NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always wondered this.

Because guns kill and we dont need them. :rolleyes: Though thats a bit niave but the average person does not need assault weapons either.

We don't. Well, not the majority of us anyway. Just the vocal minority in the extreme left does.

I happen to believe in the 2nd Amendment, and think that individual people have the right to own guns. Hell, my dad and I go shooting and hunting all the time.

However, people also need to be responsible with them, and sellers need to make sure that they're not selling a gun to someone who's going to go out and kill small children. This is why background checks are a good thing.

This is why background checks are a good thing.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.
To me getting shot by some overzealious asshole infringes on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :cool:

They all don't want to do that.

Many however don't think joe citizen needs a military grad weapon.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

The government can impose restrictions on rights if there is a compelling interest to do so. For instance, a person who is mentally incompetent may be old enough to vote, but still wouldn't be allowed to vote. In this case, there is a very compelling interest for requiring background checks/tests/etc.

Arms can mean military grade or not. It's our right.

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)? We have nothing to fight it. Good one, Liberals. Way to fail.

I love at how people always use the word "liberal" as an insult. It's like a buzzword for the right-wing. :rolleyes: I would say more but since getting personal wont solve anything I wont.

Arms can mean military grade or not. It's our right.

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)? We have nothing to fight it. Good one, Liberals. Way to fail.

Ok that is really stretching it.

Sorry but you will have to convince me that a right is being infringed by not having the ability to own a military grade semiautomatic weapon, a sniper rifle, and what not.

If the goverment goes theocracy, who do you think will allow it? Many of the people that would put such a goverment in power would have the same weapory.....

:sniper: Im a liberal if you had to label me but im all for the 2nd ammendment. oh and about us not needing military grade weapons...well i think thats wrong to a degree. i think the whole point of our right to bear arms is so that should our country be invaded and the military overrun the average joe could rise up in a regulated militia. thats why we have that right so we can fight in combat if we have to against an enemy nation. The hunting aspect is secondary. But then again we dont need a tank to be a militia(look at the viet kong). Just like the militia of yester year did not have Boats and artillery. all the 2nd ammendment is saying is that we get guns and knives. :sniper:


:rolleyes: :mp5: :p :gundge:

To me, life is a universal right, unabridgeable and unalienable. The right to bear arms is a right granted to us by the government primarily to reassure citizens that they will not be asked to disarm and unilaterally submit to the government.

A gun's only purpose is to destroy life. Our food sources are not dependant on the existence of guns. Even recreational gun usage can be replaced with crossbows, although the entire idea of recreational killing is still disgusting to me.

Guns can kill. People will fear being killed. So, people fear guns and those who wield them. If power can be inspired by fear, then ultimately, it is people demanding power that will have guns.

I may be liberal. I may be extremely to the left. But I have my reasons.

~ CD

Oh, and before you jump on me, I am aware of the Wimp's Paradox:

To expand rights, one must give up the facilities required to defend oneself from an oppressor of rights.

Like, if we were invaded, I'm well aware that a person like me would not go out and shoot the invaders. But I can live with that.

~ CD

well i dont use guns to hunt im a veggitarian but i do like to go do some target practice its relaxing and fun. and every day some punk is restricting my right to bear arms a little bit more. Do you know that Hitler infringed his ppls right to bear arms just before he started going mad with power. take away our guns and you take away our power to act and have a little fun shooting coke cans.

if we were invaded i would go out and shoot the invaders and i know plenty of others that would but i guess thats just me and the ppl i know, and besides how is that the "wimps paradox" im simply stating the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. And we actual used it in the war of 1812...because of the 2nd ammendment we were more prepared to handle the brits.

How are we gonna get invaded? We are a large, powerful country surrounded on 2 sides by thousands of miles of water and 2 friendly countries on another 2 sides? Or could it be that the second amendment was an old relic from the days of the revolution? :)

How are we gonna get invaded? We are a large, powerful country surrounded on 2 sides by thousands of miles of water and 2 friendly countries on another 2 sides? Or could it be that the second amendment was an old relic from the days of the revolution? :)

Two friendly countries?! LMFAO

Mexico would help the invaders and take Cali and Mexico.

Canada and the EU would backstab the US the first chance they get. I'm willing to bet my life on these two statements.

yes and no, first of all who says mexico and or canada arent just itching to take us out? we dont know. Germany tried to get mexico to attack us in world war one. secondly england was planning an invasion of the US just before world war two which was why they were so well prepared to fight germany.

secondly england was planning an invasion of the US just before world war two which was why they were so well prepared to fight germany.

Where the hell did you get that info from?

God bless the history channel and a book i read by winston Churchill

germany and japan were also making plans for an invasion of the us. but it never really happened. Unless you count pearl harbor i know i do i mean we fought on US soil sounds like an invasion to me.

germany and japan were also making plans for an invasion of the us. but it never really happened. Unless you count pearl harbor i know i do i mean we fought on US soil sounds like an invasion to me.

um.......DUH?!

well some ppl dont realize that germany was doing resarch on intercontiential bombs, and were making plans to invade canada and from there eastern united states. also few ppl know that a jap sub was popping rounds of at US beaches on the east coast, as well as making planes to use a combined balloon bomb and and intercontiential bomber to push through as far as the heartland of the US and drop pay loads of checmical weapons.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.
So is anyone who bears arms for personal protection, rather than to be a part of a militia. But most 2nd Amendment proponents either forget that part of the amendment, or find it so oddly worded that they dismiss it to get to the good part.

who says that the right to bear arms only fits in with militia and not for self protection. to me they are connected. i have the right to defend myslef from enemies foreign or domestic. what about the civil war there was no foreign enemy there.

This is an incredibly American thread. Most conservatives in western countries think you loopy to have such ridiculous gun laws as in the USA, and generally from countries that have had a far less relaxed history as well...

well no more for me this debate has spilled over to me and my friend now :mp5: :sniper:

The right to bear arms allows us, as citizens, to protect ourselves, our land, our children and our sovereignty.

Whether or not we own guns does not affect whether or not people will commit murder.

Our constitution was written to allow all of us to own a gun. If we don't want to, we don't have to.

Slender Goddess

I sure get tired of hearing how all those left wing pinko liberals want to get rid of everyone's guns. It's like only right wing redneck conservatives own firearms and will shout out "from my cold dead hands!" anytime someone brings up the issue of regulating firearms. Sorry, that argument is just sad and lame. Yes, some extreme liberals do want all guns banned, but it JUST AINT GONNA HAPPEN! (see the caveat in my next paragraph)

Here's the thing, there's little chance that firearms will ever be completely outlawed in this country. The Assault weapons ban may be reinstated and may even be strengthened to include even more firearms. Argue about that if you want, it's a much more valid discussion. But no one will be able to completely do away with all firearms unless a militarized police state is enacted under an imposition of martial law. The day martial law is described is the day this country falls into violent, armed revolution. There are simply too many guns out there, and the government knows this.

Now I'm pretty liberal in a lot of ways, but I'm a gun owner/shooter and I'd love to own an HK MP3 or MP5 (preferably full-auto capable) along with several other full auto assault rifles. Not because I want to go out and shoot up the people at my work or because I'm afraid of the paranoid scenario I just painted, but because shooting a gun - for me - is a lot of fun. And shooting a full auto firearm - which I've done - is even more fun. Hell, I wouldn't mind firing of a rocket launcher or letting loose with a 40mm grenade launcher. Matalatatake like BOOOOM. Let me point out one more thing. If you are a good shot, a .22 caliber bullet is one of the most lethal rounds out there. Body armor is great until you catch a round in the eye, and a .22 will bounce around inside the skull turning a brain into mush. So you don't need a 7.62 assault rifle to do some serious damage.

Last - the argument of respecting life. Respect for life is a good thing. But we are all killers. All things live. All things die. It's only a matter of degree. I am a carnivore. I like steak, chicken, bacon and pork chops, fish and other seafood. I also like vegetables, but a diet comprised of just vegies sounds dull. I generally don't like bugs, and I like diseases even less. I have killed or profited by the killing all these things to survive. I just prefer to know that the animals I eat have lived the best life possible before I eat them. Thus, whenever possible, I restrict my purchase of meat to that which has been raised as kindly and healthily as possible. I don't like the idea of factory farms or consuming animals that have been fed by feed created by chemical processes or is made up of ground up animals. Likewise, I prefer vegetables that have been raised organically and aren't genetically modified. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of choice about either of these most often, but I do what I can.

I'm just another animal, and I'm not an herbavore. If this makes me a bad person then so be it. Apparently I am also going to hell as Jesus hasn't saved my soul yet - at least not to my knowledge. And yes, I have asked.

who says that the right to bear arms only fits in with militia and not for self protection. to me they are connected. i have the right to defend myslef from enemies foreign or domestic. what about the civil war there was no foreign enemy there.

Constitution of the United States, Amendment II:
"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 Founding Fathers did not simply state "...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," which is what is on the exterior of the National Rifle Association's corporate headquarters. They chose to include the sole reason of WHY the people have the right to bear arms. Your right to bear arms in the United States has nothing to do with your personal freedom or the right to defend yourself. It has everything to do with the security of the free State. If the country is invaded (a valid concern in 1791) a militia would have to be called to defend it. Likewise, if a violent anti-American militia were to take arms against it (Shay's Rebellion, for example) a militia would need to be called to fight it. Finally, if the government becomes so oppressive that it no longer resembles that defined by the Constituiton, it is the duty of every patriot to take up arms against it (hence the use of the term "free State" rather than "State").

Nowadays, we have the Army, the Navy (including the Marines), the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, various State Guards, Civil Defense...the list goes on and on. These serve the State's purpose of the well-regulated militia. So, unless you plan on overthrowing the government, should it become too un-American, or fighting against a force opposing the State, you have no reason under the Second Amendment to own a gun. In like manner, if you so choose to be a part of the militia, you should probably register with someone, as the clause includes the phrase "well regulated."

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

That depends on how you interpret the 2nd amendment. The court's have defined it to mean that citizen's can bear arms in the case a foreign power overruns the nation, then the population will be able to come to the state's defense. If the 2nd amendment is about defending the state, then the government has the right to impose regulations on gun ownership in the cases where all out gun ownership could threaten the state. Personally, I think this interpretation is a bunch of self-serving crap used by the government to strengthen its position.

The other possible meaning of the 2nd amendment is that citizens are allowed to keep weapons in order to fight against possible governmental tyranny, thus ensuring a free state. Considering the amendments were written by guys with a love for freedom who had just pulled of an armed rebellion, I think this is the right way to read it. In which case yes, any limitation on weapon ownership is a violation. Weapon permits even more so than limiting the types of weapons since that is giving the government say in WHO can own a weapon, meaning that the government can decide who is a "good enough citizen." This in no way protects freedom.

I'm really torn about whether or not guns should be banned or not. As a matter of principle, my answer would be hell no. As a matter of reality, considering the size of the standing army, the fact that government weaponry now includes tanks, DU shells, huge-ass bombs, etc , the fact that the population is so huge that organization is not really possible on a large scale, and the fact that the government has decided it has the right to use military force against any individual state(s) that attempt to leave the union I am not certain that citizens having guns in any way promotes their ability to protect their freedoms. Instead it just lets them commit acts of violence against each other.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

are you a part of your local millitia?if no then you do NOT have a constitutional right to bear arms.read it slowly this time.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.
Depends on the length of the check. A one day backround check at most wouldn't really be infringing. The check could only make sure, however, that you had not committed a felony with a weapon. That would be the only restriction other than an 18 age limit on buying a gun.

are you a part of your local millitia?if no then you do NOT have a constitutional right to bear arms.read it slowly this time.
The founders considered all able-bodied males over the age of 17 to be "militia". Besides which, the first half of the 2nd amendment is the justification clause for the second half, the "rights" clause.

As a matter of reality, considering the size of the standing army, the fact that government weaponry now includes tanks, DU shells, huge-ass bombs, etc , the fact that the population is so huge that organization is not really possible on a large scale, and the fact that the government has decided it has the right to use military force against any individual state(s) that attempt to leave the union I am not certain that citizens having guns in any way promotes their ability to protect their freedoms. Instead it just lets them commit acts of violence against each other.
Not true, if a populace were to truly resist tyranny the govt. couldn't really do much about it, especially considering it's an all volunteer army. If a state tried to secede on the other hand, the govt. could use all it's force. Our armed forces would mean jack shit if the general population of Iraq really wanted us out. There are about 5000-6000 people fighting us, less after the Fallujah assault. If the general populace were to get as many guns as they could and try to force us out, they would certainly do so. Besides which, there is no evidence that gun control actually suppresses crime and there's a whole bundle of evidence that heavy gun control laws actually severely increase crime. The big four cities in the US, Chicago, New York, LA,, and DC haved the highest crime rates per 100,000 of US cities and yet gun ownership is either illegal or is tied up in so many restrictions that it may as well be unless you're Donald Trump rich. On the other hand Vermont has one of if not the lowest crime rate of any state and it's gun laws are vitually nonexistant. If you look at overall murder rates there isn't much difference at all between the US and the UK. The US's firearm murder rate may be higher but the overall murder rates are almost the exact same. If you take out the inner city young black male populace out of the murder rate in the US altogether the overall murder rate drops to that of Canada. If you are under 15 you are about twice as likely to die from choking on your food as you are to die from a firearm. If under five you are much more than twice as likely to die from drowning in a tub. Guns are used an estimated 1 million to 2.5 million times a year for self defense, depending on who you talk to.

Two friendly countries?! LMFAO
...
Canada and the EU would backstab the US the first chance they get. I'm willing to bet my life on these two statements.

sorry but i think you certainly have the wrong idea about the EU and, assumedly, Canada.

I've always wondered this.
What is a liberal? :confused:

[...] I'd love to own an HK MP3 [...]HK does not manufacture nor has it ever manufactured any gun of that name. Perhaps you mean the G3 (http://hkpro.com/g3.htm), or a HK53 (http://hkpro.com/hk53.htm)?

If you are a good shot, a .22 caliber bullet is one of the most lethal rounds out there. Body armor is great until you catch a round in the eye, and a .22 will bounce around inside the skull turning a brain into mush.First of all, this is absolute bullshit. Bullets meant for combat aren't made of rubber, they don't "bounce" off bones. Second, if you fire a bullet through a human's eye socket into his/her brain, he's fucking dead, period.

.22 Rimfire rounds do have a tendency to deflect off of bones. This is because they are very light and very slow, something you generally do not want in a bullet. A .22 LR shot at the skull might not penetrate, instead riding between the skull and skin before exiting -- or it might deflect off a rib if you hit someone in the chest/back, resulting in minor damage. In an extreme case, the bullet could end up inside the thoracic cavity and deflect off ribs instead of penetrating them, allowing it to extend the wound cavity inside the thorax some extra inches.

All these legends started from a surgeon (or surgeons) saying .22s were nasty because it was hard to track their wound cavities. Whereas most respectable self-defence non-fragmenting bullets fired from handguns will tend to crush a straight hole through the target, not minding hips or spines or anything else that gets between, a .22 might deflect and end up in a hard-to-find and even harder to get at spot. This does not mean it's any more lethal -- in fact, it means the exact opposite. Make no mistake, rimfire .22s are about as crappy for killing people as cartridges get.

Arms can mean military grade or not. It's our right.So LAWs, and maybe ATGMs should be legal for any able-bodied 18-year-old to own? How about shoulder-launched SAMs, the better to shoot down Evil Government attack helicopters? A few Tomahawk launchers, to blow up Evil Government C^3 sites so they can't mount an offensive against your peace-loving home town? What the heck, why not get an old C-130 Hercules and a few MOAB (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm)s, so you can bomb those oppressive bastards to oblivion?

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)?Without really touching the subject of whether liberals actually want to regulate civilian ownership of firearms (logic would dictate not, because liberals are, by definition, for civil liberties which gun ownership basically is)... If liberals are in power, then there won't be a theocracy. Theocracies are authoritarian and oppressive, features in a government that liberals completely oppose.

I've always wondered this.
same reason Conservatives typically want to completely ban drugs.

HK does not manufacture nor has it ever manufactured any gun of that name. Perhaps you mean the G3 (http://hkpro.com/g3.htm), or a HK53 (http://hkpro.com/hk53.htm)?

Yes G3, my bad. Suprised you didn't jump on my lumping the MP5 with other assualt rifles as the MP5 is technically an SMG.

First of all, this is absolute bullshit. Bullets meant for combat aren't made of rubber, they don't "bounce" off bones. Second, if you fire a bullet through a human's eye socket into his/her brain, he's fucking dead, period.


The point I was trying to make is that just because other firearms that use higher caliber rounds might be banned doesn't mean that something as piss poor as a .22 bullet can't kill if fired by an effective marksman. By my use of the term "bounce" I was indicating that once a .22 bullet enters into the cranium it will ricochet within the skull (thus use of the word bounce - having nothing to do with rubber) causing death. A f**king arrow will do the trick as well. It's just that a .22 rifle/pistol is usually a bit more accurate unless you're Robin f**king Hood. Of course a 7.62 is more effective in a combat situation than a .22, but you have to work with you've got, no?

in closing, holy crap, dude! Relax! It's just a f**king thread.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

Wait a minute. Do you want to know why liberals want to ban guns or do you want to tell people why you are in favor of them? Two different threads. Don't ask a question if all you want is a springboard to start gasbagging about your own ideas.

Not all liberals want to ban guns. That's something conservatives tell you to make the word liberal sound scary.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.

Am I the only person who thinks this guy is taking the piss?

Suprised you didn't jump on my lumping the MP5 with other assualt rifles as the MP5 is technically an SMG.Not just "technically", it is absolutely an SMG. I didn't jump at it, because, neither is a G3 (it's a battle rifle/automatic rifle), and I wasn't exactly sure I understood the whole sentence.
The point I was trying to make is that just because other firearms that use higher caliber rounds might be banned doesn't mean that something as piss poor as a .22 bullet can't kill if fired by an effective marksman.Yes, it absolutely can kill. Most of the time, it will penetrate the skull, so a good shooter can generally kill a still target at close ranges with one. With non-deforming or slightly deforming ammunition it is quite likely to get to the penetrate deep enough into the human torso to sever the major arteries -- but it will still crush a pitifully small hole.

I have never heard of pistols in 9x19mm, .40S&W or .45ACP being banned where .22s are allowed. .22s might be more available in places where carrying handguns is not allowed and firearms regulations are strict in general, but rimfire pistols being legal and centerfire pistols illegal sounds very strange.
By my use of the term "bounce" I was indicating that once a .22 bullet enters into the cranium it will ricochet within the skull (thus use of the word bounce - having nothing to do with rubber) causing death.It may, if it enters at a shallow angle so that it more or less follows the skull on the inside. If it strikes the skull at an almost right-angle, you either get penetration of the skull on the other side, or it simply stops where it hits the skull going out. In either case, like you implied with the arrow example, this has absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of the round. If you get a hole in your brain, you're dead. If not, you're so fucking lucky it wouldn't've mattered if it had been a .44 Magnum JHP instead.
Of course a 7.62 is more effective in a combat situation than a .22, but you have to work with you've got, no?I wouldn't compare any 7.62s/.300s with the .22 rimfires. Even a plain old 9x19mm is far superior for any combat purpose. The 7.62x39mm (good ole AK-47 caliber) isn't necessarily much better, certainly not with FMJ ammunition. Once you get into 7.62x51mm and more powerful rifle calibers, though, the damage caused to human tissue (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/308%20Winchester.jpg) is orders of magnitude greater than anything a .22 LR (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2037gr%20HP%20Wound%20Profile.jpg) could ever dream of achieving. Regardless, if all you've got is a .22 LR pistol, then that's what you use. If only to fight your way to a real weapon...
in closing, holy crap, dude! Relax! It's just a f**king thread.The ".22 is ultralethal" myth is a pet peeve of mine. Also, I figure if someone talks about firearms they are generally open to find out more, so I try to correct any errors they make. In particular, I try to kill off the stupid myths before they propagate.

Whoever said "the same reason conservatives want to ban all the drugs" is wise beyond his (or her?) years. Well, unless you're really old.

Both groups just don't want the other to have any fun. Heh. J/k

england was planning an invasion of the US just before world war two which was why they were so well prepared to fight germany.

I actually pissed myself when I read this. First of all, England was a wreck, our economy was shite, our army horrifically under equipped. It would have been suicide to invade you. Secondly, where did you get the bullshit about us being prepared for Germany? We were so under prepared it was laughable. They'd been making arms since the early 30's we'd hadn't increased arms production at all. It was lucky that the "phoney war" happened so we had time to get prepared.

If you actually believe what you said, you truly are an idiot.

Am I the only person who thinks this guy is taking the piss?
Nope. This guy is like Lacadaemon, only with less verbiage.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms in a particular, special, historical way - and, according to some, in ONLY that way.

As an organized (under the government, not off on it's own) militia because, as the 2nd Amendment says,

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.

It is important to understand what those commas are doing in there. And the words "well regulated". And to understand that, at that time in history, it was common to have a Reserve Military Force (militia) that could be called into action by the Government, that was constituted of all men and boys considered to be old enough and healthy enough. And, as the Government(s) did not have sufficient weapons, or sufficient money to acquire, store, and keep-up sufficient weapons, it was the DUTY of each such man/boy to have a weapon on hand.

The "well regulated militia" of the United States is the Reserve, and the National Guard when federalized. The "well regulated militia" of each state is that states (or commonwealths) National Guard.

It is no longer necessary for each man/boy to own and keep a gun at home to fight with if needed. The various State Governments have been provided, by the federal government, with the weapons required for the "militia" (National Guard) - and the federal government has the weapons required for the Active Component, and the US Reserve Forces.

There is no provision in the Constitution of a right to bear Arms for any other purpose.

And there is no provision that prevents either the United States, or the various States, from requiring any privately owned weapons to be registered.

While I have my shotgun, and my little "22", and like to hunt wild turkeys, I have no objection to registering them, and I see absolutely no need for any private individual to own an assault weapon of any kind, unless it has been thoroughly disabled, cannot be fired in any manner, and is capable of nothing except being part of a display/collection.

-----------------------------
And, before all the angry responses to this come in:

1. I once was a member of the NRA, and at NRA meetings I was taught, quite well, how to properly handle, care for, and fire my 22 calibre rifle. I do NOT agree with the NRA's current stand, but the men and women of the NRA who taught me about rifles/weapons 40 years ago knew what they were doing, and did a VERY GOOD JOB.
2. I spent 4 years in the United States Army, Honorably Discharged (Vietnam ERA, but did not get sent to Vietnam)
3. I spent another 3 years in the Army Reserve.
4. I've spent the last 21 1/2 years in the National Guard - and am a Sergeant Major.
5. I have 3 sons and a daughter - and I've taught them all proper handling, care, and use of rifles (and bows and arrows, for that matter).
6. Guns don't kill people, people WITH GUNS kill people.

Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream calling for the ban of all guns.
And it has to be on this planet...

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms in a particular, special, historical way - and, according to some, in ONLY that way.

As an organized (under the government, not off on it's own) militia because, as the 2nd Amendment says,

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.

It is important to understand what those commas are doing in there. And the words "well regulated". And to understand that, at that time in history, it was common to have a Reserve Military Force (militia) that could be called into action by the Government, that was constituted of all men and boys considered to be old enough and healthy enough. And, as the Government(s) did not have sufficient weapons, or sufficient money to acquire, store, and keep-up sufficient weapons, it was the DUTY of each such man/boy to have a weapon on hand.

The "well regulated militia" of the United States is the Reserve, and the National Guard when federalized. The "well regulated militia" of each state is that states (or commonwealths) National Guard.

It is no longer necessary for each man/boy to own and keep a gun at home to fight with if needed. The various State Governments have been provided, by the federal government, with the weapons required for the "militia" (National Guard) - and the federal government has the weapons required for the Active Component, and the US Reserve Forces.

There is no provision in the Constitution of a right to bear Arms for any other purpose.

And there is no provision that prevents either the United States, or the various States, from requiring any privately owned weapons to be registered.

While I have my shotgun, and my little "22", and like to hunt wild turkeys, I have no objection to registering them, and I see absolutely no need for any private individual to own an assault weapon of any kind, unless it has been thoroughly disabled, cannot be fired in any manner, and is capable of nothing except being part of a display/collection.

-----------------------------
And, before all the angry responses to this come in:

1. I once was a member of the NRA, and at NRA meetings I was taught, quite well, how to properly handle, care for, and fire my 22 calibre rifle. I do NOT agree with the NRA's current stand, but the men and women of the NRA who taught me about rifles/weapons 40 years ago knew what they were doing, and did a VERY GOOD JOB.
2. I spent 4 years in the United States Army, Honorably Discharged (Vietnam ERA, but did not get sent to Vietnam)
3. I spent another 3 years in the Army Reserve.
4. I've spent the last 21 1/2 years in the National Guard - and am a Sergeant Major.
5. I have 3 sons and a daughter - and I've taught them all proper handling, care, and use of rifles (and bows and arrows, for that matter).
6. Guns don't kill people, people WITH GUNS kill people.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream calling for the ban of all guns.
And it has to be on this planet...Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream who is opposed to regulation of firearms. And he/she has to be on this planet.

We (at least, I'm not) are not talking about banning all guns. We are talking about reasonable regulation and registration of who has guns (firearms - weapons - a "gun" is a howitzer), what kinds of weaponry they can have, and other SAFETY issues.

When I was 14 and being taught how to handle, care for, and use weapons by the NRA, SAFETY was the number one concern.

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.

In what way does a background check constitute an infringement of this right? It's just making sure a man with a history of violent crime for example, doesn't end up robbing a bank ;) And the first bit's important - A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Well regulated. National Guard, anyone?

Nope. This guy is like Lacadaemon, only with less verbiage.
Oh, thank God for that. I thought everyone was taking him seriously.

Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream who is opposed to regulation of firearms. And he/she has to be on this planet.

We (at least, I'm not) are not talking about banning all guns. We are talking about reasonable regulation and registration of who has guns (firearms - weapons - a "gun" is a howitzer), what kinds of weaponry they can have, and other SAFETY issues.

When I was 14 and being taught how to handle, care for, and use weapons by the NRA, SAFETY was the number one concern.
And that ought to be the first concern. We really need to think about this for a second--we require a license to drive a car, we require registration to vote, we restrict the use of alchohol based on age of all things, why shouldn't there be some regulation of firearm ownership? Why shouldn't we have to pass a test or go through a training program to prove that we're not going to blow our own fool heads off the second we get one? (The NRA leadership, which presents itself as mainstream, would go apeshit if that were ever suggested, by the way.)

Here's how I see it:
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.
See, when the first and last commas are re-interpereted to define an aside (which is totally within the rules of grammar), the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns! It says, "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed"!

And that ought to be the first concern. We really need to think about this for a second--we require a license to drive a car, we require registration to vote, we restrict the use of alchohol based on age of all things, why shouldn't there be some regulation of firearm ownership? Why shouldn't we have to pass a test or go through a training program to prove that we're not going to blow our own fool heads off the second we get one? (The NRA leadership, which presents itself as mainstream, would go apeshit if that were ever suggested, by the way.)
seriously! i don't get why some gun nuts are so determined to have guns with no restrictions whatsoever...my best friend is crazy about cars, can't live without them, but he has never advocated doing away with driver's licenses or traffic laws.

personally, i don't have any desire to own a gun or a car at this point in my life, but i don't have any particular desire to stop other people from owning them if they like. what i object to is the idea that we should regulate how and when people are allowed to drive cars, but we shouldn't regulate how and when people carry guns about.

I think that when people are talking about the .22 being ultralethal, they're talking about the .223 cartridges which are high velocity and tend to tumble when they strike, and leave huge exit wounds, and making your insides look like they've been through a blender. I don't think that they're talking about the .22 that they use in boy scouts to shoot paper targets with.

As for the second amendment, I tend to favor the view that the right to bear arms for a regulated milita means that the states are allowed to raise an army independent of the federal government. Meaning that the national guard which is technically under the state governor's control is that well regulated militia in which the right to bear arms is granted. I think that the founders being the armed rebels which they were, were more concerned with protecting state rights in order to get the states to sign the constitution. After all, no state would have signed it, if some form of protection for soverignty were granted.

I think that when people are talking about the .22 being ultralethal, they're talking about the .223 cartridges [...] I don't think that they're talking about the .22 that they use in boy scouts to shoot paper targets with.Unfortunately, they usually are talking about the rimfire .22s. Whenever someone refers to "bouncing off bones" and "the bullet playing pinball inside your ribcage/skull", they are referring to the .22 myth.

I am aware of the tendency of the 5.56x45mm NATO standard FMJs to fragment when they tumble at short ranges. Indeed, those can screw up your insides, much like any fragmenting rifle round. Here (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm)'s a great website that goes into extreme detail in discussing the 5.56/.223.

Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream who is opposed to regulation of firearms. And he/she has to be on this planet.

We (at least, I'm not) are not talking about banning all guns. We are talking about reasonable regulation and registration of who has guns (firearms - weapons - a "gun" is a howitzer), what kinds of weaponry they can have, and other SAFETY issues.

When I was 14 and being taught how to handle, care for, and use weapons by the NRA, SAFETY was the number one concern.

I will not, since I never made any such assertion. I read the utter nonsense which is the title of this thread and that's my question. But since you mentioned it, the NRA has been a staunch opponent to any kind of legislation regarding the regulation of gun ownership. Look at their website, it's full of all kinds of kooky conspiracy crap. This thread is an example of their kind of dogma. What I say is that if anyone were stupid enough to say something like this in my house, I will shoot them. Have at that.

Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream calling for the ban of all guns.
And it has to be on this planet...

I don't need a spokesman to validate schemes that promote the banning of all guns, on this or any other planet. I can recognize that need without anyone underscoring the point for me.

I imagine there are others who feel similarly.

"Just remember: Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."
~Family Guy

Why not, well the real reason is we want to return to street fighting! Wars will not be fougt with weapons but in a boxing ring between Bush and Saddam. There will be no threat of WMD's as it will just be like I'll come over there and bait ya, type of thing!

Also redneck hicks will return to the good ol days of brandishing pitch forks and waving burning tourches!!!

So go on Ban the guns! Think of the work out your fists will get!

I will not, since I never made any such assertion. I read the utter nonsense which is the title of this thread and that's my question. But since you mentioned it, the NRA has been a staunch opponent to any kind of legislation regarding the regulation of gun ownership. Look at their website, it's full of all kinds of kooky conspiracy crap. This thread is an example of their kind of dogma. What I say is that if anyone were stupid enough to say something like this in my house, I will shoot them. Have at that.Oh - you will not. Helpful. Since you mention the NRA, I don't consider them in the mainstream. Have at that if you choose to. Since you won't answer the question, I have nothing further to discuss with you.

---------------------------
I'm not sure if your message is coming through clearly. Are you in favor of some sort of regulation and/or registration of firearms, or are you in favor of anyone/everyone who wants to have a firearm can go out and buy one, with ammo, with no restriction or registration required?

I have to ask republicans do you think Felons should have gun use?
After all its the the same problem. Are you only for guns when its some people or everyone? THe second amendment goes both ways.

Liberals (sparingly used) do not say a thing about banning guns. We do think Control is useful. Control do not equal banning guns. Just controlling which guns are bought, sold, used, and how long before you may buy them.

I don't see how that is banning them. That would be a extreme and very few people in A,merica say they want to do that.
Some have said it might be cool to try due to England's crime isn't higher due to less guns.
So maybe it can't be too bad some might say, but we don't actually try to get rid of guns.

Please labels are not that important. Kinda like Death tax does not mean estate tax sice estate tax only effects rich. Death tax sounds like it affects all dead.

Not all liberals want to ban guns. That's something conservatives tell you to make the word liberal sound scary.
No, it is the stated intent or undenied intent of most of the official gun control organizations out there.

No, it is the stated intent or undenied intent of most of the official gun control organizations out there.
You always get extreme guys in any organization. NRA wants everyone to use guns even felons with records of shooting people.
So its not like its just gun control dudes.

Name one spokesperson who is in the mainstream who is opposed to regulation of firearms. And he/she has to be on this planet.

We (at least, I'm not) are not talking about banning all guns. We are talking about reasonable regulation and registration of who has guns (firearms - weapons - a "gun" is a howitzer), what kinds of weaponry they can have, and other SAFETY issues.

When I was 14 and being taught how to handle, care for, and use weapons by the NRA, SAFETY was the number one concern.
The phrase "bear arms" means anything less than an artillery piece aka "small arms". Thusly LAWs, howitzers, and crew served weapons are not allowed. Civvies also don't really need grenades or AP mines either.

I have to ask republicans do you think Felons should have gun use?
After all its the the same problem. Are you only for guns when its some people or everyone? THe second amendment goes both ways.

Liberals (sparingly used) do not say a thing about banning guns. We do think Control is useful. Control do not equal banning guns. Just controlling which guns are bought, sold, used, and how long before you may buy them.

I don't see how that is banning them. That would be a extreme and very few people in A,merica say they want to do that.
Some have said it might be cool to try due to England's crime isn't higher due to less guns.
So maybe it can't be too bad some might say, but we don't actually try to get rid of guns.

Please labels are not that important. Kinda like Death tax does not mean estate tax sice estate tax only effects rich. Death tax sounds like it affects all dead.
Felons, yes. Felons who commited their crime with a lethal weapon, no. And a lethal weapon could not be described as a car unless there ws an intent to kill/injure.

The phrase "bear arms" means anything less than an artillery piece aka "small arms". Thusly LAWs, howitzers, and crew served weapons are not allowed. Civvies also don't really need grenades or AP mines either.
Does that mean swords, knives, and more?

Why do felon lose right to use a knife? I can almopst understand a gun but why a knife? Doesn't second amendment say they can't lose it?

Does that mean swords, knives, and more?

Why do felon lose right to use a knife? I can almopst understand a gun but why a knife? Doesn't second amendment say they can't lose it?
A knife is not a firearm. The origin of the use of arm.

Because guns kill and we dont need them. :rolleyes: Though thats a bit niave but the average person does not need assault weapons either.

Does not need a 65" TV, Hummer H2, or the ability to get a Big Mac 24 hours a day, either.

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF NEED.

What it comes down to is this:
If we, as an American people, can do or own or say whatever we want to so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another, then nothing, and I mean NOTHING should be banned as a consumer good.

The phrase "bear arms" means anything less than an artillery piece aka "small arms". Thusly LAWs, howitzers, and crew served weapons are not allowed. Civvies also don't really need grenades or AP mines either.

It means ANYTHING. QED.

"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."

I don't know where you get your interpretation, but it's not right.

It means ANYTHING. QED.

"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."

I don't know where you get your interpretation, but it's not right.
Noo, I'm pretty sure it was illegal for the common citizen to own cannon. Although it may just have been too rare and expensive to justify owning them, I'm not sure.

To quote the great Mr Izzard

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun helps.'

Guns are for killing, hence why they should be banned. If you really want to defend yourself, go learn Judo or something.

Noo, I'm pretty sure it was illegal for the common citizen to own cannon. Although it may just have been too rare and expensive to justify owning them, I'm not sure.

As with anything in modern America, you can own anything if you pay for the right license.

And, back in the old days (read: pre WW1), there pretty much were NO gun control laws. If you can find me an orndance regarding cannons, that'd be great, but I seriously doubt any existed.

Oh, and by the way. You are America. I seriously doubt you have to worry much about your country being invaded to the point where Joe Normal has to step in to lend a hand.

But lets just say... hypothetically, like, you were to be invaded and you army decimated. What chance would an 'organised milita' have against a force strong enough to decimate the US army.

(This is from another post of mine on a similar thread)

I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.

The phrase "bear arms" means anything less than an artillery piece aka "small arms". Thusly LAWs, howitzers, and crew served weapons are not allowed. Civvies also don't really need grenades or AP mines either.Please note that I have over 28 years of service in the US Military. I was addressing the use of the term "gun". In the military, a gun is a howitzer or cannon. What most people are talking about when they say "gun" is a rifle, pistol, revolver, or some other form of what the military refers to as "small arms".

The phrase "bear arms" was written in the late 18th century. So, while we can get a pretty good idea what "they" meant then, we have to interpret whether or not the "arms" in question would include modern weaponry invented since the 2nd Amendment was written.

I would interpret it to mean small arms - individual weapons.

There is only one animal you hunt with armor-piercing, cyanide-tipped bullets and it talks (no, it isn't parrots).

Because guns kill and we dont need them. :rolleyes: Though thats a bit niave but the average person does not need assault weapons either.
Ok...truly now, is a gun the only way to kill a person? I don't think so. There are hundreds of ways that one can take life. Guns are simply the most readily available method. Not to mention that if the gov't did ban all firearms, then only criminals would own firearms. I'm a rather liberal person and I love to go out and target shoot. It's actually rather relaxing. On the subject of does the average person need an assault rifle? Probably not, but they're just so darn fun!!

There is only one animal you hunt with armor-piercing, cyanide-tipped bullets and it talks (no, it isn't parrots).

Hunting does not enter into the equation.

I love at how people always use the word "liberal" as an insult. It's like a buzzword for the right-wing. :rolleyes: I would say more but since getting personal wont solve anything I wont.
There are people on the Left who do the exact same with Conservative and even Christian. Please don't endorse double standards. Liberals aren't always in the right either.

I want to completely ban guns 'cause they make lousy fly-swatters, and piss-poor can openers. As devices designed for the express purpose of removing human life, hey - they're great. I just don't see the need to have such a gadget on hand, as removing human life ranks much lower on my list of priorities, while dealing with pesky bugs, etc. remains high.

Go figure.

A knife is not a firearm. The origin of the use of arm.I would disagree. "Arms" are not firearms. Arms are any and all weaponry - the term pre-dates firearms - which would include swords, bows and arrows, knives - in fact, at the writing of the 2nd Amendment, anything that in the late 18th century would have been a common, or fairly common, weapon of an individual soldier. Lances. Spears. Battle Axes. But, not cannon.

The original question about knives and felons bothers me - and I'm not sure I understand it. Is the question intended to find some constitutional grounds to insist that convicted felons have the right to "bear arms", and that includes knives? If so, my answer would be that a convicted felon should lose the right to bear arms, knives included. It is a fact that a waiver is required to allow a convicted felon to join the US Military - otherwise, they are prohibited.

Two friendly countries?! LMFAO

Mexico would help the invaders and take Cali and Mexico.

Canada and the EU would backstab the US the first chance they get. I'm willing to bet my life on these two statements.
Why do you think these things? Oh yes, your "instincts".

If this is the way Americans think, it's no wonder they elect such terrible leaders.

Does not need a 65" TV, Hummer H2, or the ability to get a Big Mac 24 hours a day, either.

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF NEED.

What it comes down to is this:
If we, as an American people, can do or own or say whatever we want to so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another, then nothing, and I mean NOTHING should be banned as a consumer good.Do you support everyone's right to drive through stop signs and/or red lights without stopping? Do you support everyone's right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Do you support everyone's right to own a vial of anthrax?

But, you do support everyone's right to own an M-60, and M-16, an AK-47?

Do you really not see the similarity in requiring drivers to stop at stop lights and stop signs, and prohibiting the sale and ownership of anthrax, to the regulation and registration of firearms?

EDIT Just saw your post about Registration - so it's obvious that you do see the similarity, and are looking for a compromise, equal-across-the-50-states, moderate form of "gun control". I think we're both on the same track, heading in the same direction - maybe at different speeds?

Why do you think these things? Oh yes, your "instincts".

If this is the way Americans think, it's no wonder they elect such terrible leaders.I'm of two minds about your post.

1. Only some Americans "think" this way - mostly, just the ones who don't really think at all.

2. America is not the only country that seems to repeatedly elect and/or select bozos to run the country. Take an unbiased look around, at both those "in charge" today, and through history. Humanity seems to excel at putting the wrong people in charge.

Humanity seems to excel at putting the wrong people in charge.
Two nations divided by a common language, but I'm glad some of you lot in the states agree with us Brits. Blair is a twonk.

Americans who are against the possession of guns tend to be concerned about the right to life etc., which is a fair point. But just because the second amendment (of which I have limited idea, I'm deducing from the thread) allows people to have guns, doesn't mean you have to take it.

Americans who are for the possession of guns should be allowed to have them- some of them have their reasons such as hunting or defense from attackers/felons, and in the case of the latter, the right to defend oneself should remain regardless of the means. The case for attacking felons maybe harder to qualify, because despite the fact that some people will make obvious judgements, people can make mistakes. At least in a courtroom, there's room for a few people making errors (as the jury's majority outvotes, blahdeblahdeblah).

The solution, if licensing is opposed (good call Markreich, nice idea), should probably entail that people can either receive a gun, or body armour. One or the other. Those who dislike guns can be granted (albeit limited) protection for them in case of emergency. Those who like guns can have them and can use them responsibly - If they live by the gun, they can die by the gun.

Then people can either be protected with armour or gun to suit their preference when a gun falls into the wrong hands, the preference having been made beforehand. I say this, and I'd brand myself a liberal - being a liberal should be about acceptance. If you're not affected by something, you have no right to force your will on the matter upon others (unless you're government. A necessary evil to keep order). If you want guns, take guns. If you don't, don't. Accept, not restrict.

btw, I'd never heard of Britain being involved in a plot to attack the US. Considering that the US has about 50 times the population of the UK (and therefore 50 times the number of people eligible for drafting/conscription at the time), at a time when we were still financially and economically ruined by World War One and the Recessions at the end of the 1920's - such an attack would have been suicide. A modern "charge of light brigade" if you will (despite how heroic it may sound, it was a serious British army cock up in the Crimean War 1854-1856).
Besides, the empire was receeding in those days anyway, and we'd pretty much consigned ourselves to granting the independance due to the economic deficit we'd made in supporting the second world war (and getting bombed to hell). Why we would re-annex the USA seems elusive to me in terms of practicality. The UK has made many humanitarian faults in the past itself during it's Imperial era - just ask the indians.
Ok, so I've just slagged off my own country, but it deserves it.

I am a liberal who does not support gun control. With that said, first of all, I am tired of the perpetual invocation of the 2nd amendment. This isn't about the right of the man to have a gun--it's an outmoded amendment, when the US didn't have an extensive professional army/police force and had to do more with defending the colonies against foreign forces. When it's invoked, it isn't in the spirit of how it was intended. Secondly, gun control isn't a "Liberal" thing. Mainstream of America supports gun control and registration--including the Brady Bill. Actually only the rightwing and libertarians don't support gun control in any form.

The phrase "bear arms" means anything less than an artillery piece aka "small arms". Thusly LAWs, howitzers, and crew served weapons are not allowed.LAWs (such as the M72 (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m72.htm) or the M136 AT4 (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/at4.htm)) are small arms in the sense that they can be easily carried and operated by a single person. The same goes for weapons such as the M203 (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m203.htm), Barrett Payload Rifle (http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/payload.pdf) (alt link (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=286)), Predator SRAW (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/sraw.htm), FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/stinger.htm), M47 Dragon (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m47-dragon.htm) (these are all portable and operable by a single person -- the last two have a crew of 2, the other carrying the rounds and the other the weapon) and several others.

So even in what is known as "small arms" in the modern world, there is a huge number of weapons that are illegal for civilians to own in the USA. This doesn't even take into account the fact that none of these existed when the 2nd amendment was authored, and in ease of acquiring, ownership and operation these are closer to handguns, SMGs, ARs, rifles, shotguns and machineguns than artillery pieces.
Civvies also don't really need grenades or AP mines either.If the reason why you need small arms is to form militias and protect yourself from armies, either foreign or one belonging to your own government, then you absolutely need grenades and mines too. An army with nothing but small-caliber is horribly inefficient and will get slaughtered in any direct combat. You're going to need those GLs, LAWs, light ATGMs and shoulder-fired SAMs, too. Why do you think these should be banned from civilians if fully automagic GPMGs are legal to own?

Well, I was always taught that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. After all it isn't the gun that walks around shooting; it is the man/woman behind the gun that aims and shoots to kill. You wouldn't go around saying that a screwdriver built a shelf, it was the craftsman.

I know that without the gun it would be infinitely harder to kill anything, but it would be unconstitutional to ban all guns (I don't think it is wrong to strictly regulate the sale of guns and I don't believe the average person needs an assault weapon).

Well, I was always taught that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. After all it isn't the gun that walks around shooting; it is the man/woman behind the gun that aims and shoots to kill. You wouldn't go around saying that a screwdriver built a shelf, it was the craftsman.

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people!

So maybe we should sell the guns, but not the bullets. =)

I know that without the gun it would be infinitely harder to kill anything, but it would be unconstitutional to ban all guns (I don't think it is wrong to strictly regulate the sale of guns and I don't believe the average person needs an assault weapon).

That'd depend on where you happen to live. What's more important, a full-grown human's right to exist or a corporation's right to profits?

The original question about knives and felons bothers me - and I'm not sure I understand it. Is the question intended to find some constitutional grounds to insist that convicted felons have the right to "bear arms", and that includes knives? If so, my answer would be that a convicted felon should lose the right to bear arms, knives included. It is a fact that a waiver is required to allow a convicted felon to join the US Military - otherwise, they are prohibited.

Why do you think felons should have fewer rights than other people in this regard. Hell, well over half of all the people in prison right now were sentenced for committing a non-violent, victimless crime.

Why do you think felons should have fewer rights than other people in this regard. Hell, well over half of all the people in prison right now were sentenced for committing a non-violent, victimless crime.

That is an argument over what should and should not be considered a felony, not over whether or not felons should be granted all rights. Felony crimes are supposed to be crimes so grievous that they can essentially be considered treason. Unfortunately, things like having a bong full of water that has been used to smoke marijuana can land you a felony conviction.

Of course, once a person has completely served their sentence/parole and can demonstrate himself to be a functioning member of society, I think he should be able to petition that all rights be granted back.

Of course, once a person has completely served their sentence/parole and can demonstrate himself to be a functioning member of society, I think he should be able to petition that all rights be granted back.

Why not simply roll back the loss of their rights and freedoms automatically on leaving the penal system? That way, people won't 'fall between the cracks', so to speak.

Why not simply roll back the loss of their rights and freedoms automatically on leaving the penal system? That way, people won't 'fall between the cracks', so to speak.

Because once trust is lost, it has to be earned back. A person needs to demonstrate that they are living a law-abiding, productive life before they are granted the rights they voluntarily gave up when they committed the crime in the first place.

Of course, just getting through your parole period and filling out a little form which your parole officer (and a qualified mental health official, if necessary) would have to sign would probably do the trick.

Because once trust is lost, it has to be earned back.

I thought that's what jail was for.

A person needs to demonstrate that they are living a law-abiding, productive life before they are granted the rights they voluntarily gave up when they committed the crime in the first place.

Isn't it better to kill two birds with one stone, and rehabilitate them while they're serving a sentence, rather than just shutting them in a box and hoping they'll reform themselves after they've been ejected back onto the streets?

Who here has read more than the title of the 2nd Amendment? Hmmm.. I have it says that ordinary people can create a militia to protect themselves, thats what a right to bears arms means, not that any idiot can get a weapon whenever. The National Guard is considered the US's mordern militia force, so if you want to live by the second amendment go join the National Guard. :headbang: . And by the way, when was the last time America was invaded and occupied? not in the last 150 years dumass.

I'm all for hunting, I enjoy it, but we don't need assualt rifles to protect ourselves, we'd only cause harm to others with them. Because when you shoot a punk who entered you house with an assault rifle, the bullet more than likely go through the walls. :sniper:, it'll just get good people and cops killed.

Just about anything can be used as a weapon? Should we ban them too? Perhaps people need to be taught a little RESPONSIBILITY about the usage of guns. The solution is not to forcibly ban them, it is to let people decide that they don't want them.

I think this second amendment is crazy. It might have sounded nice during the indipendence war, every farmer a gun to rise up against redcoats if they desire. But that argument doesn't hold water anymore. Neither does the argument that the government might go crazy. That's horseshit, there's a goofball in charge now and I haven't seen but one people person take up arms against him. Even though I dearly wish so.

Just who are the gun-bearing citizens going to protect themselves from? Bush? They don't seem brave or motivated enough to do that. Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Give me a break, no one can invade the US and tyranize it. Criminals? Stupid, because would-be criminals will get a gun or rifle just as easily as any other citizen.

A gun won't protect you either. It's how you use it and who pulls the trigger first. Even if you got an AK-47 in your pocket someone could kill you simply using iron wire. Guns are made for just one purpose: to make killing easier. Without guns, killing would be harder. And even then a simple dose of respect for life can nip quite a load of mass-murders, hostage crisises and homicide cases in the butt.

There is only one reason why civilians should have a gun and that is to hunt. For that you need permits, training and membership of hunting clubs. Even then, the rifles should be bolt-action rifles unsuitable for combat. After all it doesn't take a shoulder cannon to shoot a deer. Bears maybe, but you don't want to hunt those. The only people who need heavy weapons are foresters, soldiers and police.

I thought that's what jail was for.

One cannot prove that they are a law-abiding citizen until they are back in the general populace. That is what *parole* is for.

Isn't it better to kill two birds with one stone, and rehabilitate them while they're serving a sentence, rather than just shutting them in a box and hoping they'll reform themselves after they've been ejected back onto the streets?

There was absolutely nothing in anything I said that suggested I was against rehabilitation programs. However, the truth remains: one cannot prove that rehabilitation has been successful until one is actually *in* the general populace again.

Oh, and by the way. You are America. I seriously doubt you have to worry much about your country being invaded to the point where Joe Normal has to step in to lend a hand.

But lets just say... hypothetically, like, you were to be invaded and you army decimated. What chance would an 'organised milita' have against a force strong enough to decimate the US army.

havent you ever heard of the Viet Kong if a milita were to use those tatics they would have a fairly good chance at causing a lot of damage to an enemy fighting force regardless if it decimated the US army. In fact if they did then that fighting force may have been heavily damaged or have lots of wounded and dead. Thus increasing a milita's chance of success

Why do you think these things? Oh yes, your "instincts".

If this is the way Americans think, it's no wonder they elect such terrible leaders.
this is not the way americans think this is the way ppl think i know plenty of canadians that think all americans are gun carrying gang bangers and violent criminals, now that isnt true. but the fact remains that nobody trust each other well at least no country does.

Sorry but you will have to convince me that a right is being infringed by not having the ability to own a military grade semiautomatic weapon, a sniper rifle, and what not.What makes a semiautomatic weapon military grade?
You're not a militiaman, so you don't get a gun!You might be in the militia and not even know it.
(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.
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
While I have my shotgun, and my little "22", and like to hunt wild turkeys, I have no objection to registering them, and I see absolutely no need for any private individual to own an assault weapon of any kind, unless it has been thoroughly disabled, cannot be fired in any manner, and is capable of nothing except being part of a display/collection.What makes an assault weapon so dangerous?
(30) The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the
Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a 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) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the
action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Some have said it might be cool to try due to England's crime isn't higher due to less guns.England's crime rates have supposedly gone up after stricter gun control was passed. I haven't seen before and after statistics, though.
It means ANYTHING. QED.

"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."

I don't know where you get your interpretation, but it's not right.Note that it doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear all arms". As long as we get to own some arms, the second amendment doesn't stop the government from banning all others.
Noo, I'm pretty sure it was illegal for the common citizen to own cannon. Although it may just have been too rare and expensive to justify owning them, I'm not sure.I don't know about then, but today there are civilians with cannons.
Ok...truly now, is a gun the only way to kill a person? I don't think so. There are hundreds of ways that one can take life. Guns are simply the most readily available method.Most violent crime in the USA is not committed with a firearm.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

Just who are the gun-bearing citizens going to protect themselves from? Bush? They don't seem brave or motivated enough to do that. Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Give me a break, no one can invade the US and tyranize it. Criminals? Stupid, because would-be criminals will get a gun or rifle just as easily as any other citizen.
first of all it is very possible that the United States can be invaded we arent invincable ya know. secondly if you take away the guns of the citizens the only ones left with guns are the criminals. they would be bought out on the "black market" and imported here just like drugs and everything else. so yes we need guns to defend against criminals because it evens the playing field. a person would be less likely to rob me when they know i have a gun, rather than if they knew i didnt.

The big four cities in the US, Chicago, New York, LA,, and DC haved the highest crime rates per 100,000 of US cities and yet gun ownership is either illegal or is tied up in so many restrictions that it may as well be unless you're Donald Trump rich. On the other hand Vermont has one of if not the lowest crime rate of any state and it's gun laws are vitually nonexistant.


Or maybe you're comparing the 4 biggest cities in the US to Vermont. Hardly a fair comparison. Gun controll laws have nothing to do with the crime rates of either. Big cities have more crime than small ones, thats the fact.

Or maybe you're comparing the 4 biggest cities in the US to Vermont. Hardly a fair comparison. Gun controll laws have nothing to do with the crime rates of either. Big cities have more crime than small ones, thats the fact.
well he maybe be comparing statistics for example 50% of a large cities population could have commited gun related crimes where as in a small city only 10% of the total population have commited a gun related crime. if that is the case then that may be a better portrail than say 10,000 ppl comitted gun violnce in a big city versus 2 in a small town.

Why do you think felons should have fewer rights than other people in this regard. Hell, well over half of all the people in prison right now were sentenced for committing a non-violent, victimless crime.Because, regardless of the fact that the crime committed was "victimless" and "non-violent", it's commission is a clear indication that he/she who "done it" has enough disregard for the law to commit the crime. If you (or me, or anyone else) is willing to commit the crime, you (or me, or anyone else) must be willing to accept the consequences. And, in my opinion, anyone who will disregard a law and commit a felony should not have a weapon as long as he/she is on the same planet with my family.

Two friendly countries?! LMFAO

Mexico would help the invaders and take Cali and Mexico.

Canada and the EU would backstab the US the first chance they get. I'm willing to bet my life on these two statements.

And I wonder why we are surrounded by enemies... Hey, at least we still got Poland!

Anyways, I think that most of the time when people want guns banned it is because it seems like an easy fix to a bad problem (and generally fairly nonexistant). Unfortunately it is just skin deep.

That being said, hiding behind the 2nd amendment for gun rights doesn't work in my book. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply to today's world. However, I don't think that should stop people from owning guns if they want. I wouldn't really care if my neighbor had a small arms arsenal that rivaled Fort Knox. Crime is commited for a reason.

Overall however it doesn't really matter what the government does. Only stupid governmental systems get overthrown. We don't have a stupid one. Heck, we could have an oppressive as hell one--one that can hold its citizens for indefinite amounts of time offshore without telling them their charges. One that can spy on you if they think you are being a terrorist (the definition of which can change depending on the circumstances). I mean, wheres the armed revolution?

I often wonder how guns rights advocates got so large while gay/pro-choice got the backburner. It all boils down to the government keeping out of peoples life. If you are pro-gun, you'd better be pro gay-union and pro-choice. If you are against it personnally great--you're against it personnally. The government should stay the hell out of peoples lives right? Let them own/do what they want? We aren't all Christians you know.

Anyways, I still think it would also be awesome if we got a government that just downright banned guns because then I could say, "Don't like it? Get out of my country." Oh man, that would rock.

Who here has read more than the title of the 2nd Amendment? Hmmm.. I have it says that ordinary people can create a militia to protect themselves, thats what a right to bears arms means, not that any idiot can get a weapon whenever. The National Guard is considered the US's mordern militia force, so if you want to live by the second amendment go join the National Guard. :headbang: . And by the way, when was the last time America was invaded and occupied? not in the last 150 years dumass.

I'm all for hunting, I enjoy it, but we don't need assualt rifles to protect ourselves, we'd only cause harm to others with them. Because when you shoot a punk who entered you house with an assault rifle, the bullet more than likely go through the walls. :sniper:, it'll just get good people and cops killed.I quoted the 2nd amendment a few pages back. So did someone else.

Again:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While I have my shotgun, and my little "22", and like to hunt wild turkeys, I have no objection to registering them, and I see absolutely no need for any private individual to own an assault weapon of any kind, unless it has been thoroughly disabled, cannot be fired in any manner, and is capable of nothing except being part of a display/collection.


What makes an assault weapon so dangerous?Perhaps the fact that assault weapons are specifically designed for use by military forces engaged in combat with other human beings, and to give that military force the capability of killing as many of the “enemy” as possible in the shortest amount of time?

That would be my guess. ;)

Do you support everyone's right to drive through stop signs and/or red lights without stopping? Do you support everyone's right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Do you support everyone's right to own a vial of anthrax?

Heck no. OWNING a gun does NOT equal yelling fire in a crowded theatre! The mere possession of a firearm is not putting other peoples lives in imminent harm, any more than having car keys means you're going to run a red light or run over someone.
In short, possession of an object IS NOT an action.

As for Anthrax, I would posit that ownership should be legal if licensed. I grant, however, that the transportation of Anthrax would be even more restrictive than firearms. :)


But, you do support everyone's right to own an M-60, and M-16, an AK-47?

Hell, yes. Do you not support the basic American right to pursue property?
A good is a good is a good.
By that arguement, when the laser guns become common in 30 years, will it be okay to own an M-16, as it to the M-76 laser-pulse rifle is the same as a blackpowder musket is to an M-16?


Do you really not see the similarity in requiring drivers to stop at stop lights and stop signs, and prohibiting the sale and ownership of anthrax, to the regulation and registration of firearms?

There is no similarity.
What you're talking about is taking away people's Hummers, Corvettes, and Audis. Do you not see THAT similarity?

Firearms need regulation, sure. Just like cars. But there is NO reason why a law abiding citizen (the ones getting licenses in the first place, remember?) can't own an M-16.


EDIT Just saw your post about Registration - so it's obvious that you do see the similarity, and are looking for a compromise, equal-across-the-50-states, moderate form of "gun control". I think we're both on the same track, heading in the same direction - maybe at different speeds?

Could be, but it's hard to say, I see licensing as good and registration as bad, unless the registration is done in some way (which I haven't come up with yet!) that ensures that the guns cannot be rounded up the way they've been every other time gun registration has been done (as was pointed out to me by someone in a previous thread).

I'm not for gun control. I'm for sane gun laws.
My ideas are directly patterned after how motor vehicles are treated, which is how I believe guns should be.

I think this second amendment is crazy. It might have sounded nice during the indipendence war, every farmer a gun to rise up against redcoats if they desire. But that argument doesn't hold water anymore. Neither does the argument that the government might go crazy. That's horseshit, there's a goofball in charge now and I haven't seen but one people person take up arms against him. Even though I dearly wish so.

Just who are the gun-bearing citizens going to protect themselves from? Bush? They don't seem brave or motivated enough to do that. Canada? Mexico? Cuba? Give me a break, no one can invade the US and tyranize it. Criminals? Stupid, because would-be criminals will get a gun or rifle just as easily as any other citizen.

A gun won't protect you either. It's how you use it and who pulls the trigger first. Even if you got an AK-47 in your pocket someone could kill you simply using iron wire. Guns are made for just one purpose: to make killing easier. Without guns, killing would be harder. And even then a simple dose of respect for life can nip quite a load of mass-murders, hostage crisises and homicide cases in the butt.

There is only one reason why civilians should have a gun and that is to hunt. For that you need permits, training and membership of hunting clubs. Even then, the rifles should be bolt-action rifles unsuitable for combat. After all it doesn't take a shoulder cannon to shoot a deer. Bears maybe, but you don't want to hunt those. The only people who need heavy weapons are foresters, soldiers and police.

If you can repeal the 2nd Amendment, the 1st is close behind.

Perhaps the fact that assault weapons are specifically designed for use by military forces engaged in combat with other human beings, and to give that military force the capability of killing as many of the “enemy” as possible in the shortest amount of time?

That would be my guess. ;)

Any firearm can kill a person. In fact, the caliber that kills the most people in the United States isnt some scary military caliber. Its that small pipsqueak round: the 22.

Should 22s be banned instead?

Really, it isnt the ammunition or firearm that is dangerous. It is the person who uses it. That is what is hard to change and that is why gun control doesn't really work well.

Heck no. OWNING a gun does NOT equal yelling fire in a crowded theatre! The mere possession of a firearm is not putting other peoples lives in imminent harm, any more than having car keys means you're going to run a red light or run over someone.
In short, possession of an object IS NOT an action.

As for Anthrax, I would posit that ownership should be legal if licensed. I grant, however, that the transportation of Anthrax would be even more restrictive than firearms. :)



Hell, yes. Do you not support the basic American right to pursue property?
A good is a good is a good.
By that arguement, when the laser guns become common in 30 years, will it be okay to own an M-16, as it to the M-76 laser-pulse rifle is the same as a blackpowder musket is to an M-16?



There is no similarity.
What you're talking about is taking away people's Hummers, Corvettes, and Audis. Do you not see THAT similarity?

Firearms need regulation, sure. Just like cars. But there is NO reason why a law abiding citizen (the ones getting licenses in the first place, remember?) can't own an M-16.



Could be, but it's hard to say, I see licensing as good and registration as bad, unless the registration is done in some way (which I haven't come up with yet!) that ensures that the guns cannot be rounded up the way they've been every other time gun registration has been done (as was pointed out to me by someone in a previous thread).

I'm not for gun control. I'm for sane gun laws.
My ideas are directly patterned after how motor vehicles are treated, which is how I believe guns should be.I guess we're not on the same track, after all. Too bad.

I want all firearms of any kind registered, both by owner and by ballistic markings.

I want all automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, banned.

I want carrying of any concealed weapon outlawed.

I want anything that can be classified as an assault weapon outlawed.

I want all gun owners licensed - AFTER a mandatory weapons safety course.

These will not stop all murders committed with firearms. But they will reduce the number, and if they reduce the number by one, then it's worth it.

I guess we're not on the same track, after all. Too bad.

I want all firearms of any kind registered, both by owner and by ballistic markings.

I want all automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, banned.

I want carrying of any concealed weapon outlawed.

I want want anything that can be classified as an assault weapon outlawed.

I want all gun owners licensed - AFTER a mandatory weapons safety course.

These will not stop all murders committed with firearms. But they will reduce the number, and if they reduce the number by one, then it's worth it.
with all those restrictions all your doing is taking guns out of the hands of the civilians and giving them to criminals. those gun restrications wont put a dent in Gun violence because if a person is willing to kill they would be willing to buy the guns off the black market were all these markings and licenses arent required. Thus making it easier for a criminal to kill a person, and more likely to happen. it would also most likely increase robbery and burglery.

I guess we're not on the same track, after all. Too bad.

I want all firearms of any kind registered, both by owner and by ballistic markings.

I want all automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, banned.

I want carrying of any concealed weapon outlawed.

I want anything that can be classified as an assault weapon outlawed.

I want all gun owners licensed - AFTER a mandatory weapons safety course.

These will not stop all murders committed with firearms. But they will reduce the number, and if they reduce the number by one, then it's worth it.

Outlawing concealed carry? Then what is the purpose of owning a defensive handgun? Open carry is already illegal in many places (or highly frowned upon).

Who here has read more than the title of the 2nd Amendment? Hmmm.. I have it says that ordinary people can create a militia to protect themselves, thats what a right to bears arms means, not that any idiot can get a weapon whenever. The National Guard is considered the US's mordern militia force, so if you want to live by the second amendment go join the National Guard. :headbang: . And by the way, when was the last time America was invaded and occupied? not in the last 150 years dumass.

I'm all for hunting, I enjoy it, but we don't need assualt rifles to protect ourselves, we'd only cause harm to others with them. Because when you shoot a punk who entered you house with an assault rifle, the bullet more than likely go through the walls. :sniper:, it'll just get good people and cops killed.

Um, no. The National Guard is an arm of defense under the control of each Governor, under the auspice of any given branch of the service. BTW, many states still have laws on the books which allow for the Governor to muster the militia.

A militia can be ANY gathering of citizens for any legal purpose, period. Such as gathering to discuss the issues of the day in a town hall. They may be unarmed, but they are a militia.

Now, let's read that Second Amendment again:
"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. "

It does NOT say anything about a national guard, or what arms may be kept. The founders KNEW enough to leave it vague because they were brilliant men that knew times changed.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not swords or pikes. Not muskets or revolvers or even assault weapons. Arms. The founders had faith enough in the common man that he should not be subbordinate to a goverment. That is why the Congress has more powers than the President.

BTW-
America invaded and occupied: 1942: Alaska. That's 62 years on my calendar. I won't even get into the illegals pouring through the border and crossing private land illegally.

Hunting has as much to do with the 2nd Amendment as off roading does to driving. Yes, you can do each activity with either good (gun, car). But it is not the point.

about the US not being invaded by an enemy force all i have to say is
PEARL HARBOR
SEPTEMBER 11TH

Constitution of the United States, Amendment II:
"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 Founding Fathers did not simply state "...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," which is what is on the exterior of the National Rifle Association's corporate headquarters. They chose to include the sole reason of WHY the people have the right to bear arms. Your right to bear arms in the United States has nothing to do with your personal freedom or the right to defend yourself. It has everything to do with the security of the free State.

Ah, I was wondering when this would come up. You're 100% wrong about this, and it all boils down to the definitoin of the word STATE.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution deal specifically with the rights of the people and the limitations of the Federal government. In only the second amendment does the word STATE appear. Why? Simple. The founders of the United States and the framers of the US Constitution were some of the most briliant political thinkers EVER. Their views of practical goverment are second to none (ever wonder why the USA has the oldest continuous government on the planet?) They're not talking about states of the Union in the second amendment; they're talking about a state of BEING. Remember your classes on Hobbes and Locke? They did.

In other words, to ensure a free state of being, we the people get to own guns, for whatever reasons we want. Read the Articles of Confederation, the framer's notes, and the Declaration of Independence. State of being is all over those documents, and they ARE legal documents in this country.

I guess we're not on the same track, after all. Too bad.

I want all firearms of any kind registered, both by owner and by ballistic markings.

I want all automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, banned.

I want carrying of any concealed weapon outlawed.

I want anything that can be classified as an assault weapon outlawed.

I want all gun owners licensed - AFTER a mandatory weapons safety course.

These will not stop all murders committed with firearms. But they will reduce the number, and if they reduce the number by one, then it's worth it.

If you can find a way to register them without the list becoming a way to round them up for confiscation later, I'm all ears.

Do you know what semi-automatic means? One trigger pull = one round expended. What do you want, everyone to go back to blackpowder???

What is an assault weapon? The recently expired law was a poor joke. It kept MANY guns you'd think of as "assault rifles" as legal while making some obsolete guns (say, a bolt action Mauser from 1898!) ILLEGAL beacuse it had a bayonet lug and a scope.

Why concealed carry? That's a lot better than open carry, no?

I agree. But then they get to carry concealed in all 50 states, just like when you get your license, you can drive in all 50. At least in my state (CT) you must pass an NRA course or Police course to apply for a license. I'd be fine with that as a requirement for a national concealed carry law.

Cowplop. All you're doing is putting restrictions on honest citizens.
What are you going to do to ENFORCE laws against illegal guns?
What do you do about the guy that blew away grandma with a gun he bought on the corner?

Ah, I was wondering when this would come up. You're 100% wrong about this, and it all boils down to the definitoin of the word STATE.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution deal specifically with the rights of the people and the limitations of the Federal government. In only the second amendment does the word STATE appear. Why? Simple. The founders of the United States and the framers of the US Constitution were some of the most briliant political thinkers EVER. Their views of practical goverment are second to none (ever wonder why the USA has the oldest continuous government on the planet?) They're not talking about states of the Union in the second amendment; they're talking about a state of BEING. Remember your classes on Hobbes and Locke? They did.

In other words, to ensure a free state of being, we the people get to own guns, for whatever reasons we want. Read the Articles of Confederation, the framer's notes, and the Declaration of Independence. State of being is all over those documents, and they ARE legal documents in this country.
im sorry your wrong the US stated in the civil war that the articles of confederation and the declaration of independence (which the south used to justify rebelion) were not legal and that the consituiton was the only legal document for which we abide.

Arms can mean military grade or not. It's our right.

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)? We have nothing to fight it. Good one, Liberals. Way to fail.


I've always found it odd how the country that constantly purports itself to be a beacon of hope and democracy that the rest of the world should emulate at the same time constantly uses it's fear of a despotic government taking hold as a reasoning on this issue.

You would think that you wouldn't need to fear this so much if it truly was as great a system as is advertized.

That being said, I think you will find very few liberals who advocate a total gun ban. Perhaps certain conservative groups have tried to convince you of this, but it is far from the norm.

Do you know what semi-automatic means? One trigger pull = one round expended. What do you want, everyone to go back to blackpowder???That's not what semi-automatic means. Semi-automatic means the weapon cycles automatically without additional action from the wielder of the weapon. I assume Snub Nose 38 meant bolt, lever, pump and break action weapons as well as breech-loaded weapons should be legal to own. These would allow hunting, target shooting and simply blowing off steam, while making the weapons or very limited use in a firefight.

That's still a long fucking way from blackpowder.

For those of you who think M16s, AK-47s and M60s absolutely should be legal for civilians to own, I ask again:If the reason why you need small arms is to form militias and protect yourself from armies, either foreign or one belonging to your own government, then you absolutely need grenades and mines too. An army with nothing but small-caliber is horribly inefficient and will get slaughtered in any direct combat. You're going to need those GLs, LAWs, light ATGMs and shoulder-fired SAMs, too. Why do you think these should be banned from civilians if fully automagic GPMGs are legal to own?And if you think all those should be legal for civilians to own, where do you draw the line? APCs, MBTs, mortars and other field artillery, cruise missiles, figher aircraft, nerve gas, biological agents, tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, ICBMs armed with the above?

about the US not being invaded by an enemy force all i have to say is
PEARL HARBOR
SEPTEMBER 11TH

Moot point. Did armed US civilians shoot any enemies in either case? No.

Perhaps the fact that assault weapons are specifically designed for use by military forces engaged in combat with other human beings, and to give that military force the capability of killing as many of the “enemy” as possible in the shortest amount of time?

That would be my guess. ;)No, they aren't. "Assault weapons" are civilian weapons. Militaries use assault rifles, which by definition can not be the assault weapons referred to in the AWB.
I won't even get into the illegals pouring through the border and crossing private land illegally.I wouldn't have called it an invasion, but Mexican army units have entered the US while guarding drug smugglers...
What is an assault weapon? The recently expired law was a poor joke. It kept MANY guns you'd think of as "assault rifles" as legal while making some obsolete guns (say, a bolt action Mauser from 1898!) ILLEGAL beacuse it had a bayonet lug and a scope.The assault weapons ban affected only semi-automatic weapons; bolt-action rifles were not affected.

im sorry your wrong the US stated in the civil war that the articles of confederation and the declaration of independence (which the south used to justify rebelion) were not legal and that the consituiton was the only legal document for which we abide.
but, the other papers can be used to aid us in understanding the intent of the founding fathers when writing the Constitution. I figure if the wording is unclear, then it's perfectly legit to use other docs.

And this is clearly a case of unclear wording. The word "State" has at least 3 different meaning that I can think of off the top of my head, so to clarify their intent, one ought to use these other docs (the federalist papers are often used).

Moot point. Did armed US civilians shoot any enemies in either case? No.
Actually there are accounts of civilians in Honolulu shooting at Japanese planes with individually owned guns.

Oh, and by the way. You are America. I seriously doubt you have to worry much about your country being invaded to the point where Joe Normal has to step in to lend a hand.

But lets just say... hypothetically, like, you were to be invaded and you army decimated. What chance would an 'organised milita' have against a force strong enough to decimate the US army.
Quite good, unless the invading army was willing to nuke quite a few cities. You would have to destroy New York , Chicago, Dallas, and at least the biggest city in every "red" state, especially if the majority of people have guns.

Do you support everyone's right to drive through stop signs and/or red lights without stopping? Do you support everyone's right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? Do you support everyone's right to own a vial of anthrax?

They have that right, but if they use it unless the conditions warrant they will be dealt with. Since I can think of no conditions which would allow the use of anthrax then there is no point at all in owning it.

I've always found it odd how the country that constantly purports itself to be a beacon of hope and democracy that the rest of the world should emulate at the same time constantly uses it's fear of a despotic government taking hold as a reasoning on this issue.

You would think that you wouldn't need to fear this so much if it truly was as great a system as is advertized.

That being said, I think you will find very few liberals who advocate a total gun ban. Perhaps certain conservative groups have tried to convince you of this, but it is far from the norm.
It's just an emergency thing, in case the situation should warrant it down the road. Say if the US was devastated by an economic depression to make the "Great Depression" of the '30s look nice and friendly.

This isn't about the right of the man to have a gun--it's an outmoded amendment, when the US didn't have an extensive professional army/police force
Actually it has been proven in the courts that the police have no obligation to "protect" the populace. All they do is apprehend lawbreakers, but by they it is generally too late. Thus your argument is rather nonexistant.

I know that without the gun it would be infinitely harder to kill anything, but it would be unconstitutional to ban all guns (I don't think it is wrong to strictly regulate the sale of guns and I don't believe the average person needs an assault weapon).
Define assault weapon. You can't, it's a made up term to make things sound scary.

Do you support everyone's right to drive through stop signs and/or red lights without stopping? Do you support everyone's right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater?
The difference between owning a gun and those actions is that gun ownership is passive. Just because a gun is owned, does not mean that it will be fired. No one is harmed just by the act of owning a gun.

I want all firearms of any kind registered, both by owner and by ballistic markings.

I want all automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, banned.

I want carrying of any concealed weapon outlawed.

I want anything that can be classified as an assault weapon outlawed.

I want all gun owners licensed - AFTER a mandatory weapons safety course.

These will not stop all murders committed with firearms. But they will reduce the number, and if they reduce the number by one, then it's worth it.
You are a flipping moron. Firstly, you apparently only like single shot guns and revolvers, secondly ballistic markings have been proven to be BS and have never been used successfully in a trial. Thirdly there are very very very few murders commited by the legal owner of a weapon. Fourthly every weapon could be classified as an assault weapon except single shot weapons and revolvers. And it is not worth it, especially since the murder, rape, and robbery/burglry rates will go up because people don't have the means to defend themselves.

The vast majority of weapons used by criminals are either stolen or purchased from an illegal black market dealer.

I think that it is a generalization for someone to say that all liberals want to "ban guns." While some liberals want a complete ban of guns, most of them only want to regulate their use.

A constitutional amendment does guarantee the use of firearms-- but its use was intended to arm a militia to defend the country, not arm somemone so they can commit murder.

There are several reasons why I feel that guns should be regulated. But the only real one that I will discuss is that guns such as assault rifles, machine guns, and even handguns are not made to hunt or defend, but are built to kill and slaughter people-- that is what they are designed to do.

Sure, a hunting rifle can be used to kill someone, but that is not its purpose-- and it would be too difficult to regulate the intention of the gun owner instead of just the gun itself.

I see no harm in not allowing felons to purchase guns, extending the waiting period on the purchase of guns, or banning some of them from the market.

While people do have rights, their rights end when someone else's beign. And an individual does have a right to own a gun-- but that individual does not have the right to kill me. This is why I feel that guns designed specifically to kill human beings should be limited to police and military use.

You might want to remove that flame...
Firstly, you apparently only like single shot guns and revolversWhat about bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action, and revolving barrel weapons?
Fourthly every weapon could be classified as an assault weapon except single shot weapons and revolvers.The AWB only affected semi-automatic weapons.
There are several reasons why I feel that guns should be regulated. But the only real one that I will discuss is that guns such as assault rifles, machine guns, and even handguns are not made to hunt or defend, but are built to kill and slaughter people-- that is what they are designed to do.A gun that is not marketed for self-defense, police, murder, or the military is built to kill and slaughter people? Any handgun is designed to slaughter people?

Hooray for palindromic post counts!

That's not what semi-automatic means. Semi-automatic means the weapon cycles automatically without additional action from the wielder of the weapon.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=semiautomatic
"of a firearm : employing gas pressure or force of recoil and mechanical spring action to eject the empty cartridge case after the first shot and load the next cartridge from the magazine but requiring release and another pressure of the trigger for each successive shot"
So... 1 trigger pull = 1 round expended.


I assume Snub Nose 38 meant bolt, lever, pump and break action weapons as well as breech-loaded weapons should be legal to own. These would allow hunting, target shooting and simply blowing off steam, while making the weapons or very limited use in a firefight.

That's still a long fucking way from blackpowder.

Great. Now get rid of any car you own after 1975, and TV bigger than 30", and all music recordings that aren't on CD. You're trying to legislate TECHNOLOGY, which, as the RIAA (and many other people have shown, such as AT&T), does NOT work.

And it's a long fucking way from my right to spend my money on what I want, so long as I'm not infringing upon the rights of others.


For those of you who think M16s, AK-47s and M60s absolutely should be legal for civilians to own, I ask again:And if you think all those should be legal for civilians to own, where do you draw the line? APCs, MBTs, mortars and other field artillery, cruise missiles, figher aircraft, nerve gas, biological agents, tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, ICBMs armed with the above?

You don't. Licensed to drive, licensed to shoot, it makes no difference.

You are a flipping moron. Firstly, you apparently only like single shot guns and revolvers, secondly ballistic markings have been proven to be BS and have never been used successfully in a trial. Thirdly there are very very very few murders commited by the legal owner of a weapon. Fourthly every weapon could be classified as an assault weapon except single shot weapons and revolvers. And it is not worth it, especially since the murder, rape, and robbery/burglry rates will go up because people don't have the means to defend themselves.No, you are the moron if you believe any of the crap you just wrote.

I wouldn't have called it an invasion, but Mexican army units have entered the US while guarding drug smugglers...
The assault weapons ban affected only semi-automatic weapons; bolt-action rifles were not affected.

Check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/national/main614048.shtml
Half a million people in 6 months sounds like an invasion to me.


Sort of. The 1994 act had several facets, including automatics, semi-automatics, etc.
For example:
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;

So, if you take (say) a Garand M1 (the standard US rifle of WW2), saw off the stock and add a pistol grip, it's an assault weapon. Yet if I take an M-16 and remove the bayonet mount, it's legal if I market it under another name.
And that's how most manufacturers got around this law.

The actual act can be found here:
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds/govdocs/Violent%20Crime%20Control%20and%20Law%20Enforcement%20Act%20of%201994.htm

If you can find a way to register them without the list becoming a way to round them up for confiscation later, I'm all ears.

Do you know what semi-automatic means? One trigger pull = one round expended. What do you want, everyone to go back to blackpowder???

What is an assault weapon? The recently expired law was a poor joke. It kept MANY guns you'd think of as "assault rifles" as legal while making some obsolete guns (say, a bolt action Mauser from 1898!) ILLEGAL beacuse it had a bayonet lug and a scope.

Why concealed carry? That's a lot better than open carry, no?

I agree. But then they get to carry concealed in all 50 states, just like when you get your license, you can drive in all 50. At least in my state (CT) you must pass an NRA course or Police course to apply for a license. I'd be fine with that as a requirement for a national concealed carry law.

Cowplop. All you're doing is putting restrictions on honest citizens.
What are you going to do to ENFORCE laws against illegal guns?
What do you do about the guy that blew away grandma with a gun he bought on the corner?I know what semi-automatic means. 28 years in the Military has provided me with a couple of little clues about weapons.

As to the rest - I do not see any need for anyone to have any weapon that is more than single shot. And don't start on the need thing, and the "pursuit of property". Please notice that Thomas Jefferson changed "property" to "happiness".

No, black powder kicks too much.

The recent law wasn't perfect. It needed to be improved, not discarded.

What are we going to do to enforce ANY laws? Weapons registration and restrictions are no different than any other laws in that respect.

I'm really sick and tired of all these crappy excuses to prevent weapons registration and restriction on rapid fire firearms.

I'd say that an assault weapon registration program is an OK idea.

I know what semi-automatic means. 28 years in the Military has provided me with a couple of little clues about weapons.

As to the rest - I do not see any need for anyone to have any weapon that is more than single shot. And don't start on the need thing, and the "pursuit of property". Please notice that Thomas Jefferson changed "property" to "happiness".

Good.

And happiness is a warm gun. :)
Seriously, I do not see any need for anyone to have a puppy murdering automobile. Never mind all the drunk driving deaths. And walking is much healthier. Will you help me get cars banned? :rolleyes:

No, black powder kicks too much.
So you want no guns. Try moving to Utopia.


The recent law wasn't perfect. It needed to be improved, not discarded.


It was inneffective and did little (if anything) to prevent crime. If we put our energies to ENFORCING laws instead of restricting law abiding citizens, I think the nation would be much better off.


What are we going to do to enforce ANY laws? Weapons registration and restrictions are no different than any other laws in that respect.

False. A stop sign is a limit on your driving, not your car. The car can go through the stop sign. There is no law on the books saying that I can't own a Chevy Impala or a Hummer H1. I have to get a car registered. Fine. Let me register my AK-47, and everyone is happy. Mind you, this registration list must never be used to confiscate weapons later.

I'm really sick and tired of all these crappy excuses to prevent weapons registration and restriction on rapid fire firearms.

I'm really sick and tired of all these crappy excuses to prevent honest citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights.

By that arguement, can I cookie-cutter the 1st Amendment? I mean, really, do you NEED the right to peacably assemble? Why? Isn't it good enough that you can talk on the telephone? :rolleyes:

(This is from another post of mine on a similar thread)

I favor requiring a gun license, just like you need a driver's license.

That said:
* All 50 states will have the same licensing requirements. That means that Massachusettes and New Hampshire will have to agree on how to license.
* States will still have some latitude. For example, you can get a driver's license at 14 in New Mexico.
* Once I have this license, I can carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states.
* There will be no ban on any specific weapons, just licensing endorsements. As drivers can get CDL, motorcycle, etc, gun licenses will likewise have full automatic and the like.
* Guns will be registered with the states, just like cars are.

...I think this is a fair compromise, really. IMHO, neither side will ever win the gun debate without giving a little.
Take out the concealed part, and add in that there will be certain gun free zones (schools, anyplace that serves alcohol, courtrooms, etc.) and you've got yourself a deal. If you want to pack a gun, have the balls to wear it on a holster in plain view so everyone knows you're packing.

Because the second ammentment says
We have the right to bear arms
Under a well regulated militia. Or something like that.

Basically, In my opinion, is to get all the southern gun freaks to stop bitching about guns. Such as lifting the assult rifle ban....the 3 day wait period (what? can't wait 3 days for a friggan m-16?) etc

Take out the concealed part, and add in that there will be certain gun free zones (schools, anyplace that serves alcohol, courtrooms, etc.) and you've got yourself a deal. If you want to pack a gun, have the balls to wear it on a holster in plain view so everyone knows you're packing.

Those places already exist (bars, houses of worship, gov't buildings, schools...) so I have no problem with that.

You really want me walking around with my gun in the mall outside of my jacket? I think that'd freak out a lot more people.
What's the big deal about concealed carry?

I've always wondered this.

I have a few things, its true, guns dont kill people, people kill people, but without a gun, how are you going to kill them? A knife? HAAA! Go into a bank and see what happens if you hold up a knife and say "gimme your money!" I believe in allowing hunting guns. But no Semi-Auto, and no hand guns.

Because the second ammentment says
We have the right to bear arms
Under a well regulated militia. Or something like that.

Basically, In my opinion, is to get all the southern gun freaks to stop bitching about guns. Such as lifting the assult rifle ban....the 3 day wait period (what? can't wait 3 days for a friggan m-16?) etc

A bit misinformed. The ban BANNED the M-16. Flat out, you had to buy the AR-15 or some other "knockoff version".

I don't have a problem with a waiting period (though it no longer exists).
I don't have a problem with licensing, to ensure that the person buying the gun is not a felon with a fake license (two forms of ID are harder to fake than one).

I DO have a problem with bans on law abiding citizens not being able to own X, Y or Z.

[QUOTE=Mother Crunch]
A constitutional amendment does guarantee the use of firearms-- but its use was intended to arm a militia to defend the country, not arm somemone so they can commit murder.
QUOTE]

EXACTLY!

I've always wondered this.

Hardcore lefty here, and I do not want to completely ban guns. I own a .22 myself. Assault weapons are a different story, of course, and I beleive that a strict background check and other regulations are necesary.

But I think, the reason is mainly to shove in the face of the NRA that the constitution does not really grant them permission to own guns, not if they read the whole 2nd amendment

Those places already exist (bars, houses of worship, gov't buildings, schools...) so I have no problem with that.

You really want me walking around with my gun in the mall outside of my jacket? I think that'd freak out a lot more people.
What's the big deal about concealed carry?Here's my problem with concealed carry--it's too easy in a moment of passion to yank out a gun that no one knows you're carrying and pop someone with it because they pissed you off. If you're wearing it openly, then a situation is less likely to escalate to the point where you get mad and pop someone. Furthermore, a gun in a holster is far more of a deterrent than a gun no one ever knows you're carrying unless you pull it. If deterrence is really the idea here--and deterrence is the argument used by damn near every concealed carry advocate I've ever read or listened to--the open carry is far more effective. Concealed carry only serves one purpose--making the person carrying feel tough. Like I said earlier, if you want to prove you;ve got balls, carry it in a holster out in the open. Don't be a chickenshit and hide it in your pants.

The 2nd Amendment was written in a very different time. It does not completely invalidate it (nor any other Amendment), but they could not predict what would come.

Second, handguns are completely unnecessary. The only point is to protect yourself from some psycho with a similar weapon. European nations that have banned handguns do not see the number of gun related fatalities as the United States. The argument can be made they have more crime, butthey do not have as many deaths, period. At the very least, more stringent laws need to be put into place in purchasing any fire arm. The fact that the assault weapon ban was not reinacted is a scary idea to face. Owning a weapon that can very easily modified (do a google search, you will find them) into automatic weaponry will only cause problems.

I know from presonal experience that they make you feel better, cooler, and safer, but it just isn't true.

I am totally for hunting weapons, because they have a purpose beyond killing people. I also support law enforcement having access to guns, because there could be a need for them.

Call me a liberal, I'm proud of it as all liberals should be. It's too bad that people have to try and shake this label in politics because of conservative rhetoric that people actually care about.

And now, random smilies that seemed appropriate. :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

:sniper: Im a liberal if you had to label me but im all for the 2nd ammendment. oh and about us not needing military grade weapons...well i think thats wrong to a degree. i think the whole point of our right to bear arms is so that should our country be invaded and the military overrun the average joe could rise up in a regulated militia. thats why we have that right so we can fight in combat if we have to against an enemy nation. The hunting aspect is secondary. But then again we dont need a tank to be a militia(look at the viet kong). Just like the militia of yester year did not have Boats and artillery. all the 2nd ammendment is saying is that we get guns and knives. :sniper:


:rolleyes: :mp5: :p :gundge:

um, I haven't finished reading this thread, but... I'm very sure if someone "invaded the States" they would not be foot soldiers who are running around... I think they would probably bomb the States, in that case, what is a machine gun gonna do? And I think I remember something about how the 2nd ammendment was written when countries WERE invaded with foot soldiers? I think people need to think about WHEN these things were written and the situation at the time.

im simply stating the purpose of the 2nd ammendment. And we actual used it in the war of 1812...because of the 2nd ammendment we were more prepared to handle the brits
(don't mean to be picking on you or anything, because there are more people than just you on your side)

Take note: You said in the War of 1812! Yes, the Americans attack the Canadas (and they burnt the white house)... but that was a very different kind of combat than that which would be held today in current Canada and the United States.

By the way, I'm not against the right to bare arms, but I also don't agree that it was written so people could own anti-aircraft guns or anything! Remember what it meant when it was written.

What if, instead of banning guns, the government sharply raises the prices on bullets? As opposed to guns, don't bullets technically kill people?

What if, instead of banning guns, the government sharply raises the prices on bullets? As opposed to guns, don't bullets technically kill people?
nah, the nra would hire a ox team of lawyers and challenge it on the grounds that the second amendment advocates the use of firearms in allowing everyone to have one and increasing ammunition prices ridiculously makes it excessively hard to use a firearm, thus illegal


though you could just make your own, i doubt its that difficult

um, I haven't finished reading this thread, but... I'm very sure if someone "invaded the States" they would not be foot soldiers who are running around... I think they would probably bomb the States, in that case, what is a machine gun gonna do? And I think I remember something about how the 2nd ammendment was written when countries WERE invaded with foot soldiers? I think people need to think about WHEN these things were written and the situation at the time.


(don't mean to be picking on you or anything, because there are more people than just you on your side)

Take note: You said in the War of 1812! Yes, the Americans attack the Canadas (and they burnt the white house)... but that was a very different kind of combat than that which would be held today in current Canada and the United States.

By the way, I'm not against the right to bare arms, but I also don't agree that it was written so people could own anti-aircraft guns or anything! Remember what it meant when it was written. hey im sorry to pick on you but you are wrong. yes we would probably be bombed FIRST but foot soldiers would still be used. If only for the simple fact that they only way you can take and hold land is through ground forces.

What if, instead of banning guns, the government sharply raises the prices on bullets? As opposed to guns, don't bullets technically kill people?
Chris Rock made that very joke a few years back.

Moot point. Did armed US civilians shoot any enemies in either case? No. that was not the point you were talking about the last time we were invaded and the chances of enemies setting foot on US soil. my point was its likely and it does happen. just like your point was to say how often does that happen so maybe you should keep track of whats going on neh?

I so sick of people stating the second ammendment as a reason we can own guns and assuming the conversation is over. Just cause it's an ammendment does not mean that it is a solid truth. How about we change the damn ammendment and start looking guns from an ethical perpesctive instead of using political loopholes.

I so sick of people stating the second ammendment as a reason we can own guns and assuming the conversation is over. Just cause it's an ammendment does not mean that it is a solid truth. How about we change the damn ammendment and start looking guns from an ethical perpesctive instead of using political loopholes.

Then free speach is not a truth? Or the right to worship in your own way? Or how about habeas corpus?

You want to reconsider that arguement? :)

Keep your "ethics" off my property. :)

Here's my problem with concealed carry--it's too easy in a moment of passion to yank out a gun that no one knows you're carrying and pop someone with it because they pissed you off.
If you're wearing it openly, then a situation is less likely to escalate to the point where you get mad and pop someone. Furthermore, a gun in a holster is far more of a deterrent than a gun no one ever knows you're carrying unless you pull it. If deterrence is really the idea here--and deterrence is the argument used by damn near every concealed carry advocate I've ever read or listened to--the open carry is far more effective. Concealed carry only serves one purpose--making the person carrying feel tough. Like I said earlier, if you want to prove you;ve got balls, carry it in a holster out in the open. Don't be a chickenshit and hide it in your pants.

So... you're assuming that criminals will not be concealing firearms?

We're talking about licensed people here! The folks "pulling and popping" AREN'T the folks with licenses! Have you ever *heard* of this happening?

Actually, concealed carry is a lot more effective than open carry. A potential criminal doesn't know if I am carrying or not. Further, he probably won't know WHERE my piece is to disarm/try to make it unavailable to me.

It's not about balls. The best way to win a fight is to never start one. :)

I so sick of people stating the second ammendment as a reason we can own guns and assuming the conversation is over. Just cause it's an ammendment does not mean that it is a solid truth. How about we change the damn ammendment and start looking guns from an ethical perpesctive instead of using political loopholes. first off nobody is saying its the second ammendment thats it the convo is over. second its a right given to us by the constitution to form a well regulated milita to preserve a free state. Yes it can be interpreted many different ways but it cant be a solid truth or a half truth or even a nontruth. It is simply a right provided to us. Did you mean they way ppl use interpretation for the 2nd ammendment? thats just the thing there is ppl that see eye to eye with you use political loop holes to prove their points just as often as ppl for less gun control. Furthermore what is ethical? how much gun control is to much? you are right to say "perspective" because no one truely sees eye to eye on gun control and one last thing is how much gun control would be effective before it starts to damage society. Its not a quick fix like the way you make it seem(regardless if that was your intent or not). :mp5:

I so sick of people stating the second ammendment as a reason we can own guns and assuming the conversation is over. Just cause it's an ammendment does not mean that it is a solid truth. How about we change the damn ammendment and start looking guns from an ethical perpesctive instead of using political loopholes.
What's not ethical about owning a gun? Please explain!

So why exactly do Liberals want to completely ban guns?
I've always wondered this.They Don't!

Eleven pages of Bull and this was the only answer required. Sometimes I'm baffled by this forum.

They Don't!

Eleven pages of Bull and this was the only answer required. Sometimes I'm baffled by this forum.
well it went from answering this question to debating gun control sometimes ppl are too passionate lol :D

*sigh*
"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 moment you join a militia, actively participate in it, regularly attend training, and in general show you devotion to the aforementioned militia is when you get a gun that you can take home. Not before. And when you leave the militia or start being shoddy about attendance, you can only use your gun while on training or duty. Now THAT would rule everyone's box, no matter how liberal or conservative they were.

hey im sorry to pick on you but you are wrong. yes we would probably be bombed FIRST but foot soldiers would still be used. If only for the simple fact that they only way you can take and hold land is through ground forces.

Yes, but would owning a gun stop the enemy from continuing to bomb? It may kill some or all foot soldiers, but in some cases (like Sept. 11th) the enemy doesn't necessarily WANT to take and hold the land, only to do damage.

And, someone said something about Canada "backstabbing" the States if they could? haha :D If the States WERE (for some strange reason) to become weak enough that Canada even had a chance to invade somehow, for some reason I think the Canadian military wouldn't be sufficient enough. :P

I agree that just because something was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's 100% true or relevant to the current situation. That's NOT to say that free speech isn't relevant or anything, but people should have the right to question the government.

what qualifies as a well regulated milita and what is meant by state? an actual state? or a state of mind or being? cant a civilian milita still be a well regulated one?

Yes, but would owning a gun stop the enemy from continuing to bomb? It may kill some or all foot soldiers, but in some cases (like Sept. 11th) the enemy doesn't necessarily WANT to take and hold the land, only to do damage.

And, someone said something about Canada "backstabbing" the States if they could? haha :D If the States WERE (for some strange reason) to become weak enough that Canada even had a chance to invade somehow, for some reason I think the Canadian military wouldn't be sufficient enough. :P

I agree that just because something was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's 100% true or relevant to the current situation. That's NOT to say that free speech isn't relevant or anything, but people should have the right to question the government. well in the situation of stemper 11th some civilians recaptured one of the planes but it still crashed but it was "controlled" and it crashed in the middle of no where. Had a person been equiped with a gun on all of those planes there would have been no september 11th. Yes foot soldiers would be need because you cant have air suppiority if you dont have soldiers on the ground to take out Anti Air weaponry. For example the first Desert Storm we sent in ground troops(special forces) in to take out key AA instalations and handicap the Iraqi Airforce those crippling their Air defence and giving us the means to have Air supperiority.

So... you're assuming that criminals will not be concealing firearms?

We're talking about licensed people here! The folks "pulling and popping" AREN'T the folks with licenses! Have you ever *heard* of this happening?

Actually, concealed carry is a lot more effective than open carry. A potential criminal doesn't know if I am carrying or not. Further, he probably won't know WHERE my piece is to disarm/try to make it unavailable to me.

It's not about balls. The best way to win a fight is to never start one. :)
No--I'm assuming nothing. But if I'm a criminal, even if I'm holding, I'm less likely to fuck with someone I know is holding (packing openly) than I am someone who looks like he isn't. That's why packing openly is a far greater deterrent than carrying a concealed piece.

And yes, not only have I read about people who are carrying concealed weapons pulling and popping in the heat of passion, I've seen it--well, the pulling anyway. No shot was fired, but if I hadn't been there...

And yes, the best way to win a fight is to never start one, but if that's how you truly feel, then you don't need a gun in the first place.

So... 1 trigger pull = 1 round expended.This is true of every firearm that is not fully automatic that I'm aware of. This does not mean all firearms that are not fully automatic are semi-automatic. Breech-loaded, pump action, lever action and bolt action firearms all fire once per one trigger pull. Even the definition you quoted yourself is based on the weapon cycling automatically without physical action from the wielder.
And it's a long fucking way from my right to spend my money on what I want, so long as I'm not infringing upon the rights of others.It is not legal to spend your money on heroin or nuclear weapons either. You want those should not be banned either?
You don't. Licensed to drive, licensed to shoot, it makes no difference.My question had nothing to do with licensing. Here it is again, since nobody seems to have answered it:If the reason why you need small arms is to form militias and protect yourself from armies, either foreign or one belonging to your own government, then you absolutely need grenades and mines too. An army with nothing but small-caliber is horribly inefficient and will get slaughtered in any direct combat. You're going to need those GLs, LAWs, light ATGMs and shoulder-fired SAMs, too. Why do you think these should be banned from civilians if fully automagic GPMGs are legal to own?
And if you think all those should be legal for civilians to own, where do you draw the line? APCs, MBTs, mortars and other field artillery, cruise missiles, figher aircraft, nerve gas, biological agents, tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, ICBMs armed with the above?
There is no law on the books saying that I can't own a Chevy Impala or a Hummer H1. I have to get a car registered. Fine. Let me register my AK-47, and everyone is happy.The first part is true, in the sense that you can own armored vehicles, non-functional cars, cars with wheels far too wide/bumpers in wrong places/illegal emission levels/etc. You just aren't allowed to operate them. If it were the case that operating these vehicles were a direct threat to other humans and could not be stopped any other way (as it is with firearms), all those vehicles would be decommissioned.

I'm a liberal.

I don't want to ban guns, merely ban private citizens from owning tanks, artillery pieces, or other such items.

Gross generalizations kiddies. I am indeed a libreal. But I love my guns and my 2nd ammendment. Although I do believe assault weapons should not be sold to civillians.

Perhaps a more appropriate question would be, why do some liberals want to outlaw all guns.

(apologies, I know this has been addressed, but I felt it would be important to remind people that political views are a spectrum not point "A" and point "B")

I love at how people always use the word "liberal" as an insult. It's like a buzzword for the right-wing. :rolleyes: I would say more but since getting personal wont solve anything I wont.

Right-wing, eh? It cuts both ways, you know.

Disclaimer A) I'm going to make a statement that is not intended to be an attack on a belief system in and of itself. I hold no grudge against the system itself, as its supposed to work. I do not believe it is functional, but I'm not making the assumption that everyone involved with it acts in this manner, or has these intentions.

1) According to my father, he had been approached by a person or people from the communist party when he was in college. Being a gun enthusiast, he asked why they were trying to have guns banned. Appearantly, that person confided that, if they could get the guns out of everyones hands, there would be a chance for a communist uprising, because the citizenry would be without the better weaponry.

Disclaimer B) Again, this is not intended as an attack (nor a supportive statement, for that matter). I am well aware that many (if not most) communists are simply for true equality of all persons, rather than the totalitarianism under the guise of communism that actually happens (To my knowledge, no TRUE commune-ist state has existed beyond the size of, say, a small town). I do not feel that the method is sound, due to human nature, but I don't condemn it out of hand, nor assume that everyone following the belief system wishes to force others in to it. Those who DO, like anyone else intent on forcing their ways on others, no matter the system they tout, can go jump off a cliff.

2) Its nearly impossible to remove weapons from the hands of people. Most tools can be used as weapons, as can much of nature. Worse comes worse, you could strangle your neighbor and make a club out of their thigh bone. Weapons cannot be removed from human existance. All you can do is hope to level the playing field enough that people can defend themselves from those who don't mind STEALING guns or smuggling them in. Generally, the issue should be making it so that it's damned hard to have a gun ACCIDENT, rather than having guns.

The 2nd amendment was written at a time when the most accurate firearm was a musket rifle; they did not have the ridiculously powerful weapons we have today.
The 2nd amendment is outdated and should be repealed, I think; there's no true reason to own a firearm anymore. And no, hunting is not an excuse; there's no need to hunt for food anymore; just go to your local market and buy it.

...Regardless, if all you've got is a .22 LR pistol, then that's what you use. If only to fight your way to a real weapon...

That's exactly the point I was trying to (unsuccessfully) make, we're just coming at it from diferent perspectives.



The ".22 is ultralethal" myth is a pet peeve of mine. Also, I figure if someone talks about firearms they are generally open to find out more, so I try to correct any errors they make. In particular, I try to kill off the stupid myths before they propagate.


Excellent follow-up rebutal! I bow low to your depth of knowledge and sincerely hope should the shit ever hit the fan I don't end up in your doubtlessly dead-on gunsights. I also get the part about pet peeves. I realized after responding to your initial rebutal that I really should take my own advice sometimes. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Still wish I had an MP5, G3 or any of the firearms you probably own as I expect they are top notch and kept well-oiled.

Erehwon Forest, you are my new hero! Seriously! (at least as serious as I ever get about anything) :D

Two nations divided by a common language, but I'm glad some of you lot in the states agree with us Brits. Blair is a twonk.

Americans who are against the possession of guns tend to be concerned about the right to life etc., which is a fair point. But just because the second amendment (of which I have limited idea, I'm deducing from the thread) allows people to have guns, doesn't mean you have to take it.

Americans who are for the possession of guns should be allowed to have them- some of them have their reasons such as hunting or defense from attackers/felons, and in the case of the latter, the right to defend oneself should remain regardless of the means. The case for attacking felons maybe harder to qualify, because despite the fact that some people will make obvious judgements, people can make mistakes. At least in a courtroom, there's room for a few people making errors (as the jury's majority outvotes, blahdeblahdeblah).

The solution, if licensing is opposed (good call Markreich, nice idea), should probably entail that people can either receive a gun, or body armour. One or the other. Those who dislike guns can be granted (albeit limited) protection for them in case of emergency. Those who like guns can have them and can use them responsibly - If they live by the gun, they can die by the gun.

Then people can either be protected with armour or gun to suit their preference when a gun falls into the wrong hands, the preference having been made beforehand. I say this, and I'd brand myself a liberal - being a liberal should be about acceptance. If you're not affected by something, you have no right to force your will on the matter upon others (unless you're government. A necessary evil to keep order). If you want guns, take guns. If you don't, don't. Accept, not restrict.

btw, I'd never heard of Britain being involved in a plot to attack the US. Considering that the US has about 50 times the population of the UK (and therefore 50 times the number of people eligible for drafting/conscription at the time), at a time when we were still financially and economically ruined by World War One and the Recessions at the end of the 1920's - such an attack would have been suicide. A modern "charge of light brigade" if you will (despite how heroic it may sound, it was a serious British army cock up in the Crimean War 1854-1856).
Besides, the empire was receeding in those days anyway, and we'd pretty much consigned ourselves to granting the independance due to the economic deficit we'd made in supporting the second world war (and getting bombed to hell). Why we would re-annex the USA seems elusive to me in terms of practicality. The UK has made many humanitarian faults in the past itself during it's Imperial era - just ask the indians.
Ok, so I've just slagged off my own country, but it deserves it.

America has about 4 times the population... not 50.

But, carry on.

BTW-
I won't even get into the illegals pouring through the border and crossing private land illegally.


That's scary.

Americans need guns so they can shoot trespassers on the New Mexico desert.

Priceless.

about the US not being invaded by an enemy force all i have to say is
PEARL HARBOR
SEPTEMBER 11TH

Neither of which was an 'invasion'.

But, carry on.

*sigh*
"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 moment you join a militia, actively participate in it, regularly attend training, and in general show you devotion to the aforementioned militia is when you get a gun that you can take home. Not before. And when you leave the militia or start being shoddy about attendance, you can only use your gun while on training or duty. Now THAT would rule everyone's box, no matter how liberal or conservative they were.

Right. So, let's look at it from another Amendment:
Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

So, by your arguement, your property is only safe from search and seizure at such times that you prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is unreasonable?
I shudder to think about that!!
And how about Amendment VIII? What's excessive bail? Obviously, it's not excessive as long as it's not cruel! And it can never be cruel, since it's only money!
Sheesh. I'd love to be a lawyer armed with your lines of defense!!

Let's look at another "version" of the 2nd Amendment:
http://legis.state.va.us/constitution/a1s13.htm

Constitution of Virginia
Article I - Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

...does that make it any more clear? The PEOPLE train THEMSELVES.

Neither of which was an 'invasion'.

But, carry on.

How about Pancho Villa in 1916?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime. They attacked a US Cavalry detachment, seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, and killed 17 of its residents.

well in the situation of stemper 11th some civilians recaptured one of the planes but it still crashed but it was "controlled" and it crashed in the middle of no where. Had a person been equiped with a gun on all of those planes there would have been no september 11th.

All conjecture, I'm afraid.

That's scary.

Americans need guns so they can shoot trespassers on the New Mexico desert.

Priceless.

If you don't agree, go buy a home on the border and try to farm.

No--I'm assuming nothing. But if I'm a criminal, even if I'm holding, I'm less likely to fuck with someone I know is holding (packing openly) than I am someone who looks like he isn't. That's why packing openly is a far greater deterrent than carrying a concealed piece.

And yes, not only have I read about people who are carrying concealed weapons pulling and popping in the heat of passion, I've seen it--well, the pulling anyway. No shot was fired, but if I hadn't been there...

And yes, the best way to win a fight is to never start one, but if that's how you truly feel, then you don't need a gun in the first place.

I (and most crime statistics) disagree with you on that one.

And I've read, (and seen) folks pull a weapon that was concealed to *stop* a crime. No shots were fired, as the perp ran...

Untrue. That's like saying you don't need a newspaper to print the news. A gun is a tool, like any other.

I've always wondered this.

So people like you can't pose a constant danger to others.

How about Pancho Villa in 1916?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa

On March 9, 1916, Villa led 1,500 Mexican raiders in a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime. They attacked a US Cavalry detachment, seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, and killed 17 of its residents.

First - the original poster didn't mention Pancho Villa - but claimed that September 11th and Pearl Harbour were 'invasions', which, of course, they were not.

Second - Pancho Villa 1916 wasn't, strictly speaking, an invasion either - there was no occupying force. It was a military strike, in retaliation to a perceived interference in a sovereign state's political stability, and one targeted chiefly against a military target.

I notice you fail to mention that the US retaliated in kind, with the "Punitive Expedition".

If you don't agree, go buy a home on the border and try to farm.

So - if we assume that your example is valid... i.e. that border-land farmers need to shoot civilians... how is that a justification for the Wyoming gun owner? Is he worried about those pesky Colorado residents 'sneaking over the border' into the good ol' U.S. of W?

This is true of every firearm that is not fully automatic that I'm aware of. This does not mean all firearms that are not fully automatic are semi-automatic. Breech-loaded, pump action, lever action and bolt action firearms all fire once per one trigger pull. Even the definition you quoted yourself is based on the weapon cycling automatically without physical action from the wielder.

Right. I am NOT talking about pump/level, etc. I was pointing out the difference between automatic and semiautomatics. Banning semiautomatics, for example, would ban revolvers or non-pump shotguns. To me, that is absurd; it's legislating a level of TECHNOLOGY. This never works.


It is not legal to spend your money on heroin or nuclear weapons either. You want those should not be banned either?

Show me the statute that says I cannot buy a nuclear weapon.
And no, heroin should not be banned. Prohibition didn't work, either.


My question had nothing to do with licensing. Here it is again, since nobody seems to have answered it:
The first part is true, in the sense that you can own armored vehicles, non-functional cars, cars with wheels far too wide/bumpers in wrong places/illegal emission levels/etc. You just aren't allowed to operate them.
If it were the case that operating these vehicles were a direct threat to other humans and could not be stopped any other way (as it is with firearms), all those vehicles would be decommissioned.

Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Are you saying you are or are not equating guns with... odd cars?
(I'm not trying to be a wise-acre, I just didn't get your drift.)

So - if we assume that your example is valid... i.e. that border-land farmers need to shoot civilians... how is that a justification for the Wyoming gun owner? Is he worried about those pesky Colorado residents 'sneaking over the border' into the good ol' U.S. of W?

They have the right to protect their houses, family and property.

Same thing. The illegals go through pretty much the entire US to get to NYC, Chicago, etc.

But it is not only about illegals. Anyone, at any time, could be in a situation where they could need to defend themselves. Are you saying that the Wyomings don't have that right?


The original debate was why to LIBERALS want to ban guns.


I have seen lots of examples and points of view why they want to. I have yet to see any as to why it should happen. All I see are people trying to legislate what someone can own, to take away someone ELSE'S rights.

The biggest retort is "why do you need X" or "when is it needed"?

Which still goes against the basic premise: Unless you're willing to take that same yardstick against every OTHER good (and, ipso facto, the rest of the Bill of Rights), it is a hollow arguement.

First - the original poster didn't mention Pancho Villa - but claimed that September 11th and Pearl Harbour were 'invasions', which, of course, they were not.

Second - Pancho Villa 1916 wasn't, strictly speaking, an invasion either - there was no occupying force. It was a military strike, in retaliation to a perceived interference in a sovereign state's political stability, and one targeted chiefly against a military target.

I notice you fail to mention that the US retaliated in kind, with the "Punitive Expedition".

1st - Fair enough. I'm just raising a counter point.

2nd - A foreign army crossing a border isn't an invasion?
You don't need to occupy to invade!
Tell that to the dead people in the town.

My point here was that the townspeople here had a clear case for owning arms.

Ah, yes, the Punitive Expedition. Sure there was one. But once you're lying dead in the street, that hardly matters, now does it?

They have the right to protect their houses, family and property.

Same thing. The illegals go through pretty much the entire US to get to NYC, Chicago, etc.

But it is not only about illegals. Anyone, at any time, could be in a situation where they could need to defend themselves. Are you saying that the Wyomings don't have that right?


The original debate was why to LIBERALS want to ban guns.


I have seen lots of examples and points of view why they want to. I have yet to see any as to why it should happen. All I see are people trying to legislate what someone can own, to take away someone ELSE'S rights.

The biggest retort is "why do you need X" or "when is it needed"?

Which still goes against the basic premise: Unless you're willing to take that same yardstick against every OTHER good (and, ipso facto, the rest of the Bill of Rights), it is a hollow arguement.

Because, of course, the average illegal immigrant isn't looking for a better life, a job, etc... no, he is crossing the border to murder you in your bed?

I don't consider myself a 'liberal', and I don't actually oppose gun ownership - but I can think of one very good reason why gun ownership SHOULD BE strictly controlled - and that reason is National Security. How can you argue that Americans need weapons to protect themselves from invasion, and not allow for the fact that most of the 'Terror' activities in American history, have been carried out BY Americans?

1st - Fair enough. I'm just raising a counter point.

2nd - A foreign army crossing a border isn't an invasion?
You don't need to occupy to invade!
Tell that to the dead people in the town.

My point here was that the townspeople here had a clear case for owning arms.

Ah, yes, the Punitive Expedition. Sure there was one. But once you're lying dead in the street, that hardly matters, now does it?

2) Not a foreign army, just a military force - there is a difference.

And, no, occupation and invasion aren't synonymous, but I think that, in context or military forces, an invasion must entail more than just border skirmish, or relatively isolated sacrificial gestures.

Regarding the specifics of Pancho Villa - since the strike was chiefly aimed against a military target, and civilian casualties were minimal, it could be argued that an adequate armed response was available... and that, if it was not sufficient, the weak military response was the problem - not an underarmed civilian body.

2nd - A foreign army crossing a border isn't an invasion?
You don't need to occupy to invade!
Holy shit! You're right! Down with American bases in Britain!!!

I came from a country Sweden that many of you gunfanatics think is realy pinko. And yes we see the dangers with guns and regulate them like for example the sells and owningship of them like for example you can only have certain amount of guns. But still you have alot of chances to "play with guns" if you responsible. First of all you have a really good chances to enlist then you 19 (even if it no longer really is mandatory) and then you can play with guns for a year. And if you think that was really fun or you missed it you can join the nationalguard then you even get to have a automatic rifle in your home. You can also join a gunclub and then you can be allowed to have really good rifle and pistols if you show that seriusly into the sport. And if you like to kill stuff you can get a hunting licence and then you are allowed to have guns if you have somether to hunt. So even if you regulate guns and/or live in a "pinko/leftist" as you percievet you have a really good chance to play with guns if you just put some effort into it.

Banning semiautomatics, for example, would ban revolvers or non-pump shotguns.Actually, no. As I'm sure you're aware, most revolvers are cycled by pressing the trigger or by cocking the hammer. The only semi-automatic revolvers I know of are the Mateba 6 Unica (http://home.mweb.co.za/af/afadrb/mateba.html) and the Webley-Fosbury (http://www.classicfirearms.co.uk/webleyfosbury.html). And yeah, if by "non-pump shotguns" you mean "semi-automatic shotguns", then banning semi-automatic weapons will ban those... It will not ban breech-loaded/break action or bolt action shotguns, for example.
To me, that is absurd; it's legislating a level of TECHNOLOGY. This never works.It does, though. Production cars with engines more powerful than 276bhp are very hard to get at in Japan -- they are not strictly illegal, but all car manufacturers and dealers abide by this limit. Some rich freaks might own foreign cars with more powerful engines, but it's very rare.
Show me the statute that says I cannot buy a nuclear weapon.While such laws might not, as such, exist in US law (I wouldn't know, I don't know a whole lot about US law), the current international athmosphere has certainly forced governments to make deals which prohibit the prolification of nuclear weapons to anyone, including civilians not representing any politie.
Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Are you saying you are or are not equating guns with... odd cars?Yes, I am equating guns with cars, because there are many regulations about what makes a car street legal. You can still own functioning cars you aren't allowed to drive on public roads (or, in some cases, anywhere), because using them would not be a direct threat to people or property and is rather easy to control. In the case of weapons, decommissioning weapons that aren't "street legal" would be a saner choice.

And you still haven't answered my question about where you want to draw the line of legal ownership of weapons and why.

Because, of course, the average illegal immigrant isn't looking for a better life, a job, etc... no, he is crossing the border to murder you in your bed?

I don't consider myself a 'liberal', and I don't actually oppose gun ownership - but I can think of one very good reason why gun ownership SHOULD BE strictly controlled - and that reason is National Security.
How can you argue that Americans need weapons to protect themselves from invasion, and not allow for the fact that most of the 'Terror' activities in American history, have been carried out BY Americans?

That's hardly the point, though that has happened.
If they come on my land and steal from me, am I not allowed to protect my property? How about them damaging my fences, etc.

In short, I'm not. Invasion, protection, target shooting, hunting, WHATEVER -- it is all irrelevant.
I'm for the maximal freedoms of the individual, so long as they do not directly interfere with the freedoms of another individual. Gun ownership is just one facet of my outlook.

As opposed to American History, I posit that it is no worse than any other nation's history. I also posit that history is written by the victors. As a first-generation Polish-American, I can tell you that being on the losing side SUCKS. :)

Holy shit! You're right! Down with American bases in Britain!!!

Are you serious? Those bases were built in co-operation with the British Goverment.

Shit, next time, we'll let the Bosch take you over for sure. :p

2) Not a foreign army, just a military force - there is a difference.

And, no, occupation and invasion aren't synonymous, but I think that, in context or military forces, an invasion must entail more than just border skirmish, or relatively isolated sacrificial gestures.

Regarding the specifics of Pancho Villa - since the strike was chiefly aimed against a military target, and civilian casualties were minimal, it could be argued that an adequate armed response was available... and that, if it was not sufficient, the weak military response was the problem - not an underarmed civilian body.

Vila's was a foreign ARMY, fighting in a Civil War in Mexico. Or was General Lee leading a military force in the US Civil War?

I disagree. Or were the Scottish that sacked York (ala Braveheart) not invaders? Or just about any battle in the US Civil or Boer Wars? There are many, many examples in history of non-occupational invasions.

Dude, they looted and pillaged an American town that had not provoked them. The citizens clearly had the right to protect themselves.

Are you serious? Those bases were built in co-operation with the British Goverment.

Shit, next time, we'll let the Bosch take you over for sure. :p
I'd rather it was the Hotpoint.

But that infringes the right to bear arms. To me that is unconstiutional.
Great idea. Let's allow all the violent schizophrenics access to firearms, including military assualt weapons, cause it infringes their right not to let them have any. May as well give them a hand puppet as well so they have someone to talk to and tell them who to kill.
While we're at, let's not forget the criminals, on parole for violent crimes. Hey, they can't have their rights infringed by not letting them buy guns.
:rolleyes:

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power (I dunno why, but that isn't too far fetched and that scares the shit out of me)? We have nothing to fight it. Good one, Liberals. Way to fail.
Cause we all know how often that's happened in every other Western world democratic country that has restrictions on firearms. :rolleyes:
Welcome to the Theocracy:
of Britain
of Australia
of New Zealand
of Japan
of France
of Italy
of Switzeland
of Denmark
of Belgium
.... :rolleyes:

Anyway - a Theocracy takes power, obviously with the necessary backing of the military (cause how else would it get there?) but you feel confident that Bubba and his bowling buddies will stop them cause they've got some AKs? Against the most powerful and best equipped force in the World.
hmmmmm....

Actually, no. As I'm sure you're aware, most revolvers are cycled by pressing the trigger or by cocking the hammer. The only semi-automatic revolvers I know of are the Mateba 6 Unica (http://home.mweb.co.za/af/afadrb/mateba.html) and the Webley-Fosbury (http://www.classicfirearms.co.uk/webleyfosbury.html). And yeah, if by "non-pump shotguns" you mean "semi-automatic shotguns", then banning semi-automatic weapons will ban those... It will not ban breech-loaded/break action or bolt action shotguns, for example.


Sorry, I meant to type pistols. My bad.
True.


It does, though. Production cars with engines more powerful than 276bhp are very hard to get at in Japan -- they are not strictly illegal, but all car manufacturers and dealers abide by this limit. Some rich freaks might own foreign cars with more powerful engines, but it's very rare.


How about VCRs? Burnable DVDs? Software copying programs? Peer file sharing? Shoot, even the Carterphone (the orginal phone-related device) was attempted to be legislated against. Had that happened, *poof* no modems and no Internet!
You can legislate emissions, etc. But there is NO law in the US that states you cannot own a particular consumer good! (Exception: Drugs. And I'm not against legalizing that, either.)


While such laws might not, as such, exist in US law (I wouldn't know, I don't know a whole lot about US law), the current international athmosphere has certainly forced governments to make deals which prohibit the prolification of nuclear weapons to anyone, including civilians not representing any politie.


Fine, but there is still no law against individual ownership. :)


Yes, I am equating guns with cars, because there are many regulations about what makes a car street legal. You can still own functioning cars you aren't allowed to drive on public roads (or, in some cases, anywhere), because using them would not be a direct threat to people or property and is rather easy to control. In the case of weapons, decommissioning weapons that aren't "street legal" would be a saner choice.

And you still haven't answered my question about where you want to draw the line of legal ownership of weapons and why.

Exactly. Yet no one is saying you can't OWN a particular car, just that you cannot drive an unsafe one. By the same token, one would not be able to carry a gun that was unsafe -- IE, it has a defect or has been "souped up" to be beyond it's design. Is a grenade launcher under a shotgun equal to a Honda with 450hp? Maybe.

That's fine. I have no problem with "street legal" as a concept. But it must be as with cars (defective), not by features.

I don't. As long as a citizen is willing to be licensed to own, he or she should have the right to. Works with cars, boats, planes, dogs... etc.

Ok, so reading this thread, the reasons why people (not necessarily liberals) want gun control is:

We don't "need" them.
the vague definitions of "assault weapons".
any deregulation means handing out guns to criminals
terrorists will get guns
the 2nd amendment is outdated
criminals can get guns
we should only have what the gov't allows
cars are regulated so so should guns
we can't fight the military so why bother
slippery slope to nukes

and how many of these same people screamed and ranted against the patriot act removing civil rights?

are you a part of your local millitia?if no then you do NOT have a constitutional right to bear arms.read it slowly this time.

Militia is defined as any able bodied male between the ages of 18-45, or a woman serving in the National Guard.

So, they might actually be part of the militia. You don't have to register for it if you're a guy 18-45....

And think about it--if the government is so corrupt that you have to take up arms against it, their definition of militia is no longer valid.

Militia is used in EVERY defensive situation. One person defending themselves from a criminal trying to rob and/or kill them is the militia acting in defense of the constitution. You don't have to have more than one person or a person fighting in a declared war. That's what armies are for. It does apply to individuals.

Militia is defined as any able bodied male between the ages of 18-45, or a woman serving in the National Guard.

So, they might actually be part of the militia. You don't have to register for it if you're a guy 18-45....

And think about it--if the government is so corrupt that you have to take up arms against it, their definition of militia is no longer valid.

Militia is used in EVERY defensive situation. One person defending themselves from a criminal trying to rob and/or kill them is the militia acting in defense of the constitution. You don't have to have more than one person or a person fighting in a declared war. That's what armies are for. It does apply to individuals.

[sticks fingers in ears] "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU!! IT MEANS WHAT I WANT AND NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!! LA LA LA"

Hey Zaxon, nice to see someone else w/ a sense of history around here.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In what way does a background check constitute an infringement of this right? It's just making sure a man with a history of violent crime for example, doesn't end up robbing a bank ;) And the first bit's important - A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Well regulated. National Guard, anyone?

So, when the amendment was written (late 1700s mind you), the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom foresaw the formation of the National Guard in the LATE 1800s????

I'm impressed.

No. They meant for every citizen to be armed. Ask any constitutional historian--not the media, or gun-grabbers. The founders actually didn't want standing armies! National Guard indeed.

Background checks are controls. If someone is guilty of violent crime, they shouldn't be let out--ever (or perhaps a quick injection, to save the rest of us money, by paying for the blight's food, shelter, and clothing). That's the parole system's failure, why punish the law-abiding citizen?

Why shouldn't we have to pass a test or go through a training program to prove that we're not going to blow our own fool heads off the second we get one?

I'd call that natural selection, if someone's stupid enough not to seek out training or knowledge. Let 'em blow their heads off.

Liberals (sparingly used) do not say a thing about banning guns. We do think Control is useful. Control do not equal banning guns. Just controlling which guns are bought, sold, used, and how long before you may buy them.


Two words: Diane Feinstein. Yes, some liberals DO want to ban them. She's actually said it. You may be more open minded on the gun issue, but she and the Brady's certainly aren't. They want them ALL gone.


I don't see how that is banning them. That would be a extreme and very few people in A,merica say they want to do that.
Some have said it might be cool to try due to England's crime isn't higher due to less guns.


Heh...I thought England's violent crime rate was actually on the rise....

So, when the amendment was written (late 1700s mind you), the founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom foresaw the formation of the National Guard in the LATE 1800s????

I'm impressed.

No. They meant for every citizen to be armed. Ask any constitutional historian--not the media, or gun-grabbers. The founders actually didn't want standing armies! National Guard indeed.

Background checks are controls. If someone is guilty of violent crime, they shouldn't be let out--ever (or perhaps a quick injection, to save the rest of us money, by paying for the blight's food, shelter, and clothing). That's the parole system's failure, why punish the law-abiding citizen?

Well of course they foresaw the creation of the NG. They could predict the future, except for any type of advancement in firearms. That they couldn't see.

Here's the proof:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

Penis pump you incompetent fool, in 1812 the 2nd ammendment did not help you prepare for a british invasion, but for an invasion of Canada (which was totally crushed humiliating the cowardly crappy yankee soldiers) Get your facts straight you incompetent feeble minded cretin.

Heh...I thought England's violent crime rate was actually on the rise....

NO IT'S NOT!!! LA LA LA I'M GOING TO USE STATS FROM 15 YEARS AGO AND QUOTES FROM HCI TO PROVE OTHERWISE!!!! LA LA LA

To quote the great Mr Izzard

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I think the gun helps.'

Guns are for killing, hence why they should be banned. If you really want to defend yourself, go learn Judo or something.

So you can dodge the bullet coming from the criminal's--WHO DOESN'T OBEY LAWS IN THE FIRST (which is why they are CRIMINALS)--firearm?

There is only one animal you hunt with armor-piercing, cyanide-tipped bullets and it talks (no, it isn't parrots).

And funny, it's fairly difficult to get that type of ammunition already. Armor piercing? Most rifle ammo goes through your run-of-the-mill body armor already...

All those inflamatory terms come from repressive governments and sensationalist media outlets.

I am a liberal who does not support gun control. With that said, first of all, I am tired of the perpetual invocation of the 2nd amendment. This isn't about the right of the man to have a gun--it's an outmoded amendment, when the US didn't have an extensive professional army/police force and had to do more with defending the colonies against foreign forces. When it's invoked, it isn't in the spirit of how it was intended. Secondly, gun control isn't a "Liberal" thing. Mainstream of America supports gun control and registration--including the Brady Bill. Actually only the rightwing and libertarians don't support gun control in any form.

No, the primary impetus of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from their own government--those police and army you are touting. So they can't abuse the citizenry. Abuse is rampant in both organizations. Just look at all the footage we have on police brutality.

It's not about defending the nation from an outside threat. That's what several organizations want you to think, so it's easier to rationize the right away because it's "outdated". It will never be outdated as long as political corruption exists--and that will be forever.

So why exactly do Liberals want to completely ban guns? I've always wondered this.Why do some people talk when they don't even understand what they are talking about? I've always wondered this.

Why do some people talk when they don't even understand what they are talking about? I've always wondered this.

Insult someone then go offline. What is this? Drive-by-flaming?

I want all firearms of any kind registered, both by owner and by ballistic markings.


Balistic fingerprinting has been proven to not work at all.


I want all automatic, and semi-automatic weapons, banned.


So, you want only single shot, bolt action, pump action, or single-action revolvers. No modern revolvers (double-action--semi-automatic--revolvers evolved at the end of the 19th century) or pistols.


I want carrying of any concealed weapon outlawed.


So those who would prey on the unarmed to know exactly to hit. And also to make those who do chose to carry the first target. Nice and humanitarian.


I want anything that can be classified as an assault weapon outlawed.


Considering there is NO definition of assault weapon, that will be difficult. All the definitions are from anti-gun organizations or the media (or is that redundant?)


I want all gun owners licensed - AFTER a mandatory weapons safety course.


Who determines the curriculum? And wouldn't it make tracking down the threats to a corrupt government a bit easier?


These will not stop all murders committed with firearms. But they will reduce the number, and if they reduce the number by one, then it's worth it.

Actually, it will reduce the number of law-abiding citizens with firearms. The murder rate will stay the same.

No, you are the moron if you believe any of the crap you just wrote.

So, he's a moron for citing the actual facts? Interesting definition of moron.

Get some real facts before spouting off on things you so blatantly don't know anything about.

Balistic fingerprinting has been proven to not work at all.



So, you want only single shot, bolt action, pump action, or single-action revolvers. No modern revolvers (double-action--semi-automatic--revolvers evolved at the end of the 19th century) or pistols.



So those who would prey on the unarmed to know exactly to hit. And also to make those who do chose to carry the first target. Nice and humanitarian.



Considering there is NO definition of assault weapon, that will be difficult. All the definitions are from anti-gun organizations or the media (or is that redundant?)



Who determines the curriculum? And wouldn't it make tracking down the threats to a corrupt government a bit easier?



Actually, it will reduce the number of law-abiding citizens with firearms. The murder rate will stay the same.

It doesn't matter what you say Zax. SN38 (nice name for an anti-gunner BTW) is using an arguement by morality. By using the "lowering it by one" thing, he puts himself on the high moral ground because then he can say that anybody pro-gun is against saving lives.

Standard tactic but I wonder what he would think if it applied to everything and he had to pay $20 for an asparin because of all the safety requirements?

As long as a citizen is willing to be licensed to own, he or she should have the right to. Works with cars, boats, planes, dogs... etc....cruise missiles?

Ayman Al-Zawahiri reads from a newspaper that cruise missiles are now legal for civilians to acquire and own in the US. $20 million (well laundered) is wired to bank accounts in the US from arond the world. A few legal citizens get licenses for, purchase and register 3 Mk 141 Harpoon launchers and 12 Harpoon missiles along with a rudimentary computer system to control them. They are legally transported and set up somewhere north of Arlington, VA.

Prior to launching 4 missiles each at the White House, Pentagon and Capitol Hill, they haven't done any crime that could be reasonably tracked back to them and holding them for questioning for 24 hours would achieve nothing. Once the missiles have been launched, they'll reach their targets within 3½ minutes -- even if the launch itself is spotted and the missiles successfully tracked via radars, there's nothing that can be done other than whisking Bush into a secure room and beginning evacuation procedures in the target buildings. *BOOM* x 12. Sure the people who bought the missiles and launchers are now dead meat, but they hardly care.

Or attack nuclear power plants or other vulnerable targets instead. You could do the same with SAMs, only then you've got a greater amount of people dispersed around the USA near major airfields, each shooting down one or more passenger aircraft. Other types of weapons mentioned won't interest terrorists much, although laxing laws concerning high explosives might. While the legalization of mines and LAWs wouldn't interest criminals much, the following prolification of such weapons certainly would.

Do you seriously not see any problems with allowing people to acquire and own such weapons?

How about VCRs? Burnable DVDs? Software copying programs? Peer file sharing? Shoot, even the Carterphone (the orginal phone-related device) was attempted to be legislated against. Had that happened, *poof* no modems and no Internet!These hardly have anything to do with the legal status of firearms. Pistols, semi-automatic rifles (and shotguns) and machineguns are all a hundred or more years old. Submachine guns are nearly as old, and even assault rifles have turned 60. This has absolutely nothing to do with "fear of the unknown", some hysterical response to technology we cannot understand. Humans understand guns pretty darn well (individuals might not, but the collective human understanding of them is quite thorough).

Is a grenade launcher under a shotgun equal to a Honda with 450hp? Maybe.
Only if you can hide the Honda inside your long coat, use it to blow up an armored vehicle at 300 meters without being spotted and fade into a crowd with it without standing out. And yes, I realize you can use the Honda to kill a lot of people if you're so inclined -- it's not nearly as effective at it as a shotgun with an underbarrel GL, though.

I so sick of people stating the second ammendment as a reason we can own guns and assuming the conversation is over. Just cause it's an ammendment does not mean that it is a solid truth. How about we change the damn ammendment and start looking guns from an ethical perpesctive instead of using political loopholes.

The same argument could be used for the first amendment. Felony to lie to anyone....

It is truth. The second amendment is there to allow citizens to protect themselves. No ethical issue there. If someone abuses it and hurts or kills someone with a firearm, or sword, or anything else covered under the second amendment, there should be severe penalties for doing so. Not like in California where they wanted to give a guy five years PROBATION for killing someone. Now that's what I call sheer idiocy.

The 2nd amendment was written at a time when the most accurate firearm was a musket rifle; they did not have the ridiculously powerful weapons we have today.
The 2nd amendment is outdated and should be repealed, I think; there's no true reason to own a firearm anymore. And no, hunting is not an excuse; there's no need to hunt for food anymore; just go to your local market and buy it.


No reason you're willing to accept, at any rate.

Some of us want to ban all guns, some of us don't. I believe in the 2nd ammendment, but seriously, people don't need to be walking around with machine guns to feel protected. I agree... a small gun for protection... whatever. But when the wrong people get guns... it's not a good thing. What I'm saying is, sometimes they cause more harm than good.

...cruise missiles?

Ayman Al-Zawahiri reads from a newspaper that cruise missiles are now legal for civilians to acquire and own in the US. $20 million (well laundered) is wired to bank accounts in the US from arond the world. A few legal citizens get licenses for, purchase and register 3 Mk 141 Harpoon launchers and 12 Harpoon missiles along with a rudimentary computer system to control them. They are legally transported and set up somewhere north of Arlington, VA.

Prior to launching 4 missiles each at the White House, Pentagon and Capitol Hill, they haven't done any crime that could be reasonably tracked back to them and holding them for questioning for 24 hours would achieve nothing. Once the missiles have been launched, they'll reach their targets within 3½ minutes -- even if the launch itself is spotted and the missiles successfully tracked via radars, there's nothing that can be done other than whisking Bush into a secure room and beginning evacuation procedures in the target buildings. *BOOM* x 12. Sure the people who bought the missiles and launchers are now dead meat, but they hardly care.

Or attack nuclear power plants or other vulnerable targets instead. You could do the same with SAMs, only then you've got a greater amount of people dispersed around the USA near major airfields, each shooting down one or more passenger aircraft. Other types of weapons mentioned won't interest terrorists much, although laxing laws concerning high explosives might. While the legalization of mines and LAWs wouldn't interest criminals much, the following prolification of such weapons certainly would.

Do you seriously not see any problems with allowing people to acquire and own such weapons?

These hardly have anything to do with the legal status of firearms. Pistols, semi-automatic rifles (and shotguns) and machineguns are all a hundred or more years old. Submachine guns are nearly as old, and even assault rifles have turned 60. This has absolutely nothing to do with "fear of the unknown", some hysterical response to technology we cannot understand. Humans understand guns pretty darn well (individuals might not, but the collective human understanding of them is quite thorough).


Only if you can hide the Honda inside your long coat, use it to blow up an armored vehicle at 300 meters without being spotted and fade into a crowd with it without standing out. And yes, I realize you can use the Honda to kill a lot of people if you're so inclined -- it's not nearly as effective at it as a shotgun with an underbarrel GL, though.

Standard anti-gun tactic part 2: slippery slope alert! Nukes anyone?

So, you want only single shot, bolt action, pump action, or single-action revolvers. No modern revolvers (double-action--semi-automatic--revolvers evolved at the end of the 19th century) or pistols.To quote myself from a while ago: "As I'm sure you're aware, most revolvers are cycled by pressing the trigger or by cocking the hammer. The only semi-automatic revolvers I know of are the Mateba 6 Unica and the Webley-Fosbury." A double-action revolver is not semi-automatic, not according to any dictionary definition or official usage I've ever seen.

And by the way, if Liberals regulate Arms what happens when a theocracy gets in power

Surprise! You already have a theocracy.

It seems to the world that the USofA is seperated into two groups:
1) Hippy gun hating lefties.
2) Gun loving religious right wing nutjobs.

I'm sure there is a middle ground, but frankly I think it must be limited to about 6 people.
;)

Standard anti-gun tactic part 2: slippery slope alert! Nukes anyone?1) I'm not anti-gun. 2) Since apparently you do believe in allowing civilians to own machine guns but not nukes, do tell me: Where do you draw the line, and why? I suggest you read through the earlier parts of the thread, where I first asked the question, before answering, so I don't have to tell you to read the thread again later.

I came from a country Sweden that many of you gunfanatics think is realy pinko. And yes we see the dangers with guns and regulate them like for example the sells and owningship of them like for example you can only have certain amount of guns. But still you have alot of chances to "play with guns" if you responsible. First of all you have a really good chances to enlist then you 19 (even if it no longer really is mandatory) and then you can play with guns for a year. And if you think that was really fun or you missed it you can join the nationalguard then you even get to have a automatic rifle in your home. You can also join a gunclub and then you can be allowed to have really good rifle and pistols if you show that seriusly into the sport. And if you like to kill stuff you can get a hunting licence and then you are allowed to have guns if you have somether to hunt. So even if you regulate guns and/or live in a "pinko/leftist" as you percievet you have a really good chance to play with guns if you just put some effort into it.

There is only one issue with your entire statement. You keep using the term "allowed". In the US, the government isn't supposed to be telling us what to do. We're telling them. We're not ruled here.

Those of us who support firearm rights are doing so just to get people to stop trying to control us. We're not forcing guns on anyone, we just want to be left in peace. We want the guns to defend ourselves, not to attack.

That seems to be the crux of the issue. The anti-gunners seem to think that anyone with a gun will offensively use it, when it's VERY rare that a legal owner does such a thing. It's all fear based.

Some of us want to ban all guns, some of us don't. I believe in the 2nd ammendment, but seriously, people don't need to be walking around with machine guns to feel protected. I agree... a small gun for protection... whatever. But when the wrong people get guns... it's not a good thing. What I'm saying is, sometimes they cause more harm than good.

The "wrong people" will get guns no matter what. Very few people are talking about machine guns. The guns that most are trying to ban are Semi-auto's that "look like" military guns but function just like any "safe" gun w/ the definition changing almost daily. If you read the rest of the thread, quite a few people want handguns banned because they're "only good for killing people" . Where does it end?

[sticks fingers in ears] "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR YOU!! IT MEANS WHAT I WANT AND NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!! LA LA LA"

Hey Zaxon, nice to see someone else w/ a sense of history around here.

After arguing these points so long, I'd be amazed at those that don't garner some sort of historical perspective. :)

1) I'm not anti-gun. 2) Since apparently you do believe in allowing civilians to own machine guns but not nukes, do tell me: Where do you draw the line, and why? I suggest you read through the earlier parts of the thread, where I first asked the question, before answering, so I don't have to tell you to read the thread again later.

and yet you brought up cruise missiles. Silly me, I go w/ the SCOTUS definition of any man-portable small arm useful for the purpose of the militia.

Well of course they foresaw the creation of the NG. They could predict the future, except for any type of advancement in firearms. That they couldn't see.

Here's the proof:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment


Damn, that's some gooood stuff.

NO IT'S NOT!!! LA LA LA I'M GOING TO USE STATS FROM 15 YEARS AGO AND QUOTES FROM HCI TO PROVE OTHERWISE!!!! LA LA LA

You forgot the "<fingers in ears>" part this time. :D

After arguing these points so long, I'd be amazed at those that don't garner some sort of historical perspective. :)

and yet we still hear the same things..

Slippery slope to nukes
not what the FF intended
etc. etc.

Makes me want to post the head-banging smiley.

Some of us want to ban all guns, some of us don't. I believe in the 2nd ammendment, but seriously, people don't need to be walking around with machine guns to feel protected. I agree... a small gun for protection... whatever. But when the wrong people get guns... it's not a good thing. What I'm saying is, sometimes they cause more harm than good.

They help a LOT more than hurt. 12,000 murders by firearms annually. 1.5 million crimes stopped by a firearm annually. I'll take those odds anytime.

Damn, that's some gooood stuff.

Try these on for size you gun nut you.

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [ ... ] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789


and from the other side of the water:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings."
-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

To quote myself from a while ago: "As I'm sure you're aware, most revolvers are cycled by pressing the trigger or by cocking the hammer. The only semi-automatic revolvers I know of are the Mateba 6 Unica and the Webley-Fosbury." A double-action revolver is not semi-automatic, not according to any dictionary definition or official usage I've ever seen.

Uh...yeah. Semi-automatic does apply to revolvers. Instead of ejecting the shell and flinging it to the ground, it hangs on to them, but the shell is out of the firing chamber (the part of the cylinder that isn't lined up with the barrel anymore...). You still only pull the trigger to advance the next round. It's a semi-auto. Just because you say that revolvers are exempt doesn't make them so.

and yet we still hear the same things..

Slippery slope to nukes
not what the FF intended
etc. etc.

Makes me want to post the head-banging smiley.

Yup, and they never admit the real reason: FEAR. They're scared. Except they can't admit that part. Ah well. They can be scared as much as they want, just as long as they stop coming after my tools.

Try these on for size you gun nut you.

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [ ... ] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

"Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789


and from the other side of the water:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
-- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings."
-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

LOVE the Gandhi quote!!!!! I've gotta squirrel that one away for the future!

...cruise missiles?

Ayman Al-Zawahiri reads from a newspaper that cruise missiles are now legal for civilians to acquire and own in the US. $20 million (well laundered) is wired to bank accounts in the US from arond the world. A few legal citizens get licenses for, purchase and register 3 Mk 141 Harpoon launchers and 12 Harpoon missiles along with a rudimentary computer system to control them. They are legally transported and set up somewhere north of Arlington, VA.

Prior to launching 4 missiles each at the White House, Pentagon and Capitol Hill, they haven't done any crime that could be reasonably tracked back to them and holding them for questioning for 24 hours would achieve nothing. Once the missiles have been launched, they'll reach their targets within 3½ minutes -- even if the launch itself is spotted and the missiles successfully tracked via radars, there's nothing that can be done other than whisking Bush into a secure room and beginning evacuation procedures in the target buildings. *BOOM* x 12. Sure the people who bought the missiles and launchers are now dead meat, but they hardly care.

Or attack nuclear power plants or other vulnerable targets instead. You could do the same with SAMs, only then you've got a greater amount of people dispersed around the USA near major airfields, each shooting down one or more passenger aircraft. Other types of weapons mentioned won't interest terrorists much, although laxing laws concerning high explosives might. While the legalization of mines and LAWs wouldn't interest criminals much, the following prolification of such weapons certainly would.

Do you seriously not see any problems with allowing people to acquire and own such weapons?


Nope. Not only because it's so blasted unlikely, but because if they could do that already, don't you think they would have? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not tracked. Want proof? Try to buy large quantites of fertilizer in cash today.

BTW, I do like how you had to reach to such exteme examples to justify why guns should be banned. :D


These hardly have anything to do with the legal status of firearms. Pistols, semi-automatic rifles (and shotguns) and machineguns are all a hundred or more years old. Submachine guns are nearly as old, and even assault rifles have turned 60. This has absolutely nothing to do with "fear of the unknown", some hysterical response to technology we cannot understand. Humans understand guns pretty darn well (individuals might not, but the collective human understanding of them is quite thorough).

Agreed. So why are you bringing them up? It IS a technology arguement. Either you ban everything from an Arquebus to an Ak-74 (and beyond), or you ban nothing. QED.


Only if you can hide the Honda inside your long coat, use it to blow up an armored vehicle at 300 meters without being spotted and fade into a crowd with it without standing out. And yes, I realize you can use the Honda to kill a lot of people if you're so inclined -- it's not nearly as effective at it as a shotgun with an underbarrel GL, though.

What you're missing is that we are talking about licensed, legally owning citizens. These licenses aren't coming out of happy meals, you know.

A hypothetical back at you: I can make bombs out of fertilizer, load them into a rental truck and try to blow up a building in Oklahoma. Or the WTC. I know, let's ban fertilizer and trucks! :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with what the item IS, it is with enforcing how it is USED.
If liberals would get on the law enforcement bandwagon and quit trying to limit the rights of honest citizens, things would be a lot better.

Notably, EVERY gun control law has come in under a Democratic President.
Nixon gave us the ATF, to enforce laws. Big difference.

Really? Though it's cliched, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

Why stop with guns? Let's ban EVERYTHING that can be used to kill people. To name just a few things which should DEFINITELY be banned: knives, baseball bats, rocks, rat poison, airline "omelets," Liquid Drano, ropes, machetes, dogs, automobiles, your heavier sticks, tire irons, poisonous spiders, bricks, McGriddles, hammers, and my mother in law (her nagging could definitely kill a man... okay, maybe not. But she should STILL be banned.).

Look, as a poster above me said, "Where does it end?" Far more people are killed by stupid drivers than by LEGAL guns. But I don't hear anyone saying, "Let's ban cars! It's my RIGHT to avoid being killed by a moron making a right turn from the middle lane! It's all about right to life!"

Most of the gun laws in this country do nothing but make certain people feel better. The assault weapons ban being a prime example -- the law didn't cut down on crimes committed with these weapons, because the age-old argument holds true: CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT LAWS. After all, THAT'S what makes them criminals.

and yet you brought up cruise missiles. Silly me, I go w/ the SCOTUS definition of any man-portable small arm useful for the purpose of the militia.Markreich himself said he would want civilians to be allowed to own just about anything, including fighter aircraft, missiles, bombs, etc. The cruise missile question was directed solely at him, silly you.

Why do you go with the "SCOTUS definition of any man-portable small arm useful for the purpose of the militia", though? Is "because the Supreme Court said so" a good enough reason for you? Or is there something else? And does that mean you would legalize GLs and LAWs as well?

Uh...yeah. Semi-automatic does apply to revolvers. Instead of ejecting the shell and flinging it to the ground, it hangs on to them, but the shell is out of the firing chamber (the part of the cylinder that isn't lined up with the barrel anymore...). You still only pull the trigger to advance the next round. It's a semi-auto. Just because you say that revolvers are exempt doesn't make them so.Not just me, though. Several (http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Willis/pure_and_simple.htm) others (http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/safad.html) who should know what they're talking about agree with me. Try Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=%22semi-automatic+revolver%22&btnG=Hae&meta=) and you'll notice that each and every mention of a "semi-automatic revolver" either refers to the Mateba, the Webley-Fosbury, or a fictional gun, or the author of the text doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I live in Maryland, just outside of Washington DC. We have a very diverse locality since Washington sits between the states of Virginia and Maryland, which means 3 separate jurisdictions.

In Virginia, the laws allow people to carry firearmswith a permit, which is easy to get as long as you have a clean background.

In Maryland, you can own a firearm if you pass a stricter background check, and getting a permit to carry is extremely difficult.

In Washington DC, you can't own a firearm.

How would you expect the crime rates to break down? Take a moment to ponder this. Ready?

Washington DC has the 6th highest crime rate in the United States of America.

Maryland has a high crime rate toward the cities, especially in the suburbs of Washington DC and in downtown Baltimore.

Virginia's crime rate is substantially lower, with concentrations being in Richmond.

'nuff said.

Markreich himself said he would want civilians to be allowed to own just about anything, including fighter aircraft, missiles, bombs, etc. The cruise missile question was directed solely at him, silly you.

Why do you go with the "SCOTUS definition of any man-portable small arm useful for the purpose of the militia", though? Is "because the Supreme Court said so" a good enough reason for you? Or is there something else? And does that mean you would legalize GLs and LAWs as well?

Not just me, though. Several (http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Willis/pure_and_simple.htm) others (http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/safad.html) who should know what they're talking about agree with me. Try Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=%22semi-automatic+revolver%22&btnG=Hae&meta=) and you'll notice that each and every mention of a "semi-automatic revolver" either refers to the Mateba, the Webley-Fosbury, or a fictional gun, or the author of the text doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.


Okay, I get the idea that you still want to allow revolvers. How about safeties on said revolvers? :D

You do realize that the only difference between the Mateba (effectively) and any other double-action revolver is that the Mateba cocks the hammer back for all subsequent shots. It still doesn't eject the case. That's not really much of a difference.

I live in Maryland, just outside of Washington DC. We have a very diverse locality since Washington sits between the states of Virginia and Maryland, which means 3 separate jurisdictions.

In Virginia, the laws allow people to carry firearmswith a permit, which is easy to get as long as you have a clean background.

In Maryland, you can own a firearm if you pass a stricter background check, and getting a permit to carry is extremely difficult.

In Washington DC, you can't own a firearm.

How would you expect the crime rates to break down? Take a moment to ponder this. Ready?

Washington DC has the 6th highest crime rate in the United States of America.

Maryland has a high crime rate toward the cities, especially in the suburbs of Washington DC and in downtown Baltimore.

Virginia's crime rate is substantially lower, with concentrations being in Richmond.

'nuff said.
Fine and dandy, but a key fact of measuring statistics is that correlation does not imply causation. Other factors may be in effect here. Just food for thought.

Fine and dandy, but a key fact of measuring statistics is that correlation does not imply causation. Other factors may be in effect here. Just food for thought.

Granted, but by the same token, be careful not to make the assumption that the relative legalities of firearms does NOT affect the crime rate.

Remember that the liberals' battle cry is that if people can carry guns around, it will result in an old western style shootout with gun battles in the aisles of Safeway...

And this has not been the case in any state where right-to-carry laws are in effect.

Neither of which was an 'invasion'.

But, carry on.
of course it was...pearl harbor was an air invasion to destroy a us fleet(just because no ground forces dosent mean its not an invasion). In order to do an air invasion they carriers entered US waters, which was all done with the means to make war with the US. Secondly the US was invaded by a small terrorist cell which meant to make war with the US as well. They also carriered out their plot and attacked us from with in our nation on our soil. Therefore both were invasions.

Granted, but by the same token, be careful not to make the assumption that the relative legalities of firearms does NOT affect the crime rate.

Remember that the liberals' battle cry is that if people can carry guns around, it will result in an old western style shootout with gun battles in the aisles of Safeway...

And this has not been the case in any state where right-to-carry laws are in effect.
I do my best not to assume anything. I think both the liberals and the conservatives are morons on a lot of the issues they argue. A black-and-white perspective is the easiest way to make yourself sound like a far right or left lunatic.

What I do try to do is take my own perspectives and experiences and make them count.