insurgents! Now, maybe you're saying it could never happen in modern times, or to a culture as sophisticated as America. Don't bet on it. The German government, democratically elected by a well educated and culturally sophisticated populace killed ten million people in death camps, and the people never resisted it once. It's also happened across several Eastern European nations in recent time as well. It is not uncommon. It will happen again, and it could easily happen in America.

You probably won't get in a car accident either, but hey, why buy car insurance?

Maybe you're saying the odds of all this is slim, and in any case, most people support the ban, so democracy says the ban should stay. Wrong. Most people don't think piercing should be legal either. In the past, most people thought blacks shouldn't vote. The point of the Constitution and Bills of Rights all over the world is to protect the minority from the majority — to make sure the nation can protect against a worst case scenario. When we start violating these radical freedoms because "most people don't mind", we set the stage not just for losing our rights, but losing our freedom completely or even our lives.

Do you want to die in a death camp, or do you want to die free?

Yeah, I'm sure you're thinking you're real clever, getting ready to reply "well i don't want to die at all". Well, put your head back into the sand. It's not always your decision what day you're going to die on. It is however always your decision whether you die with your liberty intact.
you do realise there is a 200 + year time gap bewtween when those quotes were made and today? and since technology has advanced past what they know in the gun area and society has changed quite a deal, they are out of date. thanks good bye

it is still the constitution you idiot and it is our right!

well, the grenade launcher is still illegal

It is legal. I was at the gun shop yesterday pricing out the differences from before, during and after the ban.

It is not a 40mm launcher it is a 36-37mm for smoke and flare lobs. Looks identical to the m-203 though. A bushmaster with the launcher and red dot scope was 1050$. Not a big deal other than the price is a better deal than before with the prebans.

it is still the constitution you idiot and it is our right!
not to do whatever you want

Hi, i'm from England. you know that little island where everyone speaks funny. Well i was wondering, why do you need guns? We don't. We live in a peaceful society. the only times guns are used are either by the Ira or in inner city drug-wars. So the general populas is safe from being shot. I really wouldn't feel safer if some of the people near me had easy access to guns (what ever you may think, when guns are illegal in a country, to obtain them through the black market is risky and expensive.) I feel safer walking down the street at night, i know people don't carry waepons on them, in their cars or have them in their houses. Please explain, i just can't understand the logic.

I understand the argument behind relaxed gun laws (though I feel that registration is a must). However, is it really a necessary constitutional right to be able to possess an AK-47? A grenade launcher? Landmines? Cluster bombs? Where exactly does this right to bear arms end? How many people do you want to be able to slaughter?

Hi, i'm from England. you know that little island where everyone speaks funny. Well i was wondering, why do you need guns? We don't. We live in a peaceful society. the only times guns are used are either by the Ira or in inner city drug-wars. So the general populas is safe from being shot. I really wouldn't feel safer if some of the people near me had easy access to guns (what ever you may think, when guns are illegal in a country, to obtain them through the black market is risky and expensive.) I feel safer walking down the street at night, i know people don't carry waepons on them, in their cars or have them in their houses. Please explain, i just can't understand the logic.

I don't live there, but the statistics coming out of your country indicate that it's not as peaceful as you may think it is. I'm not saying you're lying or anything remotely close to it, just that your government funded media outlets are saying that your violent crime rate is on the rise.

It's tough to explain cultural differences between our countries and have them be accepted. Firearms have been a large part of the US history, and are part of the basics of personal freedom.

There are several reasons for owning a firearm. Protection from government, protection from assault by other citizens, hunting tool, sporting tool.

I don't live there, but the statistics coming out of your country indicate that it's not as peaceful as you may think it is. I'm not saying you're lying or anything remotely close to it, just that your government funded media outlets are saying that your violent crime rate is on the rise.

It's tough to explain cultural differences between our countries and have them be accepted. Firearms have been a large part of the US history, and are part of the basics of personal freedom.

There are several reasons for owning a firearm. Protection from government, protection from assault by other citizens, hunting tool, sporting tool.
and as proven already the US has highest crime and murder rates of any 1st world nation

I understand the argument behind relaxed gun laws (though I feel that registration is a must). However, is it really a necessary constitutional right to be able to possess an AK-47? A grenade launcher? Landmines? Cluster bombs? Where exactly does this right to bear arms end? How many people do you want to be able to slaughter?

I want to be able to DEFEND myself from as many as possible. I don't want to slaughter anyone. Nor attack anyone. Why must several of you always assume that we just want to go out and kill, kill, kill?

We've never stated that.

I want to be able to DEFEND myself from as many as possible. I don't want to slaughter anyone. Nor attack anyone. Why must several of you always assume that we just want to go out and kill, kill, kill?

We've never stated that.
You don't need an AK-47 for defence though. Again, there must be a line somewhere, surely?

Besides, there are people posting here getting very moist about the idea of owning guns. Not everyone is as responsible as I presume you are.

You don't need an AK-47 for defence though. Again, there must be a line somewhere, surely?

Yep and the American people decide that. They have spoken. So if the Democrats can gain back the 20 seats they lost by enacting the ban and get another President in there, then maybe the American people might be saying they want a ban again, dont know. Until then, they have spoken.

and as proven already the US has highest crime and murder rates of any 1st world nation

He wanted to know what the reasons why some of us don't want our rights stripped. I answered.

Your point relates to that, how?

Protection from government was one of my stated reasons. An automatic weapon would go far in defending an assault by a corrupt government.

And before anyone starts up with the, "AKs are useless against an A-1A tank"--you're right. That's why you'd rely on other weapons for that particular confrontation.
Like what? Again, how far does/should this right extend?

You don't need an AK-47 for defence though. Again, there must be a line somewhere, surely?

Protection from government was one of my stated reasons. An automatic weapon would go far in defending an assault by a corrupt government.

And before anyone starts up with the, "AKs are useless against an A-1A tank"--you're right. That's why you'd rely on other weapons for that particular confrontation.

There is a line. The people decided that our land would be governed by the rule that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is a right to be armed and fortified against threat. It is not a right to aimlessly attack others, or pose an immediate threat to the innocent. Ownership is not an immediate threat. Only force is a threat. This is deeply rooted in our society, as we believe that all people are "innocent until proven guilty".

The sense of distrust in the populace that I see in those who are anti-gun in general is extremely disturbing to me. Do you really think your friends and neighbors can't be trusted to protect themselves with a gun? Would you trust the police or the military more than they? Those institutions do not have a record for using their power for good. Regular folks do.

Those who would abuse arms are of criminal intent to begin with, and no law limiting legal access is going to deter their behavior. Their ways and means will be illegal from the start.

The reason for our great cultural divide may be largely contributed for how our country came to exist. If not for the guns of people, America would not have come to be. If it had been left to the guns of government, America would never have come to be.

There is a line. The people decided that our land would be governed by the rule that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is a right to be armed and fortified against threat. It is not a right to aimlessly attack others, or pose an immediate threat to the innocent. Ownership is not an immediate threat. Only force is a threat. This is deeply rooted in our society, as we believe that all people are "innocent until proven guilty".

The sense of distrust in the populace that I see in those who are anti-gun in general is extremely disturbing to me. Do you really think your friends and neighbors can't be trusted to protect themselves with a gun? Would you trust the police or the military more than they? Those institutions do not have a record for using their power for good. Regular folks do.

Those who would abuse arms are of criminal intent to begin with, and no law limiting legal access is going to deter their behavior. Their ways and means will be illegal from the start.

The reason for our great cultural divide may be largely contributed for how our country came to exist. If not for the guns of people, America would not have come to be. If it had been left to the guns of government, America would never have come to be.
I understand and respect your viewpoint but it doesn't answer my question.

Like what? Again, how far does/should this right extend?

As far as the people of this country would like it to extend. You can not limit the will of the people without it being a hinderance to National Security.

And small arms are not in that interest.

Okay i understand you have the right to own a gun. But surely possessing a gun means you are willing to use it. Okay the majority are only willing to use it for defence. But when people with moral vacancies and people who are mentally ill are able to easily (okay not That easily, but it is easier in a country where there are more gunsper person.) get fire-arms, doesn't that trouble you?
Textrant
p.s. yes gun crime is on the rise in the UK. it is now up to 12 acts per week across the whole country from 4 10 years ago...thats not bad.

One extra thing, if you all have guns in your homes, there is no way your country is EVER gonna get invaded...i suppose that is one plus.

As far as the people of this country would like it to extend. You can not limit the will of the people without it being a hinderance to National Security.

And small arms are not in that interest.
Here's the problem I have with anarchism. Under this philosophy, it would be fine and dandy for people to have personal nukes if that's what they wanted. But not if they're Iranian, obviously.

Okay i understand you have the right to own a gun. But surely possessing a gun means you are willing to use it. Okay the majority are only willing to use it for defence. But when people with moral vacancies and people who are mentally ill are able to easily (okay not That easily, but it is easier in a country where there are more gunsper person.) get fire-arms, doesn't that trouble you?
Textrant
p.s. yes gun crime is on the rise in the UK. it is now up to 12 acts per week across the whole country from 4 10 years ago...thats not bad.

It troubles me, yes. But deal with the individuals who cause the problems after they cause the problems (with the case of truely insane people, it's already illegal for them to own guns).

Your country has proven that total bans, and strict restrictions does not significanly impact the criminal element, but rather only the non-criminal element. If criminals wish to have guns, they will get guns.

Here's the problem I have with anarchism. Under this philosophy, it would be fine and dandy for people to have personal nukes if that's what they wanted. But not if they're Iranian, obviously.

I thought we were talking about small arms, such as what I was obviously and you were talking about. Anarchism does not equate to the will of the people. The will of the people is how our country works. That is why the awb was allowed to sunset. In this country things happen a little slow at times. Such as the elections that reversed the thought that the people wanted a awb. That is why 20 of the people that voted for this ban were removed by the people that put them there in the first place. That is why Gore lost states that nobody thought he could lose. That is why we in America have a right to own AK-47's, AR-15's etc.... The will of the people can not be ignored unless it is in the interest of National Security. Small arms such as the ones you speak of are obviously not a matter of National Security. A right trumps anothers feelings.

Anotherwards Nukes would be a breach of National Security, so lets be real.

One extra thing, if you all have guns in your homes, there is no way your country is EVER gonna get invaded...i suppose that is one plus.
if there is ever a force strong enough to militarily invade the united states, the M4 in your gun cabinet wont save your ass

if there is ever a force strong enough to militarily invade the united states, the M4 in your gun cabinet wont save your ass
:sigh:
Ever see the movie Red Dawn. That's the scenario that I believe some people refer to.

Semi-autos not Autos.

But you are legally allowed to attach a Genade Launcher to your gun now.
Previously this was illegal...

Sigh...
Yes!

The ownership of arms is not about "anarchy". It's about good government. A good government knows exactly why the people need to be armed. It is one of the means by which the people secure a government accountable to them and not to itself. It keeps police from coming to my door at three a.m. and asking why I was at a meeting of an opposition political party. It keeps soldiers from coming onto my land and telling me I need to house and serve them or I will go to jail. Hitler knew that an armed populace was extremely dangerous to his rule, and so the confiscation of weaponry was crucial to his taking complete power.

In the United States, I am ashamed to say we did the same to Japanese-Americans during the second World War. We herded them in camps and took their guns, and their radios and their cameras and considered them a threat to our country just because of from where they came. There was no individual consideration. That was a severe violation of thier natural rights, and a right any natural born American with half a brain and a smattering of guts would give their life to protect.

The ownership of weapons is not about killing. It's about maintaining innocent life and free people against those who would enslave them.
For that reason, any type of gun that the state possesses that can be used in the defense of an innocent life, should be available to the people. The "personal nuke" argument is silly. The very ownership of such a volatile thing is a threat to innocents in its vicinity. The only threat of firearms ownership is in the minds of those who toss and turn in the night because someone else does something differently. America was designed for people who do things differently. It was designed to protect people against people who don't like them or agree with them.

To accept gun control by the state is to accept tyranny even if by majority.

I thought we were talking about small arms, such as what I was obviously and you were talking about. Anarchism does not equate to the will of the people. The will of the people is how our country works. That is why the awb was allowed to sunset. In this country things happen a little slow at times. Such as the elections that reversed the thought that the people wanted a awb. That is why 20 of the people that voted for this ban were removed by the people that put them there in the first place. That is why Gore lost states that nobody thought he could lose. That is why we in America have a right to own AK-47's, AR-15's etc.... The will of the people can not be ignored unless it is in the interest of National Security. Small arms such as the ones you speak of are obviously not a matter of National Security. A right trumps anothers feelings.

Anotherwards Nukes would be a breach of National Security, so lets be real.
Government defines what constitutes national security. The people need firearms to defend themselves against government. Uh, I sense a conflict...

UN Jurisdiction, I was using an extreme scenario to try and make a point. Badly, as it happened. Anyway, if I understand you correctly, the people should have the right to the same weaponry possessed by the police, yes?

I'm not actually trying to provoke an argument, I'm genuinely trying to figure out how these rights are/ought to be determined. If I've understood you correctly, my questions are answered and I thank you. Well, I thank you anyway, but you get what I mean, I hope.

Government defines what constitutes national security. The people need firearms to defend themselves against government. Uh, I sense a conflict...

This only becomes a conflict if in fact the people were not the government. The people are the government in the US. We vote for our representatives through what that represenative believes because it coincides with our beliefs. Honestly man, I know you are an intelligent person and can figure this out.

Well, I would define it with slight alterations.

I would say the people are NOT the government, but that the government is a hired servant of the people. When that paradigm of government-servant and people-master stops happening, first the people have to try to change the government through activism. If that proves impossible, then it's the right and responsibility of the people to oppose and throw off the government completely.

We are not the government, but we are the government's boss. That's why we reserve the right to protect ourselves from them.

Essentially, the people are maintained an inalienable right to bear arms in the Constitution, so that their armory can stay consistent with anyone who could potentially threaten them.

Tyranny by government is a biggie, of course. But crime in itself is also a form of tyranny (force), and the means of criminals do not account for "fighting fair". That's why if the bad guys have it, it makes perfect sense that the good guys should too. And no matter what laws we pass to say "such and such is illegal" the bad guys WILL find a way.

I think the shootings at the Los Angeles International Airport on July 4th, 2002 are most indicative of why it's important for individual persons to maintain their right to possess arms. An Egyptian man walks into an airport (a "Gun-Free Zone") with a gun and makes a politically motivated assault on the El Al ticket counter, killing two people. He could have killed many many more. There were no police around, none of the individual patrons had guns (after all, they made it against the rules to have that kind of stuff, and most people follow the rules) and could not protect themselves.

Lo and behold, an Israeli security guard in hire of El Al was armed. He fatally shot the attacker and many people were saved from an almost certain massacre. With the fear-mongering of anti-weapons ownership, we have created a condition by which a couple of guys with BOX CUTTERS can overwhelm a plane full of innocent people. It's just not fair to the innocent to not allow themselves to be protected.

This only becomes a conflict if in fact the people were not the government. The people are the government in the US. We vote for our representatives through what that represenative believes because it coincides with our beliefs. Honestly man, I know you are an intelligent person and can figure this out.
The people aren't the government though. The US is not a full democracy. Your current government is taking actions that threaten various freedoms. Anyway, I'm digressing. UN Jurisdiction's explanation makes sense to me and if that's what you're saying then I'm fine with that. Not pro-gun, but with a greater understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Thanks.

snip - good stuff, cheers
This would be acceptable to me if you could guarantee that those who choose to own guns are responsible with them. Properly trained, registered, etc.

I apologise if I'm not always coherent but this is an issue that I'm not all that familiar with. By the way, in the UK we would probably choose not to have guns. I trust that such a decision would be respected?

This would be acceptable to me if you could guarantee that those who choose to own guns are responsible with them. Properly trained, registered, etc.

This is left up to the states to decide on what kind of training you need for certain licenses (ccw,chl etc...). Registration is left up to the states to decide as well. Some states allow private citizens to sale and buy firearms from another citizen with no record what so ever, it is uup to the person selling the firearm. Gun shops are required to do a NICS check, which that information is destroyed within 24 hours.


I apologise if I'm not always coherent but this is an issue that I'm not all that familiar with. By the way, in the UK we would probably choose not to have guns. I trust that such a decision would be respected?

Hey we are not coherant to issues in other countries, so I would hope nobody from here would expect another to be coherant to ours. I respect any decision for what another country see as being rights. I hope the same can be said for people looking at America.

Naturally. Liberty is all about choice, and I respect the opinion of those who choose not to own guns.

The Constitution in our country is designed not just so that 51% can be spared from 49% in our decision making. Our founders were more forward-thinking than that. The Constitution is designed to protect the rights of any 1% against 99%, because our founders knew that RIGHTS are not a matter of opinion or subject to approval.

We all have rights that nobody can touch. No matter who is President or King. No matter what the law says. We are born with them and we die with them, and if necessary, we die FOR them, because they are more important than life itself.

Like what? Again, how far does/should this right extend?

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was for the citizens to maintain relative pace with he government's armaments.

If I have to draw a black and white decision, I'd say up to, but not including nuclear weapons. Then again, I don't think our government should have nukes either.

The people aren't the government though. The US is not a full democracy. Your current government is taking actions that threaten various freedoms. Anyway, I'm digressing. UN Jurisdiction's explanation makes sense to me and if that's what you're saying then I'm fine with that. Not pro-gun, but with a greater understanding of the opposing viewpoint. Thanks.

They essentialy are the same in one. However with it being how I explained it and someone else explained it as the people acting with the discretion of being servants of their fellow people.

As stated in our Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This is how we established and run our government, by the people for the people.

The people of the several states decide who they want to represent their opinions and views to perform servitude. This means our freedoms (rights) are not negotiable nor up for change because of someone else's opinion even if that opinion is of a majority. They truly are inalienable not just for the ones that choose to exercise those rights but they extend to even ones that choose not to.

you do realise there is a 200 + year time gap bewtween when those quotes were made and today? and since technology has advanced past what they know in the gun area and society has changed quite a deal, they are out of date. thanks good bye

The Founding Fathers could have absolutely no idea of the Internet, Television, Radio, or Telephones when the 1st Ammendment was enacted.

Does that make it out dated?

No, absolutely not.

The Founding Fathers could have absolutely no idea of the Internet, Television, Radio, or Telephones when the 1st Ammendment was enacted.

Does that make it out dated?

No, absolutely not.
first amendment adapts as it is timeless and does no relate to a type of society

the 2nd amendment worked for the type of society that existed when the founding fathers made those statements and the constitution, it does NOT exist now

first amendment adapts as it is timeless and does no relate to a type of society

the 2nd amendment worked for the type of society that existed when the founding fathers made those statements and the constitution, it does NOT exist now
It is specifically stated that the people have the right to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed. It does not matter what technological advancements there have been over the years; you are applying that the 1st ammendment "magically evolves over time", yet the 2nd does not. That is a blatant double-standard.

Using your own argument, you cannot state that the 2nd Ammendment is void, and the 1st not. You give the reason because of technology, but technology has impacted the 1st Ammendment as well.

I am sorry Chess Squares, but you cannot choose what bits and pieces should apply that are contained in the Bill of Rights; it is all or nothing.

It is specifically stated that the people have the right to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed. It does not matter what technological advancements there have been over the years; you are applying that the 1st ammendment "magically evolves over time", yet the 2nd does not. That is a blatant double-standard.

Using your own argument, you cannot state that the 2nd Ammendment is void, and the 1st not. You give the reason because of technology, but technology has impacted the 1st Ammendment as well.

I am sorry Chess Squares, but you cannot choose what bits and pieces should apply that are contained in the Bill of Rights; it is all or nothing.
there are things that can adapt and things that cant, the manner in which the government worked and what the technology of guns consisted as and society as a whole has compeletely changed sicne the issuing of the 2nd amendment

the 1st amendment is an all encompassing statement: everyone is entitled to the right to speak, everyone is entitled ot the right to write what they think, everyone is entitled to the right to ensemble. you CANNOT have a free society without all of those elements, thus the 1st amendment is a timeless statement because once you remove one you are no longer in a free society and they dont matter

and YES, i CAN pick and choose, they are SEPERATE amendments, not one

there are things that can adapt and things that cant, the manner in which the government worked and what the technology of guns consisted as and society as a whole has compeletely changed sicne the issuing of the 2nd amendment

the 1st amendment is an all encompassing statement: everyone is entitled to the right to speak, everyone is entitled ot the right to write what they think, everyone is entitled to the right to ensemble. you CANNOT have a free society without all of those elements, thus the 1st amendment is a timeless statement because once you remove one you are no longer in a free society and they dont matter

and YES, i CAN pick and choose, they are SEPERATE amendments, not one
Guns are exactly the same in principle as they were 300 years ago, a metal chamber shoots a small metal ball very, very fast. If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have the right to bear Baker Rifles, they would have said so.

Guns are exactly the same in principle as they were 300 years ago, a metal chamber shoots a small metal ball very, very fast. If the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have the right to bear Baker Rifles, they would have said so.
society has changed, the way government works has changed, well in that power is distributed differently and other thigns are different, and the technology of guns HAS changed

stop being ignorant

society has changed, the way government works has changed, well in that power is distributed differently and other thigns are different, and the technology of guns HAS changed

stop being ignorant
Ignorant? Of what? You're the one who seems to think that a rifle today is so different from a rifle 200 years ago that it's no longer a weapon.

Ignorant? Of what? You're the one who seems to think that a rifle today is so different from a rifle 200 years ago that it's no longer a weapon.
no, i never stated that, and yes a rifle now is FAR different than 200 years ago, hell a rifle now is different from a rifl 50 years ago

I think a lot of you dont' understand what the 2nd amendment is meant for, it is meant that in the case of the government overstepping its bounds the people, having the right to form militia and bear arms relitively equal to that of the government, can overthrow the corrupted system and start over. With that in mind, i don't see how you can discount the 2nd amendment without discounting all the rest and the constitution itself.

there are things that can adapt and things that cant, the manner in which the government worked and what the technology of guns consisted as and society as a whole has compeletely changed sicne the issuing of the 2nd amendment

the 1st amendment is an all encompassing statement: everyone is entitled to the right to speak, everyone is entitled ot the right to write what they think, everyone is entitled to the right to ensemble. you CANNOT have a free society without all of those elements, thus the 1st amendment is a timeless statement because once you remove one you are no longer in a free society and they dont matter

and YES, i CAN pick and choose, they are SEPERATE amendments, not one

He's correct on this point. He has the right to express his opinion. No matter how badly worded, mis-spelled, or poorly punctuated it is. I choose to recognize the entire constitution and express my freedom by stating my opinions and legally owning the types of firearms that I choose.

no, i never stated that, and yes a rifle now is FAR different than 200 years ago, hell a rifle now is different from a rifl 50 years ago
Is a rifle today, an "arm," in the sense that it is a firearm? If it is, stop being ignorant and wasted our time with your idiocy.

I think a lot of you dont' understand what the 2nd amendment is meant for, it is meant that in the case of the government overstepping its bounds the people, having the right to form militia and bear arms relitively equal to that of the government, can overthrow the corrupted system and start over. With that in mind, i don't see how you can discount the 2nd amendment without discounting all the rest and the constitution itself.
that is the argument used by the blind right wing gun nuts who cling to their guns while letting their other rights slip away with not a peep, like a pirate clinging to a gold chest while he slowly dies of thirst and hunger so no one can get his gold

guess what? if you dont get back at the wheel, the right to own a gun will be the only right you have left, and by then, it wont save you

Is a rifle today, an "arm," in the sense that it is a firearm? If it is, stop being ignorant and wasted our time with your idiocy.
you miss the point that guns have changed, society has changed, and government has changed to the point where the original reason for the 2nd amendment is moot

no, i never stated that, and yes a rifle now is FAR different than 200 years ago, hell a rifle now is different from a rifl 50 years ago

Once again he is correct. Rifles are different from 200 years ago. They didn't have rifles then, they had muskets. However he is incorrect in stating a massive change over 50 years. The AK-47 was developed in the late 40's, and the principles of most bolt-action, semi-auto, and shotguns have only been refined.

I thought we were talking about small arms, such as what I was obviously and you were talking about. Anarchism does not equate to the will of the people. The will of the people is how our country works. That is why the awb was allowed to sunset. In this country things happen a little slow at times. Such as the elections that reversed the thought that the people wanted a awb. That is why 20 of the people that voted for this ban were removed by the people that put them there in the first place. That is why Gore lost states that nobody thought he could lose. That is why we in America have a right to own AK-47's, AR-15's etc.... The will of the people can not be ignored unless it is in the interest of National Security. Small arms such as the ones you speak of are obviously not a matter of National Security. A right trumps anothers feelings.

Anotherwards Nukes would be a breach of National Security, so lets be real.


The will of the simple majority in this country is to continure the awb not let it expire. Polls have shown over and over again that most Americans do not want to see assault weapons sold over the counter. However George W. Bush and the NRA could not allow that to happen. Very clearly the will of the majority in this case has been overruled by a radical minority.

I don't have the statistics on gun crims however I am willing to bet good money that most gun crimes are committed with smaller firearms. Specifically handguns. If we really wanted to cut gun crimes in The USA it would be best to ban and destroy all handguns, and carry stiff penaltys for those caught carrying them.

However, (I will be blasted as a wimp liberal for this) the best way to end crime in this country would be to end poverty and ignorance. While a complete utopian society is impossible, we could give everyone the same chance to live a happy, peaceful life.

The will of the simple majority in this country is to continure the awb not let it expire. Polls have shown over and over again that most Americans do not want to see assault weapons sold over the counter. However George W. Bush and the NRA could not allow that to happen. Very clearly the will of the majority in this case has been overruled by a radical minority.

The poll results depend on which group is taking the poll. The numbers for both sides rarely reflect reality. I also do not consider myself a radical.

I don't have the statistics on gun crims however I am willing to bet good money that most gun crimes are committed with smaller firearms. Specifically handguns. If we really wanted to cut gun crimes in The USA it would be best to ban and destroy all handguns, and carry stiff penaltys for those caught carrying them.

Nearly all (over 90%) of gun crimes are commited using hand-guns. Most of these however are illegally owned. Cities that have attempted to ban them have seen an increase in gun-crimes (Chicago, and D.C. specifically) where every state (38 to date) that have passed concealed-carry laws have seen anywhere from a 5-10% drop in the crime rate within a year.

However, (I will be blasted as a wimp liberal for this) the best way to end crime in this country would be to end poverty and ignorance. While a complete utopian society is impossible, we could give everyone the same chance to live a happy, peaceful life.

I don't see this as a wimpy-liberal ideal. I would love to develop an ingorant and poverty free world. I also don't see this happening with us monkeys any time soon.

Heh. Still banned in Massachusetts, thank Bob.

you miss the point that guns have changed, society has changed, and government has changed to the point where the original reason for the 2nd amendment is moot

SHOW ME WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT IT STATES THE 2ND AMMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE TECHNOLOGY OF THAT ERA.

SHOW ME WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT IT STATES THE 2ND AMMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE TECHNOLOGY OF THAT ERA.
show me where you have ever used critical thinking and analysis, ever

Cool. I can run around with both of my assault weapons.

*Wow! Both of them.*

show me where you have ever used critical thinking and analysis, ever

Are you going to answer the question, or keep dodging?

Strawman arguments don't work here, bud.

As stated in our Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This is how we established and run our government, by the people for the people.
I think this is important in trying to understand the differing viewpoints of Americans and Brits (I can't speak for other countries). If you'll excuse the blatant digression from the gun debate...

Your constitution is held almost sacred when, in fairness, it's for the most part about 230(?) years old. Let's say that it unequivocally allows you the right to bear arms (I know there's debate on this). Why should this remain the case? Times change, after all.

If I may explain my perspective, we don't have a constitution over here. I'd like to have one but it's unlikely to affect my life in any way for the foreseeable future. Hence my bemusement at the way your constitution is so venerated.

So, G Dubyah & Chess Squares, when you argue specifically from the constitution, my reaction is: "yeah, and?".

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.

Yes, yes, I know. Countless people wrote about it, many of them more intelligent then I am. But I just wanted to set a few things straight.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a post about gun control, nor is it a post about the validity of the Constitution. It is mean to answer one question, and one question only: Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee a right of individual people like you and me to own arms. If you support gun control, that it’s a different argument

So, what is it all about? Is that ‘right’ thing limited to the National Guard? Or does it include Mr. Jones the grocery salesman?

Let’s look at the wording, first. What does it say?

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.

This is obviously divide into two logical parts.

The first part is “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. The second is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The two clauses are related logically in a structure common to 18th and 19th century document. In legal jargon, they are a ‘justificatory’ and an operative ‘clause’. So, in other words, the first half provides a reason to have the second. That is, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms [henceforth RKBA] shall not be infringed.’ BECAUSE ‘a well regulated militia’ is ‘necessary to the security of the free state’.

That means that that while the government is not allowed to infringe the RKBA, the RKBA is not limited to members of the militia - because the justification clause does not limit the operative clause.

And Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School thinks that way, too. (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm)

Consider that as a simple analogue:

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

What does it mean? It means you are going to stop infringing on the right to read and write, hoping that, as a result, some of them will be smart enough to vote for Bush. To the same tune, the Second Amednent means the government is going to stop infringing on your RKBA, hoping that, as a result, it will be possible to create a ‘well-regulated militia’.

It is perfectly clear, from the writing of the Founding Fathers that they intended ordinary people to be able to exercise the right to bear arms:

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

[The Constitution preserves] [/I] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. [/I]

James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Paper

In 1982, the United States Senate started a sub-committee on the subject. They reached the same conclusion.

Bibliography


The CommonPlace Second Amenment (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm) by Eugene Volokh
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session February, 1982 (http://www.accuratepress.net/report.html)
The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? Robert Dowlut, Oklahoma Law Review (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowjud.html)




Recommended Reading
Halbrook, Stephen P., [I]That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

first amendment adapts as it is timeless and does no relate to a type of society

the 2nd amendment worked for the type of society that existed when the founding fathers made those statements and the constitution, it does NOT exist now

By your logic, the first amendment can be considered outdated as well. Misinformation can be as harmful as a bullet, at times. At the rate misinformation can spread around the globe, you get people scared of a ban that regulates "furniture" on firearms, to think that it regulates fully-automatic weapons.

You get people getting misinformation on candidates for president.

You get people lying about several things, damaging careers, lives, just about anything.

In February 2004, in a Florida appellate court, it was ruled that news agencies can lie--think about how harmful that can be....

So, maybe we should ban free speech, by your logic.

And yet, I fully support the Bill of Rights because if a few jerks abuse the few major rules, it doesn't mean that the rules no longer apply to them. They need to pay the penalty for abusing them. That's how civilized nations work. Not by oppressing the citizens and taking their rights away.

Oh yeah, misinformation got some US citizens to support invading Iraq. How damaging has THAT been?

society has changed, the way government works has changed, well in that power is distributed differently and other thigns are different, and the technology of guns HAS changed

stop being ignorant

The same can be said for how speech and the speed of communication has changed as well.

You stop being ignorant.

no, i never stated that, and yes a rifle now is FAR different than 200 years ago, hell a rifle now is different from a rifl 50 years ago

Funny, the original AR-15 (the M-16) was designed around 1956. That's roughly ...gasp! FIFTY years ago.

Bolt action rifles are using the relative same design as they were 100 years ago.

Semi-auto rifles have been around for more than 100 years as well. Hell, just the blowback design from the 1911 pistol has been around 93 years (hence the 1911 in their moniker). That design is used in most semi-auto pistols today.

You need to do a bit more research to beef up your vaunted gun knowledge.

There hasn't been much change. Plastic made them look different, but that's about it.

show me where you have ever used critical thinking and analysis, ever

See, it's stuff like that that makes it so no one takes you seriously.

You're just a pathetic, immature kid, who has no debate skills whatsoever. You spout two or three unrelated statements, and when no one agrees with you, you stomp your feet, start swearing, and have a general hissy fit.

Go take some time to grow up.

you do realise there is a 200 + year time gap bewtween when those quotes were made and today? and since technology has advanced past what they know in the gun area and society has changed quite a deal, they are out of date. thanks good bye

You don't get it. You really don't get it. Nothing has changed. No amount of technology has can ever change human nature and the nature of power and corruption.

Are you going to answer the question, or keep dodging?

Strawman arguments don't work here, bud.
am i supposed to take you seriously after the list of pictures you provided like that somehow makes your opinion more correct than mine

Hi, i'm from England. you know that little island where everyone speaks funny. Well i was wondering, why do you need guns? We don't. We live in a peaceful society. the only times guns are used are either by the Ira or in inner city drug-wars. So the general populas is safe from being shot. I really wouldn't feel safer if some of the people near me had easy access to guns (what ever you may think, when guns are illegal in a country, to obtain them through the black market is risky and expensive.) I feel safer walking down the street at night, i know people don't carry waepons on them, in their cars or have them in their houses. Please explain, i just can't understand the logic.

Are you short a 93 lb (~44kg, not sure how many stones that is) woman with small muscles? If you are, do you always feel safe, knowing how easy a large man (or two men) can overpower you? If you aren't, find such a woman and ask her that.

Are you short a 93 lb (~44kg, not sure how many stones that is) woman with small muscles? If you are, do you always feel safe, knowing how easy a large man (or two men) can overpower you? If you aren't, find such a woman and ask her that.
do you assume the woman would be able to draw a gun and shoot her attackers before they utterly overpower her?

The whole gun issue is a red herring. There are those who believe that noone should own a gun for any reason and there are those who think everyone should own a gun. Neither side is right.

The founding fathers were right when they guaranteed our rights. Each has an alternative.

Guns...you can own one or not, your choice. The British forbade gun ownership.

Religion...you can worship or not as you please. The British forced everyone to be a mamber of the Anglican church.

So you see....arguing over such a thing is pointless. Gun ownership is not going to go away. There are limits to which kinds of guns can be owned, but even those are not insumountable. I know a guy who owns an M-60 machine gun. I have fired it a few times myself. Does that mean I want one myself? No. But I will defend my friends right to own his.

do you assume the woman would be able to draw a gun and shoot her attackers before they utterly overpower her?

Several women already HAVE (both shot and just brandished). It WORKS.

Once again I turn to Mark Fiore for advice:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/extravaganza.html

In studies, the most effective way for a woman to prevent rape is to carry a handgun.

Once again I turn to Mark Fiore for advice:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/extravaganza.html

Too bad Mr. Fiore knows nothing about the ban....
:mad:

http://www.wagc.com

if there is ever a force strong enough to militarily invade the united states, the M4 in your gun cabinet wont save your ass
No, it wouldn't. That's what armor is for. Guns just move bullets. ;-)

Consider this;

"Alqeadistan" invades the USA. What would make it harder for them to conquer the USA;
A) Fighting the US military
B) Fighting the US military, and every other citizen (who happens to own anything from a 9mm to an M4?)

Ever heard of a "guerilla?"
Citizens with guns are why we lost in Vietnam.

No, it wouldn't. That's what armor is for. Guns just move bullets. ;-)

Consider this;

"Alqeadistan" invades the USA. What would make it harder for them to conquer the USA;
A) Fighting the US military
B) Fighting the US military, and every other citizen (who happens to own anything from a 9mm to an M4?)

Ever heard of a "guerilla?"
Citizens with guns are why we lost in Vietnam.
no we lost vietnam because we were fighting in the jungle on peoples home turf. and a bunch of idiots with heavy arms who are untrained arnt going to help any more than ones that arnt armed

no we lost vietnam because we were fighting in the jungle on peoples home turf. and a bunch of idiots with heavy arms who are untrained arnt going to help any more than ones that arnt armed
Back that up with some facts, eh? Because I believe you are mistaken. "A bunch of idiots with heavy arms [that] aren't going to help any" managed to kill 18 US soldiers in Somalia in '93. I believe they are killing US soldiers in Iraq, too.

Based on what you just said, we should have lost the entire Pacific island-hopping campaign of WWII. And Cuba in the Spanish-American war.

no we lost vietnam because we were fighting in the jungle on peoples home turf. and a bunch of idiots with heavy arms who are untrained arnt going to help any more than ones that arnt armed

Okay, they wouldn't be fighting in the jungle here, but they'd still be on our home turf. And really, what do you know about the Vietnam war? You had your year of study of the Constitution, did you have anything related to Vietnam study? Or are you just taking your liberal professors' word on everything?

You're going to find that there are many gun owners out there that have practiced a lot more than the military and law enforcement officers. You seem to think that the government provides the ultimate of anything out there. That has never proven to be true. It's usually the lowest common denominator or bidder that the government goes with.