NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe some amendment to the US constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms. Does that mean an M-16? Why doesn't it mean a pointy stick?

What does the amendment say?
"You have the right to bear arms, any arms, howsoever needless and destructive?"
or what? Anybody know?

Piffle. What it really means is you have the right to have arms. That is, the squishy bits of meat coming out your shoulders.

Piffle. What it really means is you have the right to have arms. That is, the squishy bits of meat coming out your shoulders.

na, it means you have the right to bare arms - you can wear vests in public.

It 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.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.

It 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.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.


In that case I propose a new movement across the US - since pointy sticks are in every sense Arms, get everyone's guns off them and give them a pointy stick for each gun they hand in.

In that case I propose a new movement across the US - since pointy sticks are in every sense Arms, get everyone's guns off them and give them a pointy stick for each gun they hand in.

Even though I am personally very fond of my gnarled staff of ass whoop (http://www.squidi.net/amd/view.php?id=26) as well as my handmade reproduction of MrPointy, the stake from Buffy the vampire slayer, I doubt they would be very effective to overthrow an oppressive government ;)
Which, no matter how you read the "," is what the amendment is about.

In that case I propose a new movement across the US - since pointy sticks are in every sense Arms, get everyone's guns off them and give them a pointy stick for each gun they hand in.

If you get them away from EVERYBODY, including all criminals fine. But the next thing, Kennedy, Schumer, Fienstien, and Kerry would do would try to ban "Assault Sticks" because they have no "real" hunting purpose.

If you get them away from EVERYBODY, including all criminals fine. But the next thing, Kennedy, Schumer, Fienstien, and Kerry would do would try to ban "Assault Sticks" because they have no "real" hunting purpose.

Really, fine? You'd give up your firearms if everyone else gave up theirs? Spread the message among your brethren.

Furthermore, I personally don't think anti-gun campaign leaders campaign against guns because they are bored, or because they are looking for stuff to ban just to make you cry. I think it is because they don't think assault weapons have a productive place in the suburban home.

It 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.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.
The intent of the language was to allow a free people to fight, if necessary, any who attempted to usurp that freedom, whether from without or from within. To resist usurpers in the 21st Century would require considerable firepower.

Even though I am personally very fond of my gnarled staff of ass whoop (http://www.squidi.net/amd/view.php?id=26) as well as my handmade reproduction of MrPointy, the stake from Buffy the vampire slayer, I doubt they would be very effective to overthrow an oppressive government ;)
Which, no matter how you read the "," is what the amendment is about.

Ghandi managed to overthrow the oppressive British Empire with a piece of cloth and some sitting down. I think he bored it into submission, but hey, he still won.

The intent of the language was to allow a free people to fight, if necessary, any who attempted to usurp that freedom, whether from without or from within. To resist usurpers in the 21st Century would require considerable firepower.

But if you resisted the government, you'd be a terrorist, and then you'd have to hate yourself, and turn yourself in.

Even though I am personally very fond of my gnarled staff of ass whoop (http://www.squidi.net/amd/view.php?id=26) as well as my handmade reproduction of MrPointy, the stake from Buffy the vampire slayer, I doubt they would be very effective to overthrow an oppressive government ;)
Which, no matter how you read the "," is what the amendment is about.

Of course, but Governmental types (especially those wanting absolute athourity) and individuals who want absolute Governmental control over their lives (well maybe not THIERS but everyone else's, I mean c'mon, the Gov't can be trusted to do the right thing, right?) don't like to hear that arguement. Because 80 million people w/ guns couldn't do a thing against it and they Gov't would never do anything to take away our freedoms like the ability to protest the Patriot Act because it infringes on our freedoms.

Of course, but Governmental types (especially those wanting absolute athourity) and individuals who want absolute Governmental control over their lives (well maybe not THIERS but everyone else's, I mean c'mon, the Gov't can be trusted to do the right thing, right?) don't like to hear that arguement. Because 80 million people w/ guns couldn't do a thing against it and they Gov't would never do anything to take away our freedoms like the ability to protest the Patriot Act because it infringes on our freedoms.

but the same people protect gun ownership as promote the patriot act, don't they?

Some americans demand M-16s or whatever as their constitutional right, but how would the govt react if people started building their own cruise missiles claiming that it was protected under the constitution, which you could argue? Remembering that a New Zealander who built a resonably sophisticated one for $5000 with off the shelf materials.

Really, fine? You'd give up your firearms if everyone else gave up theirs? Spread the message among your brethren.

Furthermore, I personally don't think anti-gun campaign leaders campaign against guns because they are bored, or because they are looking for stuff to ban just to make you cry. I think it is because they don't think assault weapons have a productive place in the suburban home.

My second statement should have put the post in context. I really need to start using sarcasm blocks.

but the same people protect gun ownership as promote the patriot act, don't they?

Not that I'm aware of.

Not that I'm aware of.

Republicans.

The founding fathers of the US wanted a government for the people by the people and not the seperate entity that we now have that is an oppressive government that makes you buy a license to even cut someones hair. :eek: The founding fathers loved liberty and wanted the people to bear arms. Once a government controls all weapons you are now powerless to do anything but their bidding.

Freedom should not be suppressed, I own no guns personnally but do not wish to enforce others to adopt my personal beliefs.

Some people will not be satisfied until they force all to adopt their beliefs.

But if you resisted the government, you'd be a terrorist, and then you'd have to hate yourself, and turn yourself in.
Even the Bush Administration is able to differentiate between "insurgents" and "foreign terrorists" in Iraq, and seems to be willing to negotiate with the insurgents.

I am in favor little gun restriction and I cannot stomach the patriot act. It robs of even more freedom.

but the same people protect gun ownership as promote the patriot act, don't they?
And your point is???

Even the Bush Administration is able to differentiate between "insurgents" and "foreign terrorists" in Iraq, and seems to be willing to negotiate with the insurgents.

I shall henceforth be using the term "insurgent" in all debates, especially when people argue over what is a freedom fighter and what is a terrorist. So are the IRA insurgents in Northern Ireland but terrorists in Britain? Or are they only insurgents in Eire? But then lots of them are from Northern Ireland, which could make them insurgents in Britain but terrorists in Eire. Confusion all over again.

And your point is???

My point is that people with a democratic right to vote deliberately vote for people who are taking their useful freedoms away with stuff like the Patriot Act because those same people are allowing them the pretty useless right to own assault rifles, just in case somebody tried to take their useful freedoms away.

Why not just vote against the pro-gun pro-patriotact party? You know, use your *vote* to fight the man?

Ghandi managed to overthrow the oppressive British Empire with a piece of cloth and some sitting down. I think he bored it into submission, but hey, he still won.

"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

Really, fine? You'd give up your firearms if everyone else gave up theirs? Spread the message among your brethren.

Furthermore, I personally don't think anti-gun campaign leaders campaign against guns because they are bored, or because they are looking for stuff to ban just to make you cry. I think it is because they don't think assault weapons have a productive place in the suburban home.

The key phrase here is "assault weapon". Do you know what an "assault weapon " is defined as?

Forget the right to bear arms! That's moot! What's really important is the right to arm bears. The poor bears have no defense against hunters, it would only be fair to give them a sporting chance!

Republicans.

Great, another D VS. R arguement. So ALL Republicans support the Patriot Act and oppose gun control and ALL Democrats oppose the Patriot Act and support Gun Control?

Forget the right to bear arms! That's moot! What's really important is the right to arm bears. The poor bears have no defense against hunters, it would only be fair to give them a sporting chance!

They don't need to be armed. They have that naturally. I say ARMOUR them. Let them get close.

My point is that people with a democratic right to vote deliberately vote for people who are taking their useful freedoms away with stuff like the Patriot Act because those same people are allowing them the pretty useless right to own assault rifles, just in case somebody tried to take their useful freedoms away.

Why not just vote against the pro-gun pro-patriotact party? You know, use your *vote* to fight the man?
Umm ... perhaps because I believe that both The Patriot Act and gun ownership are necessary, and that there is no essential conflict between the two!

Great, another D VS. R arguement. So ALL Republicans support the Patriot Act and oppose gun control and ALL Democrats oppose the Patriot Act and support Gun Control?

It doesn't matter what "all republicans" do or what "all democrats" do. It only matters who wins the vote in senate and congress, and who the president is.

You might be able to find me a gay muslim republican single mother on the million mom march with her black brazilian unemployed disabled gay lover, but as long as a majority of senators and congressmen support the patriot act, and a majority of senators and congressmen oppose gun control, and the president agrees with those majorities, it doesn't make any difference.

They don't need to be armed. They have that naturally. I say ARMOUR them. Let them get close.

have you read about the armoured bears in northern lights? they're cool

"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

Can't be right all the time, even if you're a Mahatma.

It 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.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.
The founders made it clear that they wanted an armed populace that could physically eject the government should it turn despotic, and of course in those days it was considered normal to keep guns around to defend your home...no police as such back then, for one thing...so it's pretty clear to me that they meant the actual right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right to "borrow them now and then when the government wants some brown people dead"

The key phrase here is "assault weapon". Do you know what an "assault weapon " is defined as?
Apparently whatever Kennedy and company decide it is at any given point in time. :rolleyes:

Republicans.
Many Republicans object to the patriot act when they actually read it, because believe it or not, they used to be conservatives, people who respected civil rights, didn't spend a trillion dollars they don't even have, and didn't lightly intrude on the sovereignty of other nations.

:rolleyes: Those were the days, eh?

Also, republicans are not all pro-gun-rights, any more than Democrats are all anti-gun.

The founders made it clear that they wanted an armed populace that could physically eject the government should it turn despotic, and of course in those days it was considered normal to keep guns around to defend your home...no police as such back then, for one thing...so it's pretty clear to me that they meant the actual right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right to "borrow them now and then when the government wants some brown people dead"

but it just says "arms" not "firearms". and you can eject your government every 4 years or something by voting.

Many Republicans object to the patriot act when they actually read it, because believe it or not, they used to be conservatives, people who respected civil rights, didn't spend a trillion dollars they don't even have, and didn't lightly intrude on the sovereignty of other nations.

:rolleyes: Those were the days, eh?

Also, republicans are not all pro-gun-rights, any more than Democrats are all anti-gun.

but none of that matters if they continue to vote for a pro patriot act government mostly because that government is anti gun control

Apparently whatever Kennedy and company decide it is at any given point in time. :rolleyes:
Yep - it's a meaningless term. ALL weapons are meant to be used for assault, otherwise they'd be called "back massagers" or "q-tips" or something else

Yep - it's a meaningless term. ALL weapons are meant to be used for assault, otherwise they'd be called "back massagers" or "q-tips" or something else

According to the american heritage dictionary it means

"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat."

Whereas Princeton's WordNet says

"any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use"

The key points here seem to be automatic, semi-automatic, fighting. As opposed to single shot, hunting.

When I think of assault rifles, I think of M16, AK47 etc.

but it just says "arms" not "firearms". and you can eject your government every 4 years or something by voting.
In the adult world, playing patently absurd semantic games doesn't enhance your credibility. Everyone knows what they meant by arms. You will have to find another cheap tactic to defend your sophistry...or you could instead learn the facts about gun violence, which do not support banning guns, though I can understand the simplistic thinking that would lead you to believe this.

'Sides, I was talking about what the founders said, which was clear - I didn't say anywhere that the law should be interpreted this way today.

According to the american heritage dictionary it means

"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat."

Whereas Princeton's WordNet says

"any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use"

The key points here seem to be automatic, semi-automatic, fighting. As opposed to single shot, hunting.

When I think of assault rifles, I think of M16, AK47 etc.
What then do you do with semi-auto pistols? How about single-shot 50 cal guns, are those OK?

"assault rifle" has no exact meaning, and is thus inappropriate as part of a legal ruling

I believe some amendment to the US constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms. Does that mean an M-16? Why doesn't it mean a pointy stick?

What does the amendment say?
"You have the right to bear arms, any arms, howsoever needless and destructive?"
or what? Anybody know?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not 'give' or 'grant a damned thing. It recognizes the inherent right of all free people to keep and bear arms.

What part of shall not be infringed is so blasted hard for you to understand?

Here's a thought: why not scrap this clause from the constitution and redraft it in a clear and concise manner that reflects the times we live in? What the content is, you decide, so long as it leaves no grounds for uncertainty.

What then do you do with semi-auto pistols? How about single-shot 50 cal guns, are those OK?

"assault rifle" has no exact meaning, and is thus inappropriate as part of a legal ruling

I have no idea. Nor am I aware of anybody suggesting framing legislation that says "Assault rifles are banned".

Still, how come everyone knows what "arms" means but "assault rifle" is too vague?

The constitution says "right to bear arms" which means right to carry a weapon.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not 'give' or 'grant a damned thing. It recognizes the inherent right of all free people to keep and bear arms.

What part of shall not be infringed is so blasted hard for you to understand?

So when are you going to sue the government for infringing your right to bear arms? Cos apparently you aren't allowed sarin or nukes. Bad government! revolt now!

Can't be right all the time, even if you're a Mahatma.
Nope, but he was right on this one.

According to the american heritage dictionary it means
"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat."
Funny, when I check that dictionary it says:
"An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle, designed for individual use. "
A pistol, or for that matter a pointed stick, would fit this definition.

but it just says "arms" not "firearms".
Exactly. That's why it protects knives and swords as well.

You will have to find another cheap tactic to defend your sophistry...or you could instead learn the facts about gun violence

here's a factoid about gun violence - on a global scale it doesn't appear to be related to gun ownership.

Funny, when I check that dictionary it says:
"An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle, designed for individual use. "
A pistol, or for that matter a pointed stick, would fit this definition.

when you look up "assault rifle" it says "assault rifle" ? I don't actually believe you.

Nor am I aware of anybody suggesting framing legislation that says "Assault rifles are banned".

Read the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Volkner-McClure Act of 1986. It's pretty darn close.

Exactly. That's why it protects knives and swords as well.

Actually Christiania you're the first to argue the "non-infringement" angle. If we ignore the non-infringement angle, the constitution says you can have a weapon, so if everyone had a knife, the government doesn't have to let them have guns.

Still since you are arguing from non-infringement, which is fair enough, do you think timothy mcveigh should have had access to nukes?

Read the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Volkner-McClure Act of 1986. It's pretty darn close.

and yet you still have assault rifles

According to the american heritage dictionary it means

"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat."

Whereas Princeton's WordNet says

"any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use"

Meaningless terms. It has no significant meaning in military or firearms circles, outside of the political definition of the day.

The key points here seem to be automatic, semi-automatic, fighting. As opposed to single shot, hunting.

Most hunting rifles ARE semiautomatic, as are all target rifles.

When I think of assault rifles, I think of M16, AK47 etc.
Those ARE assault rifles. They are not assault weapons.

Nope, but he was right on this one.

You really think that if you asked 1000 people what the worst thing the british did in india was, they're mostly going to say "depriving them of their weapons" ?

and yet you still have assault rifles
They have to be registered with the BATFE. Every time they are transfered, a $200 tax must be paid by the recipient. New ones cannot be registered into the system. Their interstate transport is restricted. Some states outlaw them altogether. Those are infringements!

And no, I don't. I live in Canada. :(

Those ARE assault rifles. They are not assault weapons.

An assault rifle is not an assault weapon? What is it then? An assault q-tip?

You really think that if you asked 1000 people what the worst thing the british did in india was, they're mostly going to say "depriving them of their weapons" ?
Who said anything about current public sentiment? That doesn't mean a darn thing -- 10 million Celine Dion fans, as the saying goes, can be wrong.

An assault rifle is not an assault weapon? What is it then? An assault q-tip?
An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle chambered for an intermediate rifle cartridge. An assault weapon is a meaningless definition cooked up by Congressional liberals, and has no meaning at the federal level in the United States since last September.

It 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.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.


How about we look at what "militia" meant back then, and figure out what they meant by it. A "militia" was a group of anybody and everybody, fit and able to fight, who was willing to do so, at a moments notice, in their immediate locality and surrounding areas. Not an organized or government run outfit, but just folks with guns.

They have to be registered with the BATFE. Every time they are transfered, a $200 tax must be paid by the recipient. New ones cannot be registered into the system. Their interstate transport is restricted. Some states outlaw them altogether. Those are infringements!

And no, I don't. I live in Canada. :(

well no wonder you aren't suing the US govt. What are you doing in a country that so infringes your inalienable rights?

And why doesn't the US allow people to own sarin and nukes? and why don't the michigan militia get upset about it?

Who said anything about current public sentiment? That doesn't mean a darn thing -- 10 million Celine Dion fans, as the saying goes, can be wrong.

we are discussing the accuracy of a particular statement by Ghandi, which statement was about the regard of history. the regard of history is "current public sentiment". which is why we're discussing that.

An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle chambered for an intermediate rifle cartridge. An assault weapon is a meaningless definition cooked up by Congressional liberals, and has no meaning at the federal level in the United States since last September.

so who cares? let's not talk about assault weapons any more. let's talk about assault rifles.

For all those arguing that the intent of the amendment was to allow people to arm themselves so that they could fight off any future despotic government and therefore you should be allowed to own a gun today, please explain to me how you owning a 9mm allows you to face down, say, the 3rd armored cav or prevent the evil government that's trying to take away your freedom from calling in an airstrike on your scrawny little ass?

Sorry guys, but unless you're arguing that the amendment means you should be able to arm yourselves to a proportional degree such that you can always prevent the government from coming to get you one day if it goes astray... meaning you think you have a constitutional right to a tank or 10, and perhaps a good sized naval flotilla, PLEASE stop using this argument as a defense of why the 2nd amendment means every single person should be allowed to pack around a semi-automatic in the modern United States. The days when carrying a gun allowed you to defend yourself against a despotic U.S. government are LONG over.

Of course, but Governmental types (especially those wanting absolute athourity) and individuals who want absolute Governmental control over their lives (well maybe not THIERS but everyone else's, I mean c'mon, the Gov't can be trusted to do the right thing, right?) don't like to hear that arguement. Because 80 million people w/ guns couldn't do a thing against it and they Gov't would never do anything to take away our freedoms like the ability to protest the Patriot Act because it infringes on our freedoms.

Actually I *do* trust my government more than a random individual with a gun to do the right thing. But I'm not an US citizen.

Do note however that an unorganised individual can also do very little against that government - except if he owns weapons of mass destruction of course. Giving any individual those weapons however would obviously be blatantly stupid. I am not sure if the founding fathers could have predicted our current level of sophistication where it comes to slaughtering eachother - but I am very much in favour of emphasising the militia part to keep certain weapons out of individuals hands.

For all those arguing that the intent of the amendment was to allow people to arm themselves so that they could fight off any future despotic government and therefore you should be allowed to own a gun today, please explain to me how you owning a 9mm allows you to face down, say, the 3rd armored cav or prevent the evil government that's trying to take away your freedom from calling in an airstrike on your scrawny little ass?

Sorry guys, but unless you're arguing that the amendment means you should be able to arm yourselves to a proportional degree such that you can always prevent the government from coming to get you one day if it goes astray... meaning you think you have a constitutional right to a tank or 10, and perhaps a good sized naval flotilla, PLEASE stop using this argument as a defense of why the 2nd amendment means every single person should be allowed to pack around a semi-automatic in the modern United States. The days when carrying a gun allowed you to defend yourself against a despotic U.S. government are LONG over.


According to the US constitution (and I asked the question originally because I wanted to know the answer) the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means you have the right to bear any arms you like, because a restriction on what you can own is an infringement of your rights. So I believe the 2nd amendment means you can have as many tanks as you can fit in your yard, and nukes and sarin as well.

For all those arguing that the intent of the amendment was to allow people to arm themselves so that they could fight off any future despotic government and therefore you should be allowed to own a gun today, please explain to me how you owning a 9mm allows you to face down, say, the 3rd armored cav or prevent the evil government that's trying to take away your freedom from calling in an airstrike on your scrawny little ass?

Sorry guys, but unless you're arguing that the amendment means you should be able to arm yourselves to a proportional degree such that you can always prevent the government from coming to get you one day if it goes astray... meaning you think you have a constitutional right to a tank or 10, and perhaps a good sized naval flotilla, PLEASE stop using this argument as a defense of why the 2nd amendment means every single person should be allowed to pack around a semi-automatic in the modern United States. The days when carrying a gun allowed you to defend yourself against a despotic U.S. government are LONG over.


A 9mm won't help against a tank or a helicopter, which is why folks (at least some folks I know) have TOWs, Stingers, RPGs, Sa-16s, Sa-7s, MILANs, etc.

Freedom is never free nor is it cheap. You have to always be ready to defend it.

How about we look at what "militia" meant back then, and figure out what they meant by it. A "militia" was a group of anybody and everybody, fit and able to fight, who was willing to do so, at a moments notice, in their immediate locality and surrounding areas. Not an organized or government run outfit, but just folks with guns.

Absolutely correct.

As for assault rifles and this guy's misguided fear of and fuss over them (guess who has them among american civilians... not the good guys. TRY, just TRY, pal, to take guns away from everyone in America and see who DOESN'T give up their weapons), i'd much rather be hit by a .223 bullet from an M-16 than I would a .308Win or 30-06 round from a regular bolt-action hunting rifle. A .223 is designed to wound. A .308 round is a DEER ROUND and will put you down.

Absolutely correct.

As for assault rifles and this guy's misguided fear of and fuss over them (guess who has them among american civilians... not the good guys. TRY, just TRY, pal, to take guns away from everyone in America and see who DOESN'T give up their weapons), i'd much rather be hit by a .223 bullet from an M-16 than I would a .308Win or 30-06 round from a regular bolt-action hunting rifle. A .223 is designed to wound. A .308 round is a DEER ROUND and will put you down.

dam right i'm afraid of assault rifles. they can kill you. and hunting rifles and all other kinds of rifles. that's why i live in a country where we defend our freedom by voting.

I didn't start this thread because i want to ban assault rifles. I started because i want to know your constitutional rights. It turns out that all you defenders of freedom should already have revolted against the governments that have infringed your rights by denying you the opportunity to own nukes.

A 9mm won't help against a tank or a helicopter, which is why folks (at least some folks I know) have TOWs, Stingers, RPGs, Sa-16s, Sa-7s, MILANs, etc.

Freedom is never free nor is it cheap. You have to always be ready to defend it.

my freedom's been earned by the blood of my forebears. I'm ready to defend it by voting. i'll even pay taxes towards the army. i don't need RPGs for anything.

dam right i'm afraid of assault rifles. they can kill you. and hunting rifles and all other kinds of rifles. that's why i live in a country where we defend our freedom by voting.

I didn't start this thread because i want to ban assault rifles. I started because i want to know your constitutional rights. It turns out that all you defenders of freedom should already have revolted against the governments that have infringed your rights by denying you the opportunity to own nukes.


A nuclear weapon has no defensive value, only as a threat of possible retaliation for a nuclear strike, are they useful. Thus, there is no need for citizens to own such weapons. However, RPGs and M-60s, those are weapons very useful for defending freedoms and liberties, and thus they ought to be more readily available.

The 1934 NFA ought to be axed, and the weapons and items covered under it, treated like any other weapons, requiring only a simple background check.

And there ought to be no form 4473 that gets kept forever and ever or until the store closes, which then sees the forms handed over to the BATF. (did you ever see the movie "Red Dawn"? Yeah, the forms are not a good thing, burn them the day after the background check is passed)

A nuclear weapon has no defensive value, only as a threat of possible retaliation for a nuclear strike, are they useful. Thus, there is no need for citizens to own such weapons. )

But VoteEarly, when did you start caring about need? You have a constitutional right to own nukes - revolt now!

But VoteEarly, when did you start caring about need? You have a constitutional right to own nukes - revolt now!


Your pathetic attempt at mockery by gross exaggeration is lame at best, and at worst, it ruins your own argument by pointing out how unreasonable you are.

Your line there is that since we can't own a nuclear bomb, we're oppressed, but since we agree we ought not to own them, we ought to give ground and give up guns as a whole, or at least many types of guns.

I'm sorry, but an M-16 is not a nuclear bomb. I can manage without the latter, but I'm keeping the former...

Where do you draw the line???

In order to be able to overthrow the government, you would need a sophisticated military with tanks, jets, bombers, etc. However, it's pretty logical that there is no way we should allow a regular person to posess an M1-Abrams.

The argument for an assault rifle is that it can shoot many people in a short period of time. With a .306, it's normally bolt action and has a very small payload, so it takes a much longer time to kill a considerable amount of people. With an automatic rifle, you can just spin in a circle and take out dozens of people in a matter of seconds, that's the difference.

An M-16 isn't even good enough to overthrow Sri Lanka, much less the most sophisticated military in the world. So why should you have the right to have it when it has no practical/valuable use?

I'm a hunter and I'm all in favor of restricting what types of guns you can have. I have no reason to own an AK-47 because it has no use whatsoever.

If I were carrying an AK-47 down the street, tell me that people would feel safe. I wouldn't feel safe seeing a random person with an assault rifle on his shoulder. I'd feel much safer if they had a deer rifle/pistol because the weapons have a much lower payload and thus can't cause as much damage, much less an easily changed clip.

I wonder what many pro-assault rifle people would do if gun control were suddenly removed and they saw 5 Arab men carrying AK-47s down the street...

Really a private citizen should be allowed to buy whatever he has the money for, from another private entity.

Since private entities such as Boeing regularly sell assault helicopters, jet planes et al to foreign nations with horrible human rights records and no legitimate reason to be an armed government, it stands to reason that an honest american businessman who simply wants to own a piece of military hardware (without military intent) should be allowed to buy it for him or herself as a status symbol. Yet our government restricts this.

I think the same logic could be applied to all manner of personal firearms. If criminals and evil foreign despots can acquire assault rifles, RPGs, and pistols, why then does an honest American citizen become a "gun nut" simply by right of pointing these inequities out?

On the other hand, you will have instances where a citizen of the US could abuse their right to bear arms by using those weapons in an inordinately malicious or threatening manner, and therefore the government deserves the right to proactively arm police in a like manner.

A 9mm won't help against a tank or a helicopter, which is why folks (at least some folks I know) have TOWs, Stingers, RPGs, Sa-16s, Sa-7s, MILANs, etc.

Freedom is never free nor is it cheap. You have to always be ready to defend it.

You know people with these weapons?
I have never even seen a handgun, let alone know anyone with one.
You guys are gun toting loonies.

Freedom isn't free or cheap, that's why you pay your taxes.

but it just says "arms" not "firearms". and you can eject your government every 4 years or something by voting.

...not under a despot (i believe that's the term that was used). How often did the Iraqis get to vote under Saddam? Saddam was, of course, a despot.

...not under a despot (i believe that's the term that was used). How often did the Iraqis get to vote under Saddam? Saddam was, of course, a despot.
And Iraqis had a lot of weapons in their homes. And yet they couldn't overthrow Saddam, who had more and a better trained army. Hmmm...

For all those arguing that the intent of the amendment was to allow people to arm themselves so that they could fight off any future despotic government and therefore you should be allowed to own a gun today, please explain to me how you owning a 9mm allows you to face down, say, the 3rd armored cav or prevent the evil government that's trying to take away your freedom from calling in an airstrike on your scrawny little ass?

Sorry guys, but unless you're arguing that the amendment means you should be able to arm yourselves to a proportional degree such that you can always prevent the government from coming to get you one day if it goes astray... meaning you think you have a constitutional right to a tank or 10, and perhaps a good sized naval flotilla, PLEASE stop using this argument as a defense of why the 2nd amendment means every single person should be allowed to pack around a semi-automatic in the modern United States. The days when carrying a gun allowed you to defend yourself against a despotic U.S. government are LONG over.

Reformentia
Do you know how hard it would be for the US Army to conquer Pennsylvania?

If all of the gun owners in Pennsylvania got together they would form something like the 5th largest standing army in the world.

That's Pennsylvania.

Now imagine Texas, New York, California... you're looking at cracking down on probably 10 million gun owners in these states alone.

Many Americans own multiple firearms and would gladly share them with their unarmed neighbors. Now you're looking at probably 50-100 million armed Americans. That makes one hell of a powerful civilian militia.

50 million armed Americans would be damn near impossible to control without about a thousand nukes. I doubt that any American despot, should there ever be one, would go so far as to use nukes on his own land.

So it's not such a stretch to think that arming ourselves today DOES substantially diminish (if not thwart) the ability of a would-be despotic ruler to conquer us by way of the US Armed Forces, at least using conventional tactics.

And Iraqis had a lot of weapons in their homes. And yet they couldn't overthrow Saddam, who had more and a better trained army. Hmmm...

Did they really try?

It takes courage to undertake a revolution.

Also I doubt that the good side had many weapons at all. It seems that the saddam-loving sunni are far better armed. the iraqis among the insurgents are mostly (logically) Sunni.

You yanks are scared to death of being taken over aren't you!

Even by your own government. How long have you been a democracy?

What are you really afraid of? Did daddy not love you?

Many Americans own multiple firearms and would gladly share them with their unarmed neighbors. Now you're looking at probably 50-100 million armed Americans. That makes one hell of a powerful civilian militia.


A good army is more than just numbers and weapons. In the first gulf war the Iraqi airforce had a good number of Mig-29, a very capable airplane with more than a good fighting chance against a F-18; but the Iraqi pilots were like first week student drivers compared to the Formula 1 pilots of the US.


So it's not such a stretch to think that arming ourselves today DOES substantially diminish (if not thwart) the ability of a would-be despotic ruler to conquer us by way of the US Armed Forces, at least using conventional tactics.

Unless said despot lowers taxes and bans things like gay marriage and such, promising gun toting people to respect their freedoms and, thus, put them on his side.

Did they really try?

Didn't you hear about the uprises in Northern Iraq after the Gulf War? Before that they were busy fighting the Iranians.

Lord. . .
Where to start?

First, the Second Amendment, (Henceforth known as the RKBA, Right to Keep and Bear Arms) is not about shooting animals. It is about shooting back.
The founding fathers recognized the RKBA as a PRE-EXISTING HUMAN RIGHT. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't 'Give' us a RKBA, it merely recognized it.

And it is an Individual Right. The US Department of Justice researched and released a report on the RKBA, and concluded it was an Individual Right, like the 1st Amendment. Don't Believe me?

The DOJ Report on its findings (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#3)
See for youselves. Its in the top inch of the page. . .

The RKBA supposedly protects all military arms in civilian hands. So M-16's, Cruise Missles, and hell, even thermonuclear warheads are protected under the constitution. However, they are illegal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 unless you pay Uncle Sam $200 and wait 4-6 months to get approval to make one.

Except the 1986 Volker-Maclure Amendment to the Firearm Owner Protection Act banned further manufacture of Civvie MG's after a certain date in a manner which itself is pretty much illegal. (They made it impossible to pay the tax to make a MG, And you need the tax to make the MG, otherwise it's illegal.) This is using a tax to prohibit/ban, which is Illegal.

So, you can pay the $200 tax to make a Thermonuclear warhead and be in the clear,(As long as you have the necessary HAZMAT permits) but you can't make an M-16.

The term 'assault weapon' is somewhat misleading. True 'assault weapons' have a select fire capability (Burst/full automatic) and have been banned since 1986. And trust me on this, my lever action 30-30 is more powerful (at close range anyway, the .223 round the M-4 uses has better ballistics at 300+ Meters) than my M-4 Carbine. (Technically, any weapon used in a crime is an 'assault weapon'.) Even legeslation targeting those so called 'Assault Weapons' has failed miserably. Look at the statistics regarding the Clinton AW ban. Crime actually increased during the time it was in effect.

I can go on and on, but I am starting to rant. So I'll wrap it up.

If you still want to take my gun, all I can say is this:

MOLON LABE (http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/Tam_Essay.htm)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/Krazny13/molonlave_s.jpg

You can have my gun.
But only after I run out of ammunition first. :sniper:
And trust me, I have plenty to go around. . . .

Oh, and we gun owners already have pointy sticks. They are called Bayonets :p

Reformentia
Do you know how hard it would be for the US Army to conquer Pennsylvania?

If all of the gun owners in Pennsylvania got together they would form something like the 5th largest standing army in the world.

An 'army' consisting of untrained civilians equipped entirely with hand-held firearms... so I'd say, not too bloody hard. The military would roll right over them.


That's Pennsylvania.

Now imagine Texas, New York, California... you're looking at cracking down on probably 10 million gun owners in these states alone.

Putting aside the shoddy nature of the "army" you are talking about forming here I find it amazing that you think that should the governemnt turn despotic it would somehow become the government vs. everyone who owns a gun when they got around to imposing their will on the people. This hypothetical government got into power somehow you know... that generally happens because they have at least some supporters for whatever their agenda is. I'm betting however you want to arm yourself they can do it too. So it becomes you and your gun toting buddies against the supporters of the government and their gun toting buddies and air force and navy and infantry and armored divisions...

Not that their gun-toting supporters are going to be anything more than a negligible factor in the outcome of course, so that particular oversight is no big deal.

Many Americans own multiple firearms and would gladly share them with their unarmed neighbors. Now you're looking at probably 50-100 million armed Americans. That makes one hell of a powerful civilian militia.

In what fantasy world do you see having 50 million people rise up against the U.S. government's military with a bunch of handguns and rifles no matter how many of those weapons you leave lying around for them to pick up? I mean really?

If you want to protect yourself from a government turning despotic on you in the U.S., pay close attention to how you cast your votes not to how many rounds of ammunition you have in your closet.

The RKBA was intended to insure that future generations would have the means to be able to remove a corrupt government.

Oh, and I do know a thing or three about rifles.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/Krazny13/M4gery.jpg

:D

And no, A 9mm won't do jack shit to a helicopter or a tank.

However, a .50 BMG can.

An 'army' consisting of untrained civilians equipped entirely with hand-held firearms... so I'd say, not too bloody hard. The military would roll right over them.

Uh huh. . .
Suure. . .
What makes you think we wouldn't have anything but Rifles and Handguns?

Putting aside the shoddy nature of the "army" you are talking about forming here

Most of the people who would make up this force are Law Officers and Military/ex-Military personell.

I find it amazing that you think that should the governemnt turn despotic it would somehow become the government vs. everyone who owns a gun when they got around to imposing their will on the people. This hypothetical government got into power somehow you know... that generally happens because they have at least some supporters for whatever their agenda is. I'm betting however you want to arm yourself they can do it too. So it becomes you and your gun toting buddies against the supporters of the government and their gun toting buddies and air force and navy and infantry and armored divisions...

Umm . . .
Our side has all the guns, remember?
What are the Anti's going to use?
Hackysacs and baseball bats?



In what fantasy world do you see having 50 million people rise up against the U.S. government's military with a bunch of handguns and rifles no matter how many of those weapons you leave lying around for them to pick up? I mean really?

Maybe not 50 million. Probably close to a million or so. You honestly think we wouldn't aquire equipment from local National Guard Armories and military bases? Its a moot point, because we'd just have to survive day 1, as the dawn on the second day would bring all sorts of opportnites for getting weapons from the dead.

If you want to protect yourself from a government turning despotic on you in the U.S., pay close attention to how you cast your votes not to how many rounds of ammunition you have in your closet.

There are four boxes from which liberty is defended: The ballot box, the jury box, the soap box, and the cartridge box. When the Ballot box is rigged, the jury box is bought out, and the soap box is smashed, whats left with which to make our voices heard?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/Krazny13/roofsplash22copy.jpg

The RKBA protects our other rights. Without it, our other rights can be taken and we would be powerless to stop it.

...not under a despot (i believe that's the term that was used). How often did the Iraqis get to vote under Saddam? Saddam was, of course, a despot.

who's talking about iraqis? you're american goddamit.

Why are you all so paranoid? Why do you think your government is out to get you? Why do you elect it if you think it's out to get you?

The RKBA protects our other rights. Without it, our other rights can be taken and we would be powerless to stop it.

Do you really think your compatriots are such bastards?

I really hate to burst your bubble Frangland, but in the nuclear age you'll need a lot more than TOWs and anti-tank mines to overthrow an oppressive regime.

What if your government decides to use nuclear-tipped cruise missiles? You'll come marching out with all your TOWs and assault rifles, and a couple of nukes will turn you to dust. If the government you're trying to overthrow is truly oppressive, it wouldn't think twice before doing such a thing.

Here's a thought: why not scrap this clause from the constitution and redraft it in a clear and concise manner that reflects the times we live in? What the content is, you decide, so long as it leaves no grounds for uncertainty.
No thoughts on this? At all?

who's talking about iraqis? you're american goddamit.

Why are you all so paranoid? Why do you think your government is out to get you? Why do you elect it if you think it's out to get you?

We vote for the lesser of 2 evils. And we have damn good reason to be paranoid. Look at examples from around the world and throughout history.
Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, and despotism was preceeded by a disarmament of the people.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/history_s.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/sm_agency.JPG
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_sten.JPG
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_treblinka.jpg

I would rather die defending my beliefs than to live in a world where it is outlawed.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_takesome.JPG

I like the idea of arming bears. poor defenseless bears. :(

I for one don't have a thing for guns but I can see the point gun advocates make. Its better to have one when you don't need it than to NOT have one when you do. Sure, there are people who take the issue way too far but that's a problem with the person not the idea.

Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, and despotism was preceeded by a disarmament of the people.


If that statement is true, there are these 2 things to think about:
1. Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, etc was perpretated on people who had had their arms taken away? So they didn't fight to keep their weapons. So there wasn't any point in them having weapons.

2. Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, etc was perpretated on people who had recently been asleep. So don't go to sleep, or you'll get genocided. In the UK we had our weapons taken away in about 1918. And look - still democratic, still multicultural.

I for one don't have a thing for guns but I can see the point gun advocates make. Its better to have one when you don't need it than to NOT have one when you do. Sure, there are people who take the issue way too far but that's a problem with the person not the idea.

Surely it's best of all to not need one?

Do you really think your compatriots are such bastards?


Look at the idiots that run for office!
Kerry, Finestien, Schumer, Brady, and Kennedy for godsakes!

THEY ALL DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT OUR RIGHTS!

I dare all of you to read Enemies, Forigen and Domestic by Matthew Bracken (sp?)
And Unintended Concequences by John Ross

And yes, I dont trust any politician if they don't trust me to KBA.
Why whould they fear my rifle if they aren't doing something to infringe on my rights and principals?
Checks and balances, my friend. . .

Everyone seems to forget that the right to bear(i.e. bare) arms means you can wear short sleeve shirts, or vests.

We vote for the lesser of 2 evils. And we have damn good reason to be paranoid. Look at examples from around the world and throughout history.
Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, and despotism was preceeded by a disarmament of the people.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/history_s.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_monopoly.jpg http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/sm_agency.JPG
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_sten.JPG
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_treblinka.jpg

I would rather die defending my beliefs than to live in a world where it is outlawed.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_takesome.JPG


May I ask why the primary sources you use in defense of your arguments are propaganda photos made by your supporters?

When I saw the links you presented, I thought they'd lead me to examples of people being disarmed by their government, not LL Bean advertisements.

Here's a thought: why not scrap this clause from the constitution and redraft it in a clear and concise manner that reflects the times we live in? What the content is, you decide, so long as it leaves no grounds for uncertainty. No thoughts on this? At all?

I think we're debating what the content should be.

May I ask why the primary sources you use in defense of your arguments are propaganda photos made by your supporters?

When I saw the links you presented, I thought they'd lead me to examples of people being disarmed by their government, not LL Bean advertisements.

And further to this sensible point, the government *is* your fellow americans. Why do you think that your government is 1940s europeans?

It says the "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed". The Framers looked to the Swiss model for their militia system. The PEOPLE are the militia, plain and simple. Thus, the 2nd Amendment. It was meant to ensure that the Government didn't replace the national militia of private citizens completely with a standing army, as European rulers were prone to do, since that would make it easier to tyrannize over them. Muskets were what they had at the time, and they were Military weapons. A militia is SUPPOSED to have Military weapons to defend the nation against invaders and tyrants. One need only look at the Rocky and Appalachian Mountain ranges to see the potential for guerilla warfare against tyrants. The same with the Swiss Alps. The Swiss don't have a high crime rate, neither do the Israelis. Both REQUIRE citizens to be armed. These weapons are assault rifles, just like the M-16s that have been banned here already. I haven't noticed a drop in crime since the M-16s or other so-called "assault weapons" were banned. Frankly, these morons know nothing about guns, hating them, and so they think anything with a magazine or clip is a military or "assault" weapon. They are urban and suburban sissies and wimps.

Surely it's best of all to not need one?True, true... but this isn't a perfect world.

Everyone seems to forget that the right to bear(i.e. bare) arms means you can wear short sleeve shirts, or vests.

actually that is mentioned on the first page

everybody wore long sleeves back then, and they introduced the amendment so that people could have the choice not to. :headbang:

actually that is mentioned on the first page


oops. My apologies. :p

Look at the idiots that run for office!
Kerry, Finestien, Schumer, Brady, and Kennedy for godsakes!

THEY ALL DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT OUR RIGHTS!

I dare all of you to read Enemies, Forigen and Domestic by Matthew Bracken (sp?)
And Unintended Concequences by John Ross

And yes, I dont trust any politician if they don't trust me to KBA.
Why whould they fear my rifle if they aren't doing something to infringe on my rights and principals?
Checks and balances, my friend. . .

So you don't want them to decide what taxes are, but you don't mind them standing behind you with a sniper rifle?

Priorities...

Uh huh. . .
Suure. . .
What makes you think we wouldn't have anything but Rifles and Handguns?

What else? The occasional RPG? Yeah, that'll do you a lot of good too against an airstrike.

Most of the people who would make up this force are Law Officers and Military/ex-Military personell.

Really? Who says the government that takes over isn't one that caters to their views?

Umm . . .
Our side has all the guns, remember?

What the hell is your side? Anyone who doesn't want to be ruled over by a despot? THAT'S the demographic of gun owners? Nobody who tries to get thier own despotic government put into place would ever own a firearm?

What are the Anti's going to use?
Hackysacs and baseball bats?

Now you've just stepped off into bizarro world. What possible despotic government are you envisioning that finds it's support base in hackysac players?

Maybe not 50 million. Probably close to a million or so. You honestly think we wouldn't aquire equipment from local National Guard Armories and military bases?

You honestly think any government that had it's mind set on ruling over you with an iron fist isn't going to secure those armories as step 1? Good luck walking in through the explosions and hail of bullets.

Its a moot point, because we'd just have to survive day 1, as the dawn on the second day would bring all sorts of opportnites for getting weapons from the dead.

Brilliant. There's a winning strategy if ever I heard one. 'We don't need to be better armed than the other side, we'll slaughter them on day 1... ummm, somehow... with our vastly outgunned forces.... and then on day 2 we'll loot their tanks and fighters and assault helicopters (which I guess would still be intact and useable but just laying around where you can scoop them up for some reason) while their incredibly superior forces are doing... what? Watching your ragged band of civies make off with their hardware and not doing anything about it by,for example, calling for air support to drop a cluster bomb on your little salvage party? And they're doing this because... they're too terrified you'll squeeze a couple rounds off at their APC if they don't lay low after the mighty butt whooping you would no doubt... somehow... perhaps with the aid of magical powers... inflict upon them in the opening engagement?

Daydream much?

True, true... but this isn't a perfect world.

i still don't need a gun.

What else? The occasional RPG? Yeah, that'll do you a lot of good too against an airstrike.



Really? Who says the government that takes over isn't one that caters to their views?



What the hell is your side? Anyone who doesn't want to be ruled over by a despot? THAT'S the demographic of gun owners? Nobody who tries to get thier own despotic government put into place would ever own a firearm?



Now you've just stepped off into bizarro world. What possible despotic government are you envisioning that finds it's support base in hackysac players?



You honestly think any government that had it's mind set on ruling over you with an iron fist isn't going to secure those armories as step 1? Good luck walking in through the explosions and hail of bullets.



Brilliant. There's a winning strategy if ever I heard one. 'We don't need to be better armed than the other side, we'll slaughter them on day 1... ummm, somehow... with our vastly outgunned forces.... and then on day 2 we'll loot their tanks and fighters and assault helicopters (which I guess would still be intact and useable but just laying around where you can scoop them up for some reason) while their incredibly superior forces are doing... what? Watching your ragged band of civies make off with their hardware and not doing anything about it by,for example, calling for air support to drop a cluster bomb on your little salvage party? And they're doing this because... they're too terrified you'll squeeze a couple rounds off at their APC if they don't lay low after the mighty butt whooping you would no doubt... somehow... perhaps with the aid of magical powers... inflict upon them in the opening engagement?

Daydream much?



Hey, watch it. daydreaming is fun. :D

If that statement is true, there are these 2 things to think about:
1. Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, etc was perpretated on people who had had their arms taken away? So they didn't fight to keep their weapons. So there wasn't any point in them having weapons.

2. Every major act of genocide, dictatorship, etc was perpretated on people who had recently been asleep. So don't go to sleep, or you'll get genocided. In the UK we had our weapons taken away in about 1918. And look - still democratic, still multicultural.

In responce to #1:
There wasn't a need for weapons until AFTER they had given them up. Do you honestly think Hitler would have gotten away with the Holocaust if the Jewish population had kept their firearms? Look at the Warsaw Uprising, where a small, poorly armed jewish force held the German Army at bay for over 2 months.

in responce to #2:
Look at your violent crime rate. You are 5 times more likely to be mugged in London than in the Bronx. . .
And yea, real democratic nation you have there Limey. Didn't you recently arrest and jail an elderly gentleman who defended himself in a home invasion?
And by multicultural, do you mean how europe is becoming the next middle east?

although I do appreciate your banter and your sarcasm. It pleaseth me. :)

Hey, watch it. daydreaming is fun. :D

As long as you can maintain the distinction between fantasy and reality, sure...

As long as you can maintain the distinction between fantasy and reality, sure...


with some, such as the bloke who came up with the idea that civilains will somehow, with magical powers, usurp the US government, and sometimes myself, that line is SEVERLY blurred. :p :p

i still don't need a gun.
Good for you! I prefer swords myself.

**edit**But you know what they say about bringing a knife(or sword, as in my case)to a gunfight.....Let's just say, even though I don't particularly like guns, I sure am glad I live in Oklahoma amongst a bunch of "gun nuts" LOL

Forums that make people less smart and get society nowhere are SO much fun. :D

In responce to #1:
There wasn't a need for weapons until AFTER they had given them up. Do you honestly think Hitler would have gotten away with the Holocaust if the Jewish population had kept their firearms? Look at the Warsaw Uprising, where a small, poorly armed jewish force held the German Army at bay for over 2 months.


so the jewish population did have firearms in the warsaw uprising, and they still got beat?


in responce to #2:
Look at your violent crime rate. You are 5 times more likely to be mugged in London than in the Bronx. . .
And yea, real democratic nation you have there Limey. Didn't you recently arrest and jail an elderly gentleman who defended himself in a home invasion?
And by multicultural, do you mean how europe is becoming the next middle east?

assaults per capita:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap
US 7.7 per 1000
UK 7.5 per 1000

burglaries are almost double in UK what they are in US, but murders are 4 times higher in US than in UK. Me, I'd rather be burgled than murdered.

Democracy means votes for all. And Tony Martin has a vote. He was prosecuted for shooting an unarmed 15 year old boy in the back with an illegally held firearm as the boy was escaping out of his window during a burglary. We don't have "home invasion" in the UK. And Tony Martin was neither elderly nor a gentleman.

Next middle east? what does that mean? By multicultural I mean that we allow all sorts of people to live in peace here.

I think that the US government should institute signs that say "Dutchman X-ing", "Watch for Dutchmen", or something of the like. They could dramatically improve the morale of the Dutch population living there.

No gun thread can go without this... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671319590/102-1242483-7894554

No gun thread can go without this... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671319590/102-1242483-7894554

YES@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&*($*($&#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111



THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.*DEEP BREATH*THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.

YES@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&*($*($&#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111



THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.*DEEP BREATH*THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.


And might I continue.


THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.THANK YOU.

What else? The occasional RPG? Yeah, that'll do you a lot of good too against an airstrike.

You'd be suprised at what is in civilian hands on and off the Regestry.

What the hell is your side? Anyone who doesn't want to be ruled over by a despot? THAT'S the demographic of gun owners? Nobody who tries to get thier own despotic government put into place would ever own a firearm?

My side is the side that realizes an armed society is a free society. Without arms, we have no way to protect our other rights from being stripped away.



Now you've just stepped off into bizarro world. What possible despotic government are you envisioning that finds it's support base in hackysac players?

Take a real hard look at California there bud. . . . . .
I used a stereotype of a typical liberal.

You honestly think any government that had it's mind set on ruling over you with an iron fist isn't going to secure those armories as step 1? Good luck walking in through the explosions and hail of bullets.

No, but I do think there would be several commander who would open the armories and empty the contents to the civilian population. Plus, who'd get there first in the advent of war? A civilian who lives 10 miles away, or a gov. security team who is 120 miles away?



Brilliant. There's a winning strategy if ever I heard one. 'We don't need to be better armed than the other side, we'll slaughter them on day 1... ummm, somehow... with our vastly outgunned forces.... and then on day 2 we'll loot their tanks and fighters and assault helicopters (which I guess would still be intact and useable but just laying around where you can scoop them up for some reason) while their incredibly superior forces are doing... what? Watching your ragged band of civies make off with their hardware and not doing anything about it by,for example, calling for air support to drop a cluster bomb on your little salvage party? And they're doing this because... they're too terrified you'll squeeze a couple rounds off at their APC if they don't lay low after the mighty butt whooping you would no doubt... somehow... perhaps with the aid of magical powers... inflict upon them in the opening engagement?

It's a saying. Use what you have, but keep your eyes open for something better.
The name of the game is guerrila warfare. Operate in the shadows, Sniping a 2 man patrol here, ambushing a convoy there, and taking anything that you can from the dead. Ambush, loot, leave. Operating in the open is scuicide. It won't be quick, but we would win.

OO OO OO OO! I h :mp5: ave an idea. Lets c :fluffle: ompose a thr :headbang: ead entirely devoted to EM :sniper: PTY SPACE. I think th :mad: at would b :gundge: e WICKEDLY f :eek: un.

Take a real hard look at California there bud. . . . . .
I used a stereotype of a typical liberal.


a typical liberal fascist totalitarian?

A lot of gunowners I know just like guns, end of story. They like to shoot things, and if I had better aim I probably would too (gave up with BB guns and lasertag).

A select few actually own guns because they feel it makes them safer, and I can understand this desire if you're an old lady or a handicap.

But for a grown man living in a suburban neighborhood to think he needs a gun to be safe is downright cowardly. It points to an inner fear within him, one he is unwilling to face. Such 'men' have somehow been instilled with the notion that without a superhuman means of defense such as projectile weaponry they are weak and vulnerable, and the thought of being so scares them to no end.

Does anybody want to see what happens when someone types with their foot?



I SURE DO.



mjkkmll,k,,643v4b B^G%T BJJUIJJ65sdddd g f iujikkkjk re rerrrr rrrrbreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvgtffrddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd fgtgfgfgghujjjjjjjj.


























NO IM NOT HIGH. :D

Guns don't kill people, the narwhals that shoot the guns kill people.

Thats a wrap, ill be here all week.

A lot of gunowners I know just like guns, end of story. They like to shoot things, and if I had better aim I probably would too (gave up with BB guns and lasertag).

A select few actually own guns because they feel it makes them safer, and I can understand this desire if you're an old lady or a handicap.

But for a grown man living in a suburban neighborhood to think he needs a gun to be safe is downright cowardly. It points to an inner fear within him, one he is unwilling to face. Such 'men' have somehow been instilled with the notion that without a superhuman means of defense such as projectile weaponry they are weak and vulnerable, and the thought of being so scares them to no end.


Any man with a family who doesn't have a firearm, is not a real father, and is an excuse of a husband. How dare you suggest men who have guns in the suburbs are cowards. No, they are fiercely independent and trust not the police to protect their loves ones, but rather themself to do it!

The supreme court has already ruled, citizens are NOT entitled to police protection and cannot sue if the police cannot or will not respond to the call.

Suburbs are not picture perfect crime-free paradises.

How dare you suggest a man with a gun is a coward, he is a hero, for it takes courage to defend a family and to defy the PC liberal trend to "Let the police save me!"

Liberals who are anti-gun, just can't stand it that there are real men out there, who don't shirk from the thought of having to kill to keep their wife safe from being raped, or their kids from being abducted. Not even that, they may not have to kill, simply having a gun may be enough to defuse a tough situation.

1. If you're for banning any type of technology, do it all. No machine guns? Fine. Get rid of the TIVO, the Hummer, and the 55" TV. (Actually, get rid of everything down to the radio.)
No semi-automatic firearms? Ok, let's roll the clock back to the 1870s...
You can't stop technology any more than you can stop the tide.

2. If you consider anything overkill, it doesn't matter. Tools have always been lethal. An M-60 is pretty impressive, but it'll be a quaint collector's item in three or four generations, just as a Brown Bess musket is to us today. When the laser or mass driver guns come out, will it be okay to have an assault rifle? Technology is not a point of arguement.

3. If you choose to edit an Amendment, it edits them all. It's a short stop from banning shotguns to banning the freedom of religion or the right of assembly.

A lot of gunowners I know just like guns, end of story. They like to shoot things, and if I had better aim I probably would too (gave up with BB guns and lasertag).

A select few actually own guns because they feel it makes them safer, and I can understand this desire if you're an old lady or a handicap.

But for a grown man living in a suburban neighborhood to think he needs a gun to be safe is downright cowardly. It points to an inner fear within him, one he is unwilling to face. Such 'men' have somehow been instilled with the notion that without a superhuman means of defense such as projectile weaponry they are weak and vulnerable, and the thought of being so scares them to no end.

Aha. So then, when three guys are coming through the bedroom window, I'm wrong to shoot them? I don't think so.

Dammit, Cant type fast enough. . .


such as the bloke who came up with the idea that civilains will somehow, with magical powers, usurp the US government

Not magical powers. Metal projectiles. If the US military was ordered to fight the civilian population, I would say a good 60% would disobey. Why?
The Military serves the will of the people, not the government.

so the jewish population did have firearms in the warsaw uprising, and they still got beat?

In the end, yes, due to sheer numbers. The jews had only a couple rifles, a handful of SMG's, and a bunch of pistols and basically no ammunition. And they held off the German Army, who had tanks, artillery, MG's, airplanes, and unlimited ammunition stocks. (IIRC, the Jews lost because they had no ammunition.)

burglaries are almost double in UK what they are in US, but murders are 4 times higher in US than in UK. Me, I'd rather be burgled than murdered.

Or you could shoot the sunafabitch, not get burgled or murdered, and not have to deal with paying for the prison space.

Guns are used to prevent crime almost 2.3 million times a year here in the states. Thats 5 times more than they are used to commit crime.

Democracy means votes for all. And Tony Martin has a vote. He was prosecuted for shooting an unarmed 15 year old boy in the back with an illegally held firearm as the boy was escaping out of his window during a burglary. We don't have "home invasion" in the UK. And Tony Martin was neither elderly nor a gentleman.

He was in his late 50's. But it is rather an interesting case because of the fact a man who was defending his home and property was convicted for it. And the DRT was 16, and one of the perps had a knife. (Not sure which one, it was taken from Martin's kitchen during the robbery)


Next middle east? what does that mean? By multicultural I mean that we allow all sorts of people to live in peace here.

Yea, funny how the Religion of peace tolerated that Dutch chap who was excersing his Right to free speech by making a film exposing the treatment of women according to Islamic Law.

Any man with a family who doesn't have a firearm, is not a real father, and is an excuse of a husband. How dare you suggest men who have guns in the suburbs are cowards. No, they are fiercely independent and trust not the police to protect their loves ones, but rather themself to do it!

The supreme court has already ruled, citizens are NOT entitled to police protection and cannot sue if the police cannot or will not respond to the call.

Suburbs are not picture perfect crime-free paradises.

How dare you suggest a man with a gun is a coward, he is a hero, for it takes courage to defend a family and to defy the PC liberal trend to "Let the police save me!"

Liberals who are anti-gun, just can't stand it that there are real men out there, who don't shirk from the thought of having to kill to keep their wife safe from being raped, or their kids from being abducted. Not even that, they may not have to kill, simply having a gun may be enough to defuse a tough situation.


I do not make suggestions, bud. I have lived in situations that required the possession of a weapon, and I can asure you the suburbs are not one of those places.

I will say as I please, and I say you are not a real man if you think you need a gun to be one. And as for protection, I can see how the neighbor's dog can be a menace, but that doesn't mean you need a gun against him. Either pump some iron or take your gun somewhere it is needed, you coward. Your son's more likely to blow his own head off with your mighty weapon than you are to successfully defend him with it.


You seem to have reacted quite vehemently to what I have said. Tell me, do my words frighten you?

Any man with a family who doesn't have a firearm, is not a real father, and is an excuse of a husband. How dare you suggest men who have guns in the suburbs are cowards. No, they are fiercely independent and trust not the police to protect their loves ones, but rather themself to do it!

As pointed out before though , one could argue that if this is truly needed there is something wrong with your government and policing system. The states primary function is to serve and protect its citizens after all...
Forcing you to take the law into your own hands is NOT a good thing[tm].

A lot of gunowners I know just like guns, end of story. They like to shoot things, and if I had better aim I probably would too (gave up with BB guns and lasertag).

I am an accomplished target shooter. I love to shoot competetivly. My rifle is a civilian legal version of the M16A2 infantry rifle, one of those 'assault weapons' many of you want to ban.

A select few actually own guns because they feel it makes them safer, and I can understand this desire if you're an old lady or a handicap.

I have a Concealed Carry Permit, and often carry a .45 caliber 1911 for protection. This is because I can, and in case I ever see an attempted crime, I could try and stop it.

But for a grown man living in a suburban neighborhood to think he needs a gun to be safe is downright cowardly. It points to an inner fear within him, one he is unwilling to face. Such 'men' have somehow been instilled with the notion that without a superhuman means of defense such as projectile weaponry they are weak and vulnerable, and the thought of being so scares them to no end.

I lived in a seemingly safe surburbain neighborhood. I have used a shotgun to prevent a break in twice. The first was when I was home alone one night, and I heard glass shatter, I grabbed the 12 gauge I keep in my room, and confronted the intruder. He escaped because he heard me come down the stairs, but was caught a short time later. The second was when I used the same Shotgun to subdue an intruder who tried to break into the neighbors while they were gone. It takes the Police 20 minutes to get to my home after a call is placed.
Both were armed.
I switched to an M-4 Carbine for home defense since then. Matter of fact, it is 2 feet to the right of my keyboard as we speak.

Look at your violent crime rate. You are 5 times more likely to be mugged in London than in the Bronx. . .
And yea, real democratic nation you have there Limey. Didn't you recently arrest and jail an elderly gentleman who defended himself in a home invasion?
And by multicultural, do you mean how europe is becoming the next middle east?
Evidence of mugging statistics?

The elderly gent you referred to shot a guy in the back when he was running away. He deserved imprisonment.

What, pray tell, do you mean by the middle east comment? Are you referring to the government styles? Nature of religious devotion? Skin colour?

Any man with a family who doesn't have a firearm, is not a real father, and is an excuse of a husband. How dare you suggest men who have guns in the suburbs are cowards. No, they are fiercely independent and trust not the police to protect their loves ones, but rather themself to do it!

The supreme court has already ruled, citizens are NOT entitled to police protection and cannot sue if the police cannot or will not respond to the call.

Suburbs are not picture perfect crime-free paradises.

How dare you suggest a man with a gun is a coward, he is a hero, for it takes courage to defend a family and to defy the PC liberal trend to "Let the police save me!"

Liberals who are anti-gun, just can't stand it that there are real men out there, who don't shirk from the thought of having to kill to keep their wife safe from being raped, or their kids from being abducted. Not even that, they may not have to kill, simply having a gun may be enough to defuse a tough situation.
Um, are women not capable of protecting themselves? Or do they need a big bwave man to make all the nasty people go away?

Aha. So then, when three guys are coming through the bedroom window, I'm wrong to shoot them? I don't think so.
Did you invite them?

As pointed out before though , one could argue that if this is truly needed there is something wrong with your government and policing system. The states primary function is to serve and protect its citizens after all...
Forcing you to take the law into your own hands is NOT a good thing[tm].

Being able to defend yourself is not taking the law into your own hands. It is saving your own life, taking your life in your hands, saving yourself.

A government is in charge of handling justice, men are in charge of their own immediate safety. Make sense?

Justice is done in the courts, which does you not a lick of good if you were stabbed to death in your bedroom.

Aha. So then, when three guys are coming through the bedroom window, I'm wrong to shoot them? I don't think so.

Don't you see, that's just it: when was the last time three men came through your bedroom window? I'm betting never.

If you live in a high crime neighborhood, feel free to defend your home and your family from whatever threats you think are within the realm of possibility. Keep a gun or keep a bat. I even have a friend who built his own taser. But for God's sake, make rational decisions when it comes to owning deadly weapons. Unless you're expecting infantry waves to come through the window, hold off on the assault weapons.

There's no shame in simply liking guns. Just stop making excuses for why you like them.

Um, are women not capable of protecting themselves? Or do they need a big bwave man to make all the nasty people go away?


No, women are not capable, on average, of protecting themselves, at least not without a gun or something else.


It's simple biology and simple common knowledge, men are, on average, stronger than women.

Man or woman, married or single, someone needs to protect the household, and that is easier to do if you don't have to wait for the police. They are there only in time to punish criminals, anyway, not to protect law-abiding citizens. I find it remarkable how many people support gun control and oppose the death penalty. So, criminals should have more rights than law-abiding citizens? I prefer it to be the other way around myself.

You'd be suprised at what is in civilian hands on and off the Regestry.

I doubt I would, unless a few F-117s have made their way into civilian hands or something.



My side is the side that realizes an armed society is a free society.

Ahh... and of course they're the only civilians in the country that would be armed. Gotcha.

Take a real hard look at California there bud. . . . . .
I used a stereotype of a typical liberal.

This is just getting too good. So, you're worried about a liberal hackysac playing despotic regime taking over the country and THAT'S why you need automatic weaponry?


No, but I do think there would be several commander who would open the armories and empty the contents to the civilian population.

Wanna bet any commanders inclined to do such a thing would no longer have their positions by the time it would be necessary for them to do so?

Plus, who'd get there first in the advent of war? A civilian who lives 10 miles away, or a gov. security team who is 120 miles away?

The ones who know in advance when they're going to be instituting their forcible overthrow of the democratic process perhaps?

The name of the game is guerrila warfare. Operate in the shadows, Sniping a 2 man patrol here, ambushing a convoy there, and taking anything that you can from the dead. Ambush, loot, leave. Operating in the open is scuicide. It won't be quick, but we would win.

Yeah, you keep thinking that...

I'm not inclined to overthrow the Government if it behaves like a representative government, but if that changes....well, let's just say, give me 500 well-armed, well-trained men and you'd have a new regime.

I switched to an M-4 Carbine for home defense since then. Matter of fact, it is 2 feet to the right of my keyboard as we speak.

:rolleyes:
Why did you take your gun with you to your computer? I assure you, that's not the proper way to deal with cyberintruders. I recommend a firewall.

According to the US constitution (and I asked the question originally because I wanted to know the answer) the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means you have the right to bear any arms you like, because a restriction on what you can own is an infringement of your rights. So I believe the 2nd amendment means you can have as many tanks as you can fit in your yard, and nukes and sarin as well.

Ridiculous! Time may change definitions, but laws always have to be taken in...

Grammar and context...

Aha. So then, when three guys are coming through the bedroom window, I'm wrong to shoot them? I don't think so.

If they are wearing Fireman uniforms and your house is on fire, YES!

If they are there to rob you, claim on the insurance.
There is no need to end a life for a few possesions.

If you use the "they are armed" scenario. This is the root of the problem with guns. It isn't always the good guys who have them. No-one having guns would balance the scales.

If you use the "they are armed" scenario. This is the root of the problem with guns. It isn't always the good guys who have them. No-one having guns would balance the scales.

Well, if politely asking the criminals to give up their guns will work, then gun control would be very effective. The problem is that most criminals, being rather rude, do not give up their guns when the government asks them to. Thus, as the saying goes, "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."

If they are wearing Fireman uniforms and your house is on fire, YES!

LMAO!

My house actually did burn down four years ago. Trust me, fighting fires makes fighting criminals look like a paid vacation. The flames leap hundreds of yards into the air. Debris: paintings, books, etc, land as far as a block away in your neighbors' yards. Trees fifty feet away burst into flame from the intense heat. And the smoke. Plumes can be seen rising into the sky from miles away.

At least when someone steals your possessions they still exist somewhere. Nature is far less kind.

Depending on how you interpret the comma's one could say it just gives the right to bear arms to an organised militia, not individuals. This is of course disputed by many.

It does not say which arms are allowed and which aren't.

While I don't feel that it's absolutely necessary for people to walk around with assault rifles or abrams tanks or what have you, the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations; READ: Federal law) defines militia as the following:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 >

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

Release date: 2004-03-18

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)

Or, in laymen's terms, every healthy male citizen or resident wishing to become a citizen between 17 and 45, every male member of the national guard, and every female member of the national guard.

Even if we assume that the second ammendment is really only concerned with the militia owning guns, then it still falls on just about everyone, since nearly every male at least fits the definition for militia.

EDIT: (well, there are some exceptions listed in the following USC subsection, here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000312----000-.html))

Look, back in the old days, they sometimes had to resort to militias to fight wars, particularly defensive wars such as the Revolution in which militias were used rather extensively. This means, basically, that a bunch of sergeants run into town to gather up a bunch of hot-tempered young men who can take orders and already have guns. It was a cheap way to hold an area while the professional troops kept things at more sensitive locations under control. Being a member of what amounted to the national guard meant precisely that you can run a distance and handle a gun. A militia and a military are two entirely different things. This isn't done anymore, so the amendment is a bit outdated.

They are also useful ways of limiting the arrogance of the Government with its standing army and police.

Don't you see, that's just it: when was the last time three men came through your bedroom window? I'm betting never.

If you live in a high crime neighborhood, feel free to defend your home and your family from whatever threats you think are within the realm of possibility. Keep a gun or keep a bat. I even have a friend who built his own taser. But for God's sake, make rational decisions when it comes to owning deadly weapons. Unless you're expecting infantry waves to come through the window, hold off on the assault weapons.

There's no shame in simply liking guns. Just stop making excuses for why you like them.

1996.

My personal choice is a Springfield .45. However, there is no excuse to limit ownership to certain types. You're saying I don't need an M-16 is like me saying you don't need any car except for a 1982 Ford Escort.

If they are wearing Fireman uniforms and your house is on fire, YES!

If they are there to rob you, claim on the insurance.
There is no need to end a life for a few possesions.

If you use the "they are armed" scenario. This is the root of the problem with guns. It isn't always the good guys who have them. No-one having guns would balance the scales.

*sigh* Another who takes a perfectly good example, and throws in flippancy.

Insurance? For my health and my girlfriend's? Never mind the psyche? :rolleyes:
Beyond that, how does one claim a price for those things in life of trivial monetary value, but great sentimentality? IE: my letter opener is worth about $1, tops. But I've had it for decades, and it is dear to me.
Insurance? :rolleyes:
If someone want to take from you, their life is worth the cost of a bullet. QED.

No one have guns? Right. You're going to collect ALL the illegal firearms, and seal the borders, too? Aha.
While you're at it, do me a favor and come up with an action plan for all the unknown problems I'm about to experience with my next project at work. :D

Look, back in the old days, they sometimes had to resort to militias to fight wars, particularly defensive wars such as the Revolution in which militias were used rather extensively. This means, basically, that a bunch of sergeants run into town to gather up a bunch of hot-tempered young men who can take orders and already have guns. It was a cheap way to hold an area while the professional troops kept things at more sensitive locations under control. Being a member of what amounted to the national guard meant precisely that you can run a distance and handle a gun. A militia and a military are two entirely different things. This isn't done anymore, so the amendment is a bit outdated.

Just because it hasn't had to be done dones't mean it isn't or can't. During 9/11, ferry service began for the first time in 100 years between Manhattan and Brooklyn.

You're saying I don't need an M-16 is like me saying you don't need any car except for a 1982 Ford Escort.

Well then, if you are expecting infantry waves to come through your window, why use an assault rifle when an M18 Claymore will do? Just one of those could rip apart a hundred intruders (along with the window they came through).

And in case you've forgotten, Ford Escorts don't usually fire bullets. I believe the thread on James Bond cars is in another forum.

What then do you do with semi-auto pistols? How about single-shot 50 cal guns, are those OK?

"assault rifle" has no exact meaning, and is thus inappropriate as part of a legal ruling

Yu se the term rifle is the problem maybe.

A Pistol isn't a rifle. So not affected.

Is a 50 cal gun a rifle, semi-auto or automatic? No? Than not affected.

my letter opener is worth about $1, tops. But I've had it for decades, and it is dear to me.
Insurance? :rolleyes:
If someone want to take from you, their life is worth the cost of a bullet. QED.


Trust me, in the end even sentimental items are only material things. Four years ago I lost every possession I had ever cared about, and it made me realize how insignificant such trinkets were when compared to just one person's life.

Which brings me to my next point. I did not think it a mortal's place to put a price tag on human life. You are a Christian, n'est-ce pas? So how is it you believe material things can be priceless while a human life can have a set value?

:confused:
Methinks you have it all backwards.

Actually Christiania you're the first to argue the "non-infringement" angle. If we ignore the non-infringement angle, the constitution says you can have a weapon, so if everyone had a knife, the government doesn't have to let them have guns.
The Constitution says shall not be infringed. You can't ignore that.

Still since you are arguing from non-infringement, which is fair enough, do you think timothy mcveigh should have had access to nukes?
Sarin gas and nuclear weapons have no legitimate use by civilians, and their mere presence in civilian hands is inherently harmful and dangerous.

For all those arguing that the intent of the amendment was to allow people to arm themselves so that they could fight off any future despotic government and therefore you should be allowed to own a gun today, please explain to me how you owning a 9mm allows you to face down, say, the 3rd armored cav or prevent the evil government that's trying to take away your freedom from calling in an airstrike on your scrawny little ass?

Sorry guys, but unless you're arguing that the amendment means you should be able to arm yourselves to a proportional degree such that you can always prevent the government from coming to get you one day if it goes astray... meaning you think you have a constitutional right to a tank or 10, and perhaps a good sized naval flotilla, PLEASE stop using this argument as a defense of why the 2nd amendment means every single person should be allowed to pack around a semi-automatic in the modern United States. The days when carrying a gun allowed you to defend yourself against a despotic U.S. government are LONG over.
Unless the government is prepared to utterly destroy entire urban areas, small arms and superior numbers will be quite sufficient, thank you.

news article i read recently, source at the bottom:

8-Year-Old Accidentally Exercises Second Amendment Rights

NORFOLK, VA--Gun owners nationwide are applauding the patriotic, though accidental, exercise of Second Amendment rights by 8-year-old Timothy Cummings Tuesday.

"Timothy is a symbol of American heroism," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre from Cummings' bedside at Norfolk General Hospital, where the boy is in serious but stable condition from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. "While praying for his recovery, we should all thank God that his inalienable right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed."

The incident occurred shortly after Cummings returned from school and found that his parents were absent from the house. Displaying what Second Amendment-rights groups are calling "good old-fashioned American ingenuity," Cummings placed a pair of phone books on a stool to retrieve his father's loaded .38-caliber revolver from its hiding place on a closet shelf. After a preliminary backyard investigation of his constitutional rights claimed the life of Pepper, the family's cocker spaniel, Cummings fell on the weapon, causing it to discharge into his left thigh.

"The framers of the Constitution would be so proud of what my boy did yesterday," said Cummings' father Randall, 44, who originally purchased the handgun for home defense. "If 8-year-old boys discharging loaded firearms into their own legs isn't necessary to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, I don't know what is."

Doctors worked for six hours to reconstruct Timothy Cummings' femur, which shattered from the impact of the high-velocity teflon-coated slugs, and to graft his remaining muscular and circulatory tissue over the fist-sized exit wound below his left buttock. Although the boy lost a great deal of blood, attending physicians say they are confident that he will recover sufficiently to resume active use of firearms, though his chances of walking again are slim.

"For years, the people who want to take away our freedoms have said that we're not smart enough or responsible enough to own handguns," Randall added. "Timothy is proof that even a child is capable of using a handgun for its intended purpose."

Gun owners nationwide have flooded Cummings' hospital room with flowers, letters of congratulations and invitations to "come shooting." Area firearms enthusiast and family friend Lloyd Stone showed his support by donating 18 inches of vascular material to help rebuild Cummings' left femoral artery.

"He may be just a boy, but this use of the Second Amendment was a man-sized undertaking," Stone said. "Timothy may need a wheelchair for the rest of his life, but with every step he doesn't take, he'll realize what the Constitution really means."

Although Cummings has yet to deliver an official statement on the incident, he regained consciousness long enough to discuss his immediate plans.

"Please, I want to run and play again," Cummings told doctors Tuesday night. "My leg hurts bad. Please make it stop."

Although gun-control advocates have criticized the boy's gun use, the NRA was quick to respond, calling Cummings' use of much-protested, teflon-coated "cop-killer" bullets "a victory for America."

"Timothy should be held up as an example to people who think we don't need these bullets--or fully automatic assault weapons, or concealable handguns which are impervious to metal detectors, for that matter," said NRA president Charlton Heston, who plans to congratulate Cummings in person as soon as he is through lobbying for Senate repeal of recently passed legislation mandating background checks for gun buyers.

"If we ban teflon-coated bullets, automatic weapons would be next," Heston said. "Then all handguns. Next thing you know, the law would deny our citizens' children the personal freedom to blow holes through their own legs."

NRA lobbyist Tom Korologos agreed. "Timothy's heroic accident happened because we live in the greatest country in the world," he said. "Had he grown up in Japan, England or Russia, he wouldn't be where he is today."

"Restrictive laws would have kept him 'safe' at home--and they would have justified it by telling us it was for his own good," Korologos added. "That's not the type of country I'd want my children to grow up walking normally in."

"Timothy is a shining example to gun-owning families everywhere," Cummings' mother Suzanne told reporters. "I am proud that my boy has followed in the footsteps of the many thousands of patriotic children who have already demonstrated their commitment of the U.S. Constitution in this same way."

The Onion (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/second_amendment.html)

:)

Well then, if you are expecting infantry waves to come through your window, why use an assault rifle when an M18 Claymore will do? Just one of those could rip apart a hundred intruders (along with the window they came through).

And in case you've forgotten, Ford Escorts don't usually fire bullets. I believe the thread on James Bond cars is in another forum.

Ah, I do love dealing with the unreasonable.

Um, no. I guess you misunderstand me.
You're saying that I don't need X because it is more lethal -- a better weapon.
I'm saying you don't need Y because it is a better, faster car.
Your limiting anyone to owning anything is non-sensical as it is a limitation on the principle of Free Enterprise and the persuit of happiness.

I'm not saying these weapons shouldn't be regulated (as cars, boats, planes, consumer goods, etc.) are. But there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to legally own an Uzi assuming I've bought it, paid the tax, filled out the forms, et al.

For the record, I'm also against Prohibition (the worst Amendment of all time), and drug laws.

so the jewish population did have firearms in the warsaw uprising, and they still got beat?
They also held off two crack German divisions for nearly a month. :rolleyes:

Sarin gas and nuclear weapons have no legitimate use by civilians, and their mere presence in civilian hands is inherently harmful and dangerous.


Assault rifles and teflon coated(body armor peircing) bullets have no legitimate use by civilians, and their mere presence in civilian hands is inherently harmful and dangerous.

I personally believe that if an entity wanted to irreparably damage my family, my friends, myself, or my ego, I should be able to defend these things that I hold dear. It matters not whether the entity is a single person or an entire political force. If they have big guns, I need big guns as well. If they have small weapons, then a smaller weapon will do. If it takes a tank, I'll be sure and have one of those handy too.

Democracy means votes for all. And Tony Martin has a vote. He was prosecuted for shooting an unarmed 15 year old boy in the back with an illegally held firearm as the boy was escaping out of his window during a burglary.

He was prosecuted for defending his home from a career criminal with dozens of convictions.

We don't have "home invasion" in the UK.
That is a lie. 48% of British burglaries occur while someone is home, compared to just 13% in the U.S. Why? Criminals (rightly) fear armed Americans.

Trust me, in the end even sentimental items are only material things. Four years ago I lost every possession I had ever cared about, and it made me realize how insignificant such trinkets were when compared to just one person's life.

Which brings me to my next point. I did not think it a mortal's place to put a price tag on human life. You are a Christian, n'est-ce pas? So how is it you believe material things can be priceless while a human life can have a set value?

:confused:
Methinks you have it all backwards.

That's a nice story of self discovery, but I really don't take your point of view. History shows that if those who take are not stopped, they continue to take.
Consider: "God will provide". Well, God provided me with the means to make my life better and provide for my loved ones. And he provided me with a .45 Springfield. If you want to argue that it is un-Godly to shoot someone, how do you know that I (at that moment) am not acting as an instrument of God to punish someone? Either arguement holds water.
I don't take it to question my Creator, nor his ways.

Human life *does* have a set value. About $3.00 in chemicals. :D

Methinks you're a self riteous pontificate.

Sarin gas and nuclear weapons have no legitimate use by civilians, and their mere presence in civilian hands is inherently harmful and dangerous.

I've got to disagree with you there, but then the licensing will be a b_tch! :)

No-one having guns would balance the scales.
1. There's no way to ensure that criminals are not aren't.
2. Nobody having guns would UNBALANCE the scales. Firearms make physical strength irrelevent -- a 90lb woman with a .45 pistol is more than a match for a 280lb linebacker. It is firearms that are the great equalizer.

Being able to defend yourself is not taking the law into your own hands. It is saving your own life, taking your life in your hands, saving yourself. A government is in charge of handling justice, men are in charge of their own immediate safety. Make sense? Justice is done in the courts, which does you not a lick of good if you were stabbed to death in your bedroom.

Well.. the example given in this topic is of 3 men entering your home. If you kill them you *are* taking the law into your hands by pronouncing a death sentence. If they were only after your possessions and carried no weapon what you did would be considered homicide/murder in many countries. The response was not proportionate to the crime.

But if you can argue convincingly that in your country a man entering your home at night would in most cases pose a direct life threat it was self defense. But if that is the case your society is severely f*cked up.

EDIT:
to which i must add - the amendment is quite clear that the right to bear arms is intended as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. It is NOT intended for self defense against criminals. Having a gun for primarily that purpose is abusing the US constitution.

Trust me, in the end even sentimental items are only material things. Four years ago I lost every possession I had ever cared about, and it made me realize how insignificant such trinkets were when compared to just one person's life.

Which brings me to my next point. I did not think it a mortal's place to put a price tag on human life. You are a Christian, n'est-ce pas? So how is it you believe material things can be priceless while a human life can have a set value?

:confused:
Methinks you have it all backwards.
Exodus 22:2:
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."

so the jewish population did have firearms in the warsaw uprising, and they still got beat?
They also held off two crack German divisions for nearly a month. :rolleyes:
In the end, the Germans couldn't defeat them -- they had to burn the city to the ground.

Well.. the example given in this topic is of 3 men entering your home. If you kill them you *are* taking the law into your hands by pronouncing a death sentence.
No, you're defending your property, self, family and home from potentially dangerous felons. If the mere presence of a firearm is not sufficient to deter them, they are most certainly a threat.

If one cannot feel absolutely safe within their own own, where can they feel safe?

i feel safer without a gun.

I believe some amendment to the US constitution gives US citizens the right to bear arms. Does that mean an M-16? Why doesn't it mean a pointy stick?

What does the amendment say?
"You have the right to bear arms, any arms, howsoever needless and destructive?"
or what? Anybody know?I believe some amendment to the US constitution gives US citizens the right to freedom of speech. Does that mean the internet? Why doesn't it mean a typewriter??

What does the amendment say?
"You have the right to freedom of speech, any freedom of speech, howsoever long-distance and fast?"
or what? Anybody know?

i feel safer without a gun.
That's all good and well, but you don't get to make that decision for everyone else.

That's a nice story of self discovery, but I really don't take your point of view. History shows that if those who take are not stopped, they continue to take.


Does that include people who take life?

Consider: "God will provide". Well, God provided me with the means to make my life better and provide for my loved ones. And he provided me with a .45 Springfield. If you want to argue that it is un-Godly to shoot someone, how do you know that I (at that moment) am not acting as an instrument of God to punish someone? Either arguement holds water.
I don't take it to question my Creator, nor his ways.

Human life *does* have a set value. About $3.00 in chemicals. :D



Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am. I haven't met too many people who thought a stapler was worth more than a man's life, and I hope I don't meet very many more.

In fact, I usually don't associate with soulless people at all, not even in cyberspace. In this case I just had to make sure first. Good day.

The Constitution clearly states that you have the right to purchase military weapons and allow felons to purchase them. That is made quite clear in the second amendment. [/sarcasm]

i feel safer without a gun.
Isn't it the truth?

No, you're defending your property, self, family and home from potentially dangerous felons. If the mere presence of a firearm is not sufficient to deter them, they are most certainly a threat.

They could also be stupid...
You responded before my edit where I stated that the constitution does not give you the right to bear arms for this purpose. Do you agree with that statement ?

Does that include people who take life?

That doesn't really matter, now does it? We're talking about the right to own anything you want, in this case, firearms of a certain type. It could just as easily be leather couches or boston creme pie.
People are killed by things that aren't guns everyday. Should cars be banned?

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am. I haven't met too many people who thought a stapler was worth more than a man's life, and I hope I don't meet very many more.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. But please keep in mind that this is not a black or white issue. Would I kill someone for my wallet or my watch? No, probably not. Would I kill someone for trying to molest my loved ones and/or ransack my home? You betcha.

[In fact, I usually don't associate with soulless people at all, not even in cyberspace. In this case I just had to make sure first. Good day.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

when our forfathers drafted this they obviously meant (in the terms of the day) personal weapons that didnt mean cannons and rockets then and it doesnt mean nukes and missles now. if any more of you use this as an arguing point or example god will give you aids as a punishment just like the christians say he does

They could also be stupid...
You responded before my edit where I stated that the constitution does not give you the right to bear arms for this purpose. Do you agree with that statement ?

"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 right shall not be infringed. It does not state that they may only be used in that fashion.

Or are you saying you disagree with...
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

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
As indicated by the bolded text, it is the right of the people, NOT the militia, who have the right to bear arms.

I do not make suggestions, bud. I have lived in situations that required the possession of a weapon, and I can asure you the suburbs are not one of those places.

Yea, sure, crime free places. . . .

I will say as I please, and I say you are not a real man if you think you need a gun to be one.

You can say that because we have guns to protect that right.

And as for protection, I can see how the neighbor's dog can be a menace, but that doesn't mean you need a gun against him. Either pump some iron or take your gun somewhere it is needed, you coward. Your son's more likely to blow his own head off with your mighty weapon than you are to successfully defend him with it.

Well, if I have a kid they'll be raised with the proper knowlage on how to handle firearms.

And I'll leave the dog killing to the ATF and FBI. . .

You seem to have reacted quite vehemently to what I have said. Tell me, do my words frighten you?
Yes. They do. Such ignorance and the way you believe in it scare the hell out of me.

Dammit, I leave for an hour to go eat. . . . .

But if you resisted the government, you'd be a terrorist, and then you'd have to hate yourself, and turn yourself in.

your not a terrorist if your fighting against an oppresive goverment, your a rebel. a terrorist is a person that causes fear by attacking civilians.

when our forfathers drafted this they obviously meant (in the terms of the day) personal weapons that didnt mean cannons and rockets then and it doesnt mean nukes and missles now. if any more of you use this as an arguing point or example god will give you aids as a punishment just like the christians say he does

Well logically it's punishment (whether or not from God is debatable) for certain behaviors (several) but that's a whole other discussion

They could also be stupid...

And then they'll be dead.

You responded before my edit where I stated that the constitution does not give you the right to bear arms for this purpose. Do you agree with that statement ?
Of course not. You can exercise your Second Amendment-protected rights for any lawful reason you wish.

Frangland you got me..... :cool: truthfully i just like to poke fun at uber-christians who try to impose thier way of thinking onto me

when our forfathers drafted this they obviously meant (in the terms of the day) personal weapons that didnt mean cannons and rockets then
Actually, it did. There were no federal arms laws passed in the United States until 1934. ;)

As stated earlier, the whole point of the 2nd ammendment was and is to give we the people the right and ability to protect our freedoms, whether it's protecting our homes from invaders or overthrowing a corrupt government. Therefore, I think that we the people should have the meens to combat oppression in this day in age. I think we should be able to keep heavy SMG's, RPG's, Howitzers, M1-Abrams, F-18's, cruise missiles, naval Destroyers, and Aircraft carriers. (and enough KFC buckets to last 3 years ;) )

Frangland you got me..... :cool: truthfully i just like to poke fun at uber-christians who try to impose thier way of thinking onto me

BURN IN HELL, SINNER!

;)

As stated earlier, the whole point of the 2nd ammendment was and is to give we the people the right and ability to protect our freedoms, whether it's protecting our homes from invaders or overthrowing a corrupt government. Therefore, I think that we the people should have the meens to combat oppression in this day in age. I think we should be able to keep heavy SMG's, RPG's, M1-Abrams, F-18's, cruise missiles, naval Destroyers, and Aircraft carriers. (and enough KFC buckets to last 3 years ;) )

or in the case of the latter few items... at least models of them. (EG, model airplanes) hehe

we shoudl be allowed to build nookular, chemical and biological weapons at home and keep them to make sure we aren't harassed by our govt. Cruise missles are a snap to build in this day and age.

or in the case of the latter few items... at least models of them. (EG, model airplanes) hehe

The is probobly a good idea, or at least put a limit on it. Otherwise, huge corporations would build their own armies and take over. Lol.

The is probobly a good idea, or at least put a limit on it. Otherwise, huge corporations would build their own armies and take over. Lol.

it would give a whole new meaning to hostile takeover and be a lot more interesting too.

Corporations were doing this in Ghost In The Shell

Well.. the example given in this topic is of 3 men entering your home. If you kill them you *are* taking the law into your hands by pronouncing a death sentence. If they were only after your possessions and carried no weapon what you did would be considered homicide/murder in many countries. The response was not proportionate to the crime.


I disagree. Even in Mexico where it's illegal to carry firearms outside your home, if three people break into your house you have the right to shoot them because you don't know what their intentions are or if they're armed or not. You are not going to ask them "Hey, guys, what are your intentions?" "Well, we just came for the TV and stereo" "All right, as long as you don't try to hurt me you're welcome, by the way, do you have any weapons" "Well, Pete here has scredriver, but that's just for the window" "Oh, ok, carry on".

You just have to be careful that the corpses fall in your property and try shooting them when facing you, otherwise, like in the case of the boy who was on his way out and was shot from behind, that's not considered self-defense since it was clear then that there's no threat at that moment and other alternatives were available to the home owner.

we shoudl be allowed to build nookular, chemical and biological weapons at home and keep them to make sure we aren't harassed by our govt. Cruise missles are a snap to build in this day and age.
Meh, nothing short of a death-ray shooting satellite will stop a corrupt government these days.

Meh, nothing short of a death-ray shooting satellite will stop a corrupt government these days.


well thats a bit tougher to build but that should be legal to have too - I think everyone should ahve as much power as teh US - if greedy republican war-mongers can be trusted with all these types of weapons that anyone can.

I think it is a load of crap that people have the right to have guns and weapons. they are dangerous things with a very high level of potential to deliver damage.

in todays society, there is no need for the average person to have a gun or any type of weapon. we do not need weapons to survive anymore. humans have today developed and created a society where we do not need to fight for food. all we need to do is to work.

i do not believe tha people should have the right to bear arms at all, as the right to bear arms restricts other peoples' rights. crime would increase and society would be a more dangerous place.

i agree every parent has the right to protect themselves and to protect their children, but there is no need to go to such an extent. the damage a gun can far exceeds that of self defence. but can cause serious pain and distruction to people for a lifetime. the police will find their job much harder aswell with everyone armed to such an extent.

the fact that everyone has a gun in america is almost a joke. america as a country is more like a battlefield. what is the piont with all this.

therefor ei conclude that the right to own a gun in a america is not a right at all. it is a crime.

Even the Bush Administration is able to differentiate between "insurgents" and "foreign terrorists" in Iraq, and seems to be willing to negotiate with the insurgents.

So according to your definition the founders of this country were terrorists?

Well then, if you are expecting infantry waves to come through your window, why use an assault rifle when an M18 Claymore will do? Just one of those could rip apart a hundred intruders (along with the window they came through).

And in case you've forgotten, Ford Escorts don't usually fire bullets. I believe the thread on James Bond cars is in another forum.

So, you're comparing the deadliness of a car vs. a firearm? Last I checked the number of deaths involving automobiles are much higher than those involving firearms. Oddly enough, the 1982 Ford Escort had a low number of related deaths. Maybe Markreich is on to something....

You may want to actually leave the analogy an analogy.

No one EXPECTS to be mugged, attacked, invaded, etc. The whole point is to be prepared for as much as you can be.

If you choose to lift weights and practice martial arts, more power to ya. However, you don't get to decide if I or any other law-abiding citizen can or cannot carry their defensive weapon of choice.

Yes, crimes do happen in the burbs and podunk little towns. Yes, people die outside of major metropolitan areas. Just because the odds aren't there, doesn't mean that it can't happen. If I'm in a life-or-death situation, regardless of where I am, I would definitely like to weigh the odds in my favor. If you're in that situation, you can't stop it and wail, "Wait! This isn't supposed to happen here!"

na, it means you have the right to bare arms - you can wear vests in public.
WHAT!! so u mean ive been wearing sweater all this time for nothing :confused:

Assault rifles and teflon coated(body armor peircing) bullets have no legitimate use by civilians, and their mere presence in civilian hands is inherently harmful and dangerous.

Better take hunting rifles away, then. They eat standard kevlar vests for breakfast.

You can say that because we have guns to protect that right.


How sad we still live in a neolithic society based on the "might equals right princepal."

Hopefully one day people will stop using the "protect our country" thing as an excuse to commit violent acts. The only instance in which u need to protect anything is if you have caused harm to another. Even in severe cases like say Osama it comes to this. If in these Islamic third world countries they had an education or food I promise you 911 would not have happened. Instead they are exploited and ignored by America and so they act dangerous. People are not born evil or as Bush says "hatin freedom." The terrorists are not right, but we are not flawless eithier.

Anyway in summary: In our world today guns are nessassary for governments. Hopefully in our future they won't be.

I think it is a load of crap that people have the right to have guns and weapons. they are dangerous things with a very high level of potential to deliver damage.


Well, in the US, it's your right to think that.


in todays society, there is no need for the average person to have a gun or any type of weapon. we do not need weapons to survive anymore. humans have today developed and created a society where we do not need to fight for food. all we need to do is to work.


Walk through downtown DC and say that (if you're alive).


i do not believe tha people should have the right to bear arms at all, as the right to bear arms restricts other peoples' rights. crime would increase and society would be a more dangerous place.


Funny, in the US, it's the states with LESS restrictive gun laws that are experiencing lower crime statistics.


i agree every parent has the right to protect themselves and to protect their children, but there is no need to go to such an extent. the damage a gun can far exceeds that of self defence. but can cause serious pain and distruction to people for a lifetime. the police will find their job much harder aswell with everyone armed to such an extent.


And if the person assaulting your child has a gun? The criminals will ALWAYS have guns. There is no way around it. It will be impossible to take them all away from everyone. Until that day comes, I'm keeping mine. Like I said previously, your statement about police and an armed populace is false. It's been shown that states with fewer gun restrictions have lower crime.


the fact that everyone has a gun in america is almost a joke. america as a country is more like a battlefield. what is the piont with all this.


Everyone doesn't. There are roughly 80 million guns privately owned in the US. We have a population of 300 million. Do the math.


therefor ei conclude that the right to own a gun in a america is not a right at all. it is a crime.

The right to defend oneself is innate and absolute, and most certainly not a crime.

Everyone doesn't. There are roughly 80 million guns privately owned in the US. We have a population of 300 million. Do the math.



The right to defend oneself is innate and absolute, and most certainly not a crime.


No, there are 80 million folks who own guns in the USA, but the avg gun-owner typically owns 3-5 guns

I think it is a load of crap that people have the right to have guns and weapons. they are dangerous things with a very high level of potential to deliver damage.

in todays society, there is no need for the average person to have a gun or any type of weapon. we do not need weapons to survive anymore. humans have today developed and created a society where we do not need to fight for food. all we need to do is to work.

i do not believe tha people should have the right to bear arms at all, as the right to bear arms restricts other peoples' rights. crime would increase and society would be a more dangerous place.

i agree every parent has the right to protect themselves and to protect their children, but there is no need to go to such an extent. the damage a gun can far exceeds that of self defence. but can cause serious pain and distruction to people for a lifetime. the police will find their job much harder aswell with everyone armed to such an extent.

the fact that everyone has a gun in america is almost a joke. america as a country is more like a battlefield. what is the piont with all this.

therefor ei conclude that the right to own a gun in a america is not a right at all. it is a crime.

I think it is a load of crap that people have the right to have free speech and press. they are dangerous things with a very high level of potential to deliver damage.

in today’s society, there is no need for the average person to voice their opinion or write any type of alternative point of view. we do not need free speech to survive anymore. humans have today developed and created a society where we do not need to fight for idea. all we need to do is to work.

I do not believe that people should have the right to free speech at all, as the right to free speech restricts other peoples' rights. anger would increase and society would be a more dangerous place.

I agree every parent has the right to protect themselves and to protect their children, but there is no need to go to such an extent. the damage of free speech far exceeds that of self defense. And can cause serious pain and destruction to people for a lifetime. the police will find their job much harder as well with everyone expressing their own ideas to such an extent.

the fact that everyone has free speech in America is almost a joke. America as a country is more like a battlefield. what is the point with all this.

therefore I conclude that the right to free speech in a America is not a right at all. it is a crime.

No, there are 80 million folks who own guns in the USA, but the avg gun-owner typically owns 3-5 guns

This gun owner owns 7-10 depending on weather a reciever is considered a gun or not. All my friends who own guns own at least 6-13. Several own more than 50. (And one owns a company that makes revolvers in 45-70 Government and 50-110 Sharps. . . )

And gun control leads to crime.

In Indiana, (Where I am) we have Concealed Carry permits, and no other real restrictions other than the Fed ones. We have the Bloodthirsty rate of 9 gun crimes (incidents of any crime involving a gun) per 100,000 people.

In Washington D.C. , where they have a total ban on handguns, and all guns must be dissassembled when at home, they have to low rate of 69 gun crimes per 100,000 people.

There was a ton of violent rapes on campus (30+ a year) until we recieved permission to carry 3 years ago. There hasnt been a violent rape on campus since 2003.

And Democratic Warlord, I suppose the Freedom of the Press only applied to 18th century presses, and not TV, radio, or any modern type of press?

Dem Partyz:
nyway in summary: In our world today guns are nessassary for governments only.

Uh huh. . .
Like the way the citizens trusted the government that ran Germany in the late 30's/early 40's?


My guns are for target shooting, self defense, and hunting.
If the government infringes on my rights, I have the right, ney, the DUTY to replace it with a government that recognizes my rights.

If cowards like you want to armchair quarterback my decision to exercise my rkba, you have that right according to the Constitution. But you DO NOT have the right to impose your will over me. (To put into words your liberal mind can process, you'll just have to tolerate it, like I tolerate ignorant people like you)
But, in the event you still want to take my rifle, I say onto you MOLON LABE.

Come and get it.

And be sure to bring all of Brady's other minions with you too. May as well remove them from the gene pool at the same time. . .

Some americans demand M-16s or whatever as their constitutional right, but how would the govt react if people started building their own cruise missiles claiming that it was protected under the constitution, which you could argue? Remembering that a New Zealander who built a resonably sophisticated one for $5000 with off the shelf materials.

What do you mean, you can make your own cruise missle rather easily. A friend of mine used a gyro and a camera on a RC plane. He had a really good setup too. There are also commercially sold cameras which uses the horizon line to right the aircraft if it looses your radio signal.

In regards to Free Speech:

The idea of "Free Speech as a crime" is absurd. Give it a try in a place without free speech for a few weeks before you spout off ignorant and foolish opinions. The very fact that we have free speech allows you to state one of our basic rights is wrong.

Think of it this way: If we didn't have free speech, disagreeing with any government opinion would potentially be a crime...more likely than not, actually. Historically nations without free speech tend to become the harshest dictatorships.

The problem with free speech isn't so much that we have it, but that various special interest groups feel it should apply only to themselves, and no other group should have that basic right. So rather than espousing the loss of THE most important right we have, you should rather strive to expand your mind.

Of course, if you want to continue claiming Free Speech is a crime...well, that's your right. Just as it's might right to say you're an ignorant child. :)

As for gun control: While this is not necessarily as vital a right as free speech, it is still (in today's society) an important right. Fact of life: guns are out there, and there here to stay. Even if every gun manufacturer in the country stopped making guns, even if they picked up every one they could find...guns would still be out there. It's easy to make a gun. Maybe not one as pretty as the ones you can buy in the store, but they'll still work the same.

Gun control is, quite simply, a joke. Do you honestly think most criminals go to a gun store, fill out the forms, wait seven days, and pick up their guns? Yeah, right. They get their guns through illegal means. Gun control means that the law-abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves HAVE NO GUNS, while the criminal element can get them easily and cheaply.

Let's face it, the police can't protect us, no matter how spiffy they look in TV shows. They're rarely there when needed, and rarely can do anything for us anyways, especially given the "politically correct" atmosphere we're forced to follow by liberal idiots. And I'm not the type to lay down and die for the sake of people who I disagree with so strenously, in any event.

So give me free speech, and give me my guns. I won't give up my rights for the sake of morons.

I think it is a load of crap that people have the right to have free speech and press. they are dangerous things with a very high level of potential to deliver damage.



III. [Obsolete] You should be expected to further support the Gov't by allowing troops to live in your home that you are required to board.

IV. [Obsolete] Since the Gov't is there to take care of you, warrants shouldn't be needed to remove any objects, possessions, or people in your home that "may be" dangerous.

V. [Obsolete] The Gov't knows best on how long to keep you or your family members in safekeeping and what to do w/ your property.

VI. [Obsolete] The Gov't (those people there to keep you safe from yourself) know best on who to keep "safe".

VII. [Obsolete] The Gov't obviously knows more than a jury of your peers, so your local Meister, Lord, Overseer will decide your "required safety level".

VIII. [Obsolete] The Gov't (knowing better than you] will set fines and bail amounts as it sees fit. For your own safety and protection.

IX & X. [Obsolete] The Gov't will decide which and when rights pertain to you.

In regards to Free Speech:

The idea of "Free Speech as a crime" is absurd. Give it a try in a place without free speech for a few weeks before you spout off ignorant and foolish opinions. The very fact that we have free speech allows you to state one of our basic rights is wrong.



You do realize that Markreich was using that as a logical counter to DW's little rant and that he fully supports FOS, right?

I don't doubt it. However, it's a sad fact that a large number of children growing up today actually believe that free speech isn't something we should have. Many of them actually use exactly the same sort of arguments against it as are presented here.

It's rather frightening, actually. Children, in this country, are growing up believing that a right so basic, so vital, to our society...is obsolete.

My question is, what are the teachers doing?! How is it that they aren't teaching our youth something as important as this? And why aren't the parents doing something about this?

So far, the Anti-rights individuals have come up w/:

1. "The People" doesn't really mean the people but the Gov't.

2. Slippery slope to NOOKS!!!!1111!!

3. 80 Million + people could do NOTHING against the Gov't.

4. GUNS 'R BAD! repeated ad nauseum.

5. Ad Hominems : Your not a REAL man if you like guns.

6. The Bill of Rights is obsolete.

7. Criminals will NOT hurt you if you give them all your stuff and do the SNiVeL.

I don't doubt it. However, it's a sad fact that a large number of children growing up today actually believe that free speech isn't something we should have. Many of them actually use exactly the same sort of arguments against it as are presented here.

It's rather frightening, actually. Children, in this country, are growing up believing that a right so basic, so vital, to our society...is obsolete.

My question is, what are the teachers doing?! How is it that they aren't teaching our youth something as important as this? And why aren't the parents doing something about this?

Agreed. I have a hypothesis that alot of this is coming from the schools. When I was attending college, I was working on a teaching certificate. I had to drop it because of the PC BS that was being shoved down the throats of these students. Did you know that the "American Melting Pot" is now considered racist in teaching institutions? I work w/ a group of older teachers,however, and they don't hold these opinions at all.

Many parents don't do anything because they are so far detached form their kids it's rediculous. Until their kids fail a class for cheating, many parents pay little attention at all, then it's all the schools fault because little Jonny can't read and would never cheat.

Yo, I Think We Should Be Able To Carry Guns (w/ Licenses) Around In Public Fo Protection, N So We Dont Get Into No Trouble Wit Tha Po-po.

So far, the Anti-rights individuals have come up w/:

1. "The People" doesn't really mean the people but the Gov't.

2. Slippery slope to NOOKS!!!!1111!!

3. 80 Million + people could do NOTHING against the Gov't.

4. GUNS 'R BAD! repeated ad nauseum.

5. Ad Hominems : Your not a REAL man if you like guns.

6. The Bill of Rights is obsolete.

7. Criminals will NOT hurt you if you give them all your stuff and do the SNiVeL.

Sad, Ain't it?
Oh well.
Guess The Commie News Netwerk should have programmed better lies into their minds. . .

Many of the ideas presented in the constitution are outdated, and they should not apply to the common day law. The third amendment, the right to refuse the housing of soldiers, proves the outdated nature of the constitution. The second amendment should not apply today when considering the thousands of horrific, grisely, and unnecesary deaths each year that result from the ownership of guns. Those who argue that the second amendment and the whole constitution should be upheld to the fullest literal interpretation should realize that the patriot act, in action now, can suspend the constitutional rights of any one at the governments whim.

Yo, I Think We Should Be Able To Carry Guns (w/ Licenses) Around In Public Fo Protection, N So We Dont Get Into No Trouble Wit Tha Po-po.

Heh,
I carry for protection from muggers and druggies. The Po-po dont scare me, altho they terrify the dog. . . .

Yo, I Think We Should Be Able To Carry Guns (w/ Licenses) Around In Public Fo Protection, N So We Dont Get Into No Trouble Wit Tha Po-po.

(If I translated this correctly): I'm glad that you support Carry Laws and the right of Self Defense.

Many of the ideas presented in the constitution are outdated, and they should not apply to the common day law. The third amendment, the right to refuse the housing of soldiers, proves the outdated nature of the constitution. The second amendment should not apply today when considering the thousands of horrific, grisely, and unnecesary deaths each year that result from the ownership of guns. Those who argue that the second amendment and the whole constitution should be upheld to the fullest literal interpretation should realize that the patriot act, in action now, can suspend the constitutional rights of any one at the governments whim.

Guns are used defensivle each year to save lives almost 2.3 MILLION TIMES A YEAR.
Banning them would cause hundreds of thousands of people to die as a result of not being able to defend themselves. But hey, nice try at logic. . .

So you are saying freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equal rights are outdated?

You can't pick and choose the rights that we live by. You can either live with them, or get the hell out of my country. . .

As pointed out before though , one could argue that if this is truly needed there is something wrong with your government and policing system. The states primary function is to serve and protect its citizens after all...
Forcing you to take the law into your own hands is NOT a good thing[tm].
And depending on government to solve your problems is the sign of a weak mind.

Many of the ideas presented in the constitution are outdated, and they should not apply to the common day law. The third amendment, the right to refuse the housing of soldiers, proves the outdated nature of the constitution. The second amendment should not apply today when considering the thousands of horrific, grisely, and unnecesary deaths each year that result from the ownership of guns. Those who argue that the second amendment and the whole constitution should be upheld to the fullest literal interpretation should realize that the patriot act, in action now, can suspend the constitutional rights of any one at the governments whim.

So you oppose the Patriot Act for taking away people's rights but want to take away the rights already listed that you feel are "outdated"?

If they are wearing Fireman uniforms and your house is on fire, YES!

If they are there to rob you, claim on the insurance.
There is no need to end a life for a few possesions.

If you use the "they are armed" scenario. This is the root of the problem with guns. It isn't always the good guys who have them. No-one having guns would balance the scales.
That's the same arguement that the passengers of the planes that got crashed into the World Trade Center towers bought. No use risking your life, just give in to their demands, and everything will be ok. In case you didn't know this, people coming to steal your stuff are generally not interested in your well-being. They may very likely just want to kill you for the thrill of it. And I personally will not sit by and let anyone take anything of mine without a fight. For justice, if not for any other reason.

Rather Hipocritical of him, now isnt it?
Oh well. . . .

That's the same arguement that the passengers of the planes that got crashed into the World Trade Center towers bought. No use risking your life, just give in to their demands, and everything will be ok. In case you didn't know this, people coming to steal your stuff are generally not interested in your well-being. They may very likely just want to kill you for the thrill of it. And I personally will not sit by and let anyone take anything of mine without a fight. For justice, if not for any other reason.


Actually, there were people on 3 of the flights involved in the 9/11 tragedy that were licensed to carry concealed. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been had they been allowed to carry onto the flight that day. ..

Actually, there were people on 3 of the flights involved in the 9/11 tragedy that were licensed to carry concealed. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been had they been allowed to carry onto the flight that day. ..

But the usual responses to this are that America "made" the hijackers do it so it's our own fault anyway. Just like criminals are "forced" into robbing/raping/killing by society.

I was on the JOLT forum and someone actually said that arming homeowners would "force" the criminals to arm themselves. See, it's our own fault for getting robbed/raped/beaten/killed.

Many of the ideas presented in the constitution are outdated, and they should not apply to the common day law. The third amendment, the right to refuse the housing of soldiers, proves the outdated nature of the constitution. The second amendment should not apply today when considering the thousands of horrific, grisely, and unnecesary deaths each year that result from the ownership of guns. Those who argue that the second amendment and the whole constitution should be upheld to the fullest literal interpretation should realize that the patriot act, in action now, can suspend the constitutional rights of any one at the governments whim.
Not if any judge declares a particular enforcement action using that act as unconstitutional. Which is why we have a constitution . . .

Since the Founding Fathers could never have forseen the invention of any media beyond what they had at the time, computers are not really covered by the First Amendment.

Therefore it is legal to impose a computer registration policy. Henceforth anyone with a legitimate need to own a computer must register it with the local authorities and pay a licensing fee. The authorities also have the right to enter your home to monitor computer use by yourself and your children to guarantee the childrens safety and learning. They also have the right to cease issueing permits at any time. The actual ownership of computers is discouraged however as access to information is available through the authorities.

Internet access has the potential of allowing hacking so those computers with internet access have further restrictions with citizens having to prove a need to such access.

High speed internet and DSL have no legitimate purpose but to download porn, copywrited media material, and play violent video games and therefore is no longer allowed.

Some instances of hacking have occured by users of unregistered computers therefore it is considered legitimate for those that have been hurt by these instances of hacking or those cities that have determined hacking to be pervasive in thier areas to sue the computer and software companies (i.e Dell, Microsoft, AOL) for not providing adequate safeguards to prevent these hackers from obtaining and using thier products illegally.

Even though it has been shown that regions that have introduced computer registration policies have had an upswing in unemployment and poorer scholastic performance while areas that have enacted freedom of computer use laws have had a drop in unemployment and improved scholastic performance, there is no correlation between them as there are other issues involved such as poor typing skills.

"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 right shall not be infringed. It does not state that they may only be used in that fashion.

That depends on how you read it. Since it is written in *one* sentence instead of two seperate ones assuming the "being necessary to the security of a free state" also refers to the right to bear arms is quite logical IMO.

Or are you saying you disagree with...
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

No, I'm arguing that the constitution does not grant you the right to bear arms with the primary purpose of defending you against anything but a non-free state. It does not deny you that right either - but according to the interpretation I put forward any law that does would not be against the constitution.
Of course, actually enforcing that law would be impossible, since all you have to do is lie about your plans for the weapon. But as I said: you would be abusing the spirit of the constitution that way. Up to you to decide if that makes one a traitor in spirit.

According to the US constitution (and I asked the question originally because I wanted to know the answer) the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means you have the right to bear any arms you like, because a restriction on what you can own is an infringement of your rights. So I believe the 2nd amendment means you can have as many tanks as you can fit in your yard, and nukes and sarin as well.

I've covered that before...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8047759#post8047759

"Arms" is not the same as "weapons". I would propose the following guidelines for arms: they have to be personal, individual weapons; they have to be portable; and they have to be meant for use against distinct individuals. The standard infantry weapons issued to every soldier (excluding area weapons) are a good example of "arms". An M16 rifle or M9 handgun is "arms", a SAW is an in-between, but an M60 machine gun or Mark-19 is not arms (because it's crew-served). Grenades and claymores are not arms (because they're area-effect), and anti-armor/anti-aircraft weapons are not arms (because they are not intended for use against individuals). Another way to put it: arms is anything you *could* fight a duel with.

What the US actually has: we distinguish between firearms and "destructive devices". Cannon (defined by caliber), artillery, mines, grenades, etc. fall in the "destructive devices" category and are generally prohibited. Full-auto firearms and some other types are closely regulated. Everything else is ok.

and

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7922052#post7922052

Well, I think it depends on your understanding of which weapons are "arms". I would say that not all weapons qualify. There is a reason they say "arms" and not "weapons". I think the word had a particular meaning at the time which is narrower than the meaning it has now. First, whatever it is has to be portable. Second, it should be an individual weapon, up to and including anything that is standard issue in the military, or anything equivalent. Third, it should not be an indiscriminate area weapon. This excludes most of the items that people bring up as straw-man arguments... as in, "okay, so why don't we allow nukes then?". Nukes are not "arms".

No, there are 80 million folks who own guns in the USA, but the avg gun-owner typically owns 3-5 guns

From everything I've read, it's 60 million gun owners, 80 million guns. Many just have one.

However, I would love to be wrong about that. I'd love to see the number of gun owners be a majority in this country.

Many of the ideas presented in the constitution are outdated, and they should not apply to the common day law. The third amendment, the right to refuse the housing of soldiers, proves the outdated nature of the constitution. The second amendment should not apply today when considering the thousands of horrific, grisely, and unnecesary deaths each year that result from the ownership of guns. Those who argue that the second amendment and the whole constitution should be upheld to the fullest literal interpretation should realize that the patriot act, in action now, can suspend the constitutional rights of any one at the governments whim.

You seem to be ignoring the multitude of crimes that are stopped by guns each year. They outnumber those murders you keep touting by anywhere from 4 to 1 (anti-gun estimate) to 200 to 1 (pro-gun estimate). See both sides before decrying.

I've covered that before...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8047759#post8047759

"Arms" is not the same as "weapons". I would propose the following guidelines for arms: they have to be personal, individual weapons; they have to be portable; and they have to be meant for use against distinct individuals. The standard infantry weapons issued to every soldier (excluding area weapons) are a good example of "arms". An M16 rifle or M9 handgun is "arms", a SAW is an in-between, but an M60 machine gun or Mark-19 is not arms (because it's crew-served). Grenades and claymores are not arms (because they're area-effect), and anti-armor/anti-aircraft weapons are not arms (because they are not intended for use against individuals). Another way to put it: arms is anything you *could* fight a duel with.

What the US actually has: we distinguish between firearms and "destructive devices". Cannon (defined by caliber), artillery, mines, grenades, etc. fall in the "destructive devices" category and are generally prohibited. Full-auto firearms and some other types are closely regulated. Everything else is ok.

and

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7922052#post7922052

Well, I think it depends on your understanding of which weapons are "arms". I would say that not all weapons qualify. There is a reason they say "arms" and not "weapons". I think the word had a particular meaning at the time which is narrower than the meaning it has now. First, whatever it is has to be portable. Second, it should be an individual weapon, up to and including anything that is standard issue in the military, or anything equivalent. Third, it should not be an indiscriminate area weapon. This excludes most of the items that people bring up as straw-man arguments... as in, "okay, so why don't we allow nukes then?". Nukes are not "arms".

See number 1.

"arms"
n.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.

From everything I've read, it's 60 million gun owners, 80 million guns. Many just have one.

However, I would love to be wrong about that. I'd love to see the number of gun owners be a majority in this country.

This is probably the best reference: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Summary: 44 million gun owners (35% of households) had 192 million guns in 1996. 14 million carried a gun at least occasionally.

I suspect this is a significant under-estimate since an unknown but significant number of people will not report being a gun owner in a survey. Comparing this with other surveys and with numbers of guns sold, it is likely that the true percentage of households with guns is around 45%, and the number of privately owned guns in the US is over 250 million.

By the way, they also found >1.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

I've covered that before...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8047759#post8047759

"Arms" is not the same as "weapons". I would propose the following guidelines for arms:

yadda yadda yadda

as in, "okay, so why don't we allow nukes then?". Nukes are not "arms".

No matter how many times you've covered it, you've always been wrong. You are free to define "arms" in any way you like, but the vast majority of english speakers in the world disagree with you. The US justice system doesn't agree with you either.

when our forfathers drafted this they obviously meant (in the terms of the day) personal weapons that didnt mean cannons and rockets then and it doesnt mean nukes and missles now. if any more of you use this as an arguing point or example god will give you aids as a punishment just like the christians say he does

it might be *obvious* to you that the founding fathers meant "personal weapons". please explain how it is obvious.

The only clue I can see is that it enshrines a right to "bear" arms, and it was hard in those days to "bear" heavy artillery as bear literally means carry. I for one don't think the founding fathers meant "you have a right to any weaponry you can carry".

Anyway these days you can bear some pretty awesome stuff including rocket launchers.

See number 1.

"arms"
n.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.

Yes, I've seen that. I think the meanings after (1a) are neologisms, essentially. Arms are things that you bear, see the phrases such as "take up arms" or "bear arms" or "up in arms". Now arms has come to mean (as a metonymic) any weapons or more generally any type of military power, but it used to mean specifically individual weapons.

Yes, I've seen that. I think the meanings after (1a) are neologisms, essentially. Arms are things that you bear, see the phrases such as "take up arms" or "bear arms" or "up in arms". Now arms has come to mean (as a metonymic) any weapons or more generally any type of military power, but it used to mean specifically individual weapons.

I don't think it's a metonymic myself, but hey.

You mean that it used to mean specifically "personal" weapons, and not, for instance, heavy artillery?

You are free to define "arms" in any way you like, but the vast majority of english speakers in the world disagree with you.

Yes, now it means weapons generally, or even more generally military power.

At the time the constitution was written, it meant individual weapons, and that is precisely what it means in the constitution. I challenge you to find a 1775-era use that means anything else.

The US justice system doesn't agree with you either.

Actually it does. The weapons which are not arms are generally classed as "destrictive devices", and some in-betweens are NFA (not-a-fire*arm*). They are banned or heavily regulated.

Actually, there were people on 3 of the flights involved in the 9/11 tragedy that were licensed to carry concealed. One can only wonder what the outcome would have been had they been allowed to carry onto the flight that day. ..
The myth of explosive decompression

http://www.thegunzone.com/091101/goldfinger.html

Yes, now it means weapons generally, or even more generally military power.

At the time the constitution was written, it meant individual weapons, and that is precisely what it means in the constitution. I challenge you to find a 1775-era use that means anything else.

Actually it does. The weapons which are not arms are generally classed as "destrictive devices", and some in-betweens are NFA (not-a-fire*arm*). They are banned or heavily regulated.

i challenge *you* to find ten 1775 era uses, as a representative sample.

and i still don't believe that the US legal system has an explicit definition of the word "arms" that excludes for instane multiple launch rocket systems.

"Not a firearm" and "not an arm" do not mean the same thing at all. A sword is not a firearm, but by your definition it is an arm.

Yes, I've seen that. I think the meanings after (1a) are neologisms, essentially. Arms are things that you bear, see the phrases such as "take up arms" or "bear arms" or "up in arms". Now arms has come to mean (as a metonymic) any weapons or more generally any type of military power, but it used to mean specifically individual weapons.

That's reasonable. Much of today's verbiage doesn't match in meaning to what it was 300 years ago.

Now, if you want the true meaning of what the founding fathers were shooting for (couldn't resist the pun), check out the Federalist Papers. It should say something in there.

I believe their intent (since we're using the meaning of the day) is spelled out clearly: To keep up with the government, so the citizens wouldn't be outgunned. That means nukes, rocket launchers, tanks, etc.

For all those arguing that the intent of the amendment was to allow people to arm themselves so that they could fight off any future despotic government and therefore you should be allowed to own a gun today, please explain to me how you owning a 9mm allows you to face down, say, the 3rd armored cav or prevent the evil government that's trying to take away your freedom from calling in an airstrike on your scrawny little ass?

Sorry guys, but unless you're arguing that the amendment means you should be able to arm yourselves to a proportional degree such that you can always prevent the government from coming to get you one day if it goes astray... meaning you think you have a constitutional right to a tank or 10, and perhaps a good sized naval flotilla, PLEASE stop using this argument as a defense of why the 2nd amendment means every single person should be allowed to pack around a semi-automatic in the modern United States. The days when carrying a gun allowed you to defend yourself against a despotic U.S. government are LONG over.
This is not an "argument", it is a fact, it was clearly and repeatedly stated that the people should have in hand the means to overthrow tyranny, which back then meant personal firearms. Ahh for such simple times!

Just because this is no longer a likely scenario doesn't change the fact that it was part of the intent in writing the amendment.

So far, the Anti-rights individuals have come up w/:
1. "The People" doesn't really mean the people but the Gov't.


Whereas the "right to bear" people are telling me that our fellow americans can be trusted with guns, not the government. the government *is* our fellow americans. so are all US citizens, including murderers, rapists, the black panthers, the guys you think you're protecting yourself from etc. The people means *everybody* including the government and the 9/11 bombers.


2. Slippery slope to NOOKS!!!!1111!!


NOBODY has used that argument. Some people have wondered why you all haven't already revolted against the evil government that has *already* infringed your right to own nukes. And the response so far has been *it obviously doesn't mean nukes, although it does mean automatic rifles*


3. 80 Million + people could do NOTHING against the Gov't.


80 million gun owners *are* the government. If the government tried to impose martial law, who do you think would be doing the imposing? People who like peace, flowers and being nice to criminals or people who like guns and wearing camo and shooting stuff?


4. GUNS 'R BAD! repeated ad nauseum.


Guns are dangerous. This is the point of guns.


5. Ad Hominems : Your not a REAL man if you like guns.


A definite and regrettable ad hominen attack, balanced only by the constant whining of the gun lobby that you're a criminal-placating sniveller if you don't like guns. See below.


6. The Bill of Rights is obsolete.


Well the parts about black people not being people are, I hope.


7. Criminals will NOT hurt you if you give them all your stuff and do the SNiVeL.

Except in an armed society, where they have to kill you immediately just in case you're packing.

According to the US constitution (and I asked the question originally because I wanted to know the answer) the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Which means you have the right to bear any arms you like, because a restriction on what you can own is an infringement of your rights. So I believe the 2nd amendment means you can have as many tanks as you can fit in your yard, and nukes and sarin as well.
You're getting more and more absurd. I assume you have some valid arguments, the edges of them show, why don't you drag them out? Chances are that I used to believe some of them before I actually learned about guns!

The reason the 2nd amenement doesn't apply to those things is twofold; one, it doesn't say "any damn weapon you want", and two, those things didn't EXIST when the legislation was drafted. Perhaps if it was written today it might read:

"...to bear personal firearms will not be infringed, and people who want to avoid the meat of the discussion by playing at stupid tangents like 'well then gee can I have a nuke' will be judged too obtuse for a permit."

dam right i'm afraid of assault rifles. they can kill you. and hunting rifles and all other kinds of rifles. that's why i live in a country where we defend our freedom by voting.

I didn't start this thread because i want to ban assault rifles. I started because i want to know your constitutional rights. It turns out that all you defenders of freedom should already have revolted against the governments that have infringed your rights by denying you the opportunity to own nukes.
Now you've slipped over into the completely irrational. Why pretend that you're so stupid just to make a point? Most people will just see the game you play, or will think you really ARE stupid enough to apply the 2nd amendment to nukes.

where they have to kill you immediately just in case you're packing.
But they don't. Concealed carry is legal to varying degrees in 46 states, but muggers don't pre-emptively kill their victims.

Surely it's best of all to not need one?
It would be nice if we didn't have to make a bad smell when we shit, or bleed when we give birth, but when you get out of primary school you will find that the world is full of unpleasant and unfair situations...some of which can be dealt with using guns.

Did you know that many of the crimes prevented by gun owners (and there are many, this is one of the reasons I'm no longer a gun-control nut) don't even involve a shot being fired? Just showing the piece tends to make people reconsider whether they really want your wallet or wife.