Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms'? Part 1
by Larry Elder
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A prominent 20th-century Democrat made the following statement about the purpose of the Second Amendment: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the 1976 Washington, DC, ban on handguns. The court ruled that the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment to allow individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The minority disagreed, arguing that the right only extends to those belonging to a state "militia," such as the National Guard.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." What did the Framers mean?

Is "Militia" -- as the Framers intended -- an arm of government? Or did the Framers define militia as something completely different -- a group of armed citizens with a right to "keep and bear Arms" to guard against unjust or tyrannical government power?

The Founding Fathers assumed that any government, including the one they established, could grow into a monster. They argued that only "the people" with a right "to keep and bear arms" could prevent such a tyranny.

James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," stated that tyrants were "afraid to trust the people with arms," and lauded "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

George Mason said, "To disarm the people -- that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. … Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Noah Webster, the prominent political essayist who fought in the Revolutionary War, wrote: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Samuel Adams likened the Second Amendment to the First: "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Dictators throughout history sought to disarm their citizenries in order to impose power:

Vladimir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Mao Zedong said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Josef Stalin said: "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Adolf Hitler said: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Thomas Paine, in 1775, spoke about another kind of "tyranny." Bans and restrictions on firearms affect the law-abiding citizenry, shifting power to the non-law-abiding. Criminals ignore laws. That's why we call them criminals. Paine said: "The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. … (Weakness) allures the ruffian (but) arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world. … Horrid mischief would ensue were (the good) deprived of the use of them. … The weak will become a prey to the strong."

Oh, the prominent Democrat quoted in the first paragraph? It was said Oct. 22, 1959, by future senator and Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. How times -- and much of the Democratic Party -- have changed.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Larry Elder's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Historical language context
Although Elder's case is valid and supports the SCOTUS decision, you don't really have to question the meaning of the term Militia. The states at that time also wrote such phrases into their constitutions, but they were meant as examples of why the right should be guaranteed, not as limitations or qualifiers of the text that followed. It would be like the 1st Amendment reading, "A well regulated newspaper industry being necessary to the proper functioning of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." That would in no way mean that freedom of speech is not guaranteed for other media and the people.

The Constitution was deliberately written to allow those of us who are not lawyers to fully and completely understand its clear meaning. If the framers had intended to say, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms when in service to a Militia shall not be infringed," they would have written that.

Hubert Humphrey?!?
An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject.

It is amazing that after all those quotes which are available to them, four members of the SCOTUS would have a contrary view.

Will BHO firm up the right? Wadda ya think?

Sure Larry, Whatever Works for You
I certainly respect the noble goals of out Founding Fathers but..

Firearms in the hands of citizens would only play a minor role in keeping tyranny in check today. It is far too easy for government forces to isolate and destroy small pockets of unorganized resistance. No matter how oppressive government becomes, the majority of sheeple and drones on the dole would likely cheer the destruction of militant groups that threaten local order and the status quo.

Selective declaration of martial law would ensure that a tyrannical regime only faced small segments of an armed population at any given point. Militarized police forces are the standing armies that our Founding Father warned us against.

I no longer have illusions about defending the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. I keep firearms solely to defend my family while escaping large scale civil unrest to a remote area. I fully intend to take advantage of the current real estate market to buy a rural retreat and stock it up for tough times ahead.

Weapons
Guns and all other weapons have been a deterrent in the past, that is what any weapon is. Next time someone says guns or assault rifles or whatever, are only for killing, please remind them of this,

Guns and weapons primary purpose is not to kill, but to deter predators. Both criminal and unlawful government predators.

Possession of a weapon is a symbol of power in the hands of an ordinary citizen. Elites hate any power in the hands of an ordinary citizen. Those elites will stop at nothing despite the recent supreme court ruling to get their way enacted as law.

Elites want no citizen armed or able to deter a predator.

Our Right to Bear Arms
I live in the, [almost communist], State of Hawaii, and am always amazed by the audacious attitudes of members of the democratic party.
A militia is made up of volunteers who have the right to come and go as they please, during their course of service.
Nat'l Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, are volunteers only upon enlistment, then they operate under orders and threat of imprisonment or dishonor.
Why is it so hard for democrats to understand a clear statement, such as "the right of individuals to bear arms shall not be infringed"

Great Larry - 5 stars
If we could replace the 4 communists and the flip-flopper with you and people like you we may have a real Constitution again.

The real reason
Why Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms'?

To protect us from the animals who want to hurt/kill us! (Sorry for the insult to animals. Animals only kill to eat or defend themselves. They are not mindless like these thugs).

Thank heavens for the Heller decision! Now we in DC can protect ourselves. This non-state had the most restrictive gun control in the nation, and for a long while were the "murder capitol" of the US (since criminals are hardly likely to respect the gun control laws). I never thought I would live to see the day.

Who
would disarm us even if the ruling went the other way? Ive spoken with hundreds of fellow military members, police officers and not a single one would enforce that. I myself would consider it to be an unlawful order.

Willful Blindness
If all the "compassionate" liberals and left-wing socialists . . . er, I mean, "progressives" -- who commonly oppose private gun ownership -- were actually subjected to REAL oppression under nazi-style fascism, they would be the first ones declaring the need for any anti-fascist to arm themselves.

The 14th amendment complements the 2nd.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Heller decision was a landmark, but no reason to relax. We must now push for a nationwide standard for concealed firearms carry. Then criminals at home and potential aggressors abroad will know we mean business.

Now go after San Fran, Chicago and NYC!!
The insane gun laws in these cities have probably cost 50 lives for every one (MAYBE) saved. I am glad to see the NRA pouring in 15 million bucks to stop Broccoli Insane O'Vomit and his Socialist power grab.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

activated: who
Sad as this is to say, this has already been done. People in New Orleans were disarmed during the Katrina mess. Sure, there was a lawsuit later (wonder what came of that - does anybody know?), but that didn't stop it from happening. I don't know if those people ever got their guns back. I'd bet probably not. And, sadly, it'll happen again, the next time some schmuck politican can feed some idiot media flack an excuse. And, the excuses will become thinner and thinner. And, eventually, it'll be moot. Because people don't pay attention anymore. People don't remember things.

Lestat (reply#1) says,
"The Constitution was deliberately written to allow those of us who are not lawyers to fully and completely understand its clear meaning. If the framers had intended to say, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms when in service to a Militia shall not be infringed," they would have written that."


In Justice Scalia's Heller opinion, a quote from the case of United States v. Sprague (1931) and from Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) is most heartwarming; “(t) he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” In other words, an ordinary reader’s grasp of the Constitution’s wording is correct and so-called “interpretation” by the courts cannot go beyond the limits of those easily gained understandings.

This point is directly at odds with the commonly heard claim that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” entity, which changes in meaning and application with the changing times. Perhaps the opposite view (mine) is that the Constitution is a contract between the government and the governed. A contract remains in force as originally agreed upon by the parties to it. A strictly defined process that, again includes agreement by both parties, accomplishes changes in the contract. Changes in the Constitution are by amendment. Changes cannot be through fiat by any branch or combination of branches of the government. The Supreme Court has been particularly active in recent decades in this capacity (e.g., the recent New London eminent domain case), but presidents and Congresses have also been involved – sometimes in collusion with the Court (e.g., the McCain-Feingold election reform law, cynically labeled by some as the incumbency protection law.).

I have never understood
the desire of any adult, male or female, to allow others to control their lives. Whether it be the criminal controlling your posessions by stealing them or Congress controlling your life with the minutae of laws regulating every single aspect of daily existence; the ability of most to sit back and say "ok, it's not worth fighting for" absolutely floors me.
As for me, I'll only call the cops when I need someone to pick up the body.

Willful blindness...
The left/socialist clique that rules this country has known and knows full well the meaning of the 2d; it is only by willfully distorting its meaning they have incrementally nullified another of our listed freedoms.

Every one of our rights have been subverted and twisted to fit a reverse meaning from the 1st's gaurantee of freedom of speech (if you believe you have the right to dissent, go stand in front of an abortion clinic with a protest sign) to the individual right from slavery and political and economic equality written in the abolition amendments (there are no debtor's p[risons in America... other than imposed by the IRS and family courts; as for equality, there is, as long as one belongs to the correct minority).

To my liberal acquaintances, I make the the following points when they minimize the effect the 2d is meaningless in the modern world: who do you think our forces are fighting? Who would take away the weapons? Easy- both Waco and Ruby Ridge were essentially ATF actions, for which there were no reprecussions.

The American Patriot
The American Patriot to me is one who loves their Country and wish America no harm for any reason.

The American Patriot is male, female and children of every nationality, race, ethnic background and religion who wish America no harm for any reason.

The American Patriot are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom who wish America no harm.

The American Patriot ia proud of their flag and the Statue of Liberty which "welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed" and wishes America no harm.

The American Patriot takes pride in the greatest Warriors in the history of man - the American Soldier and wish America no harm.

The American Patriot looks at their sons and daughters in uniform with tears in their hearts and pride on their faces as their children goes off to defend the greatest country ever on this planet and wish America no harm.

The spouse and children of the American Patriot with anxiety in their hearts and faces shining with pride watch as their American Warrior leaves to defend America.

The American Patriot lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness and the right to self determination and wish America no harm.

The American Patriot does not want to weaken America in dangerous times for political reasons.

The American Patriot does not put ideology first and America second to harm it in hopes it will learn a 'lesson'.

God Bless America and its' Patriots!

NRA Lifetime Member

The right to bear guns or arsenals?
If you check with the average NRA owner and ask to see what guns they have collected you will be stunned by what they show you.

These people dont have a single pistol for home protection or a rifle for hunting. What they have are small "arsenals" with the latest firepower of automatic and semi-automatic handguns and the latest highpowerd laser rifles. On top of that they have enough ammunition to arm a small militia..speaking of the constitutional "militia" these folks ARE a one man army.

After viewing their "arsenals" one has to wonder exactly WHO are they expecting to DEFEND themselves against? you tell me.

Liberty vs tyranny...

Mr. Elder, thanks for your article.

If we view the founding documents as covenants to protect ‘we the people’ from the encroachment of state tyranny, then the second amendment makes sense as you have written.

Your argument has exposed the gang of four as no better than Stalinists dressed up in black roles. As Americans we should expect state sponsored tyranny and be ready to resist it.

As for Mr. Wirs’ article, it was General Lee who was the patriot fighting against tyranny. Liberty lost the second revolution.

For the Children!
Responsible mothers should seriously consider arming themselves for the sake of their children.

Not all monsters live on Sesame Street.

Left Angle
I am sure there was a point somewhere in your post. I just can't see it. So, NRA members have "arsenals". K. Did you read the article? It indicated that the point of the ammendment was to allow citizens to resist unjust actions of the governement. Does the government have arsenals? Duh.

And just for the record, what was the form of survey or investigation that you did to determine that "These people dont have a single pistol for home protection or a rifle for hunting. What they have are small "arsenals" with the latest firepower of automatic and semi-automatic handguns and the latest highpowerd laser rifles?" I know dozens of NRA members and know none with automatic weapons. I am also not aware that a laser rifle has even been invented since the power supply is so bulky. I assume you are watching SciFi and dreaming. Or perhaps you mean laser sights. I know of one guy who has one. Most of my friends with guns have a max of 4-5. They have a pistol for defense, a shotgun or two for bird hunting, a small bore gun for target shooting and varmit shooting, and a larger bore for deer. Can you please help me understand the source of your great insight?

Dana (Reply #3)
The Homeland Security Act (Sec. 540 Prohibition of Confiscation of Firearms). It simply says, law enforcement cannot, under their powers because it is an emergency situation, start confiscating firearms which are completely legal, which have been obtained completely lawfully, by law-abiding citizens.
(taken from the THOMAS website).
This legislation was submitted by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

Hey Jeff, Savage99 and Colt45
Did any of you guys catch the episode of "30 Days" Tuesday night on F/X? It was a colossal hoot and a half!!! They got this hoplophobic twit named Pia who is a HUGE anti-gun activist from Brockton in the Sheeple's Republic of Taxachusettes to live with a guy and his 15 year old son in Ohio for a month.

Both are avid shooters and collectors. She was also sent to work at a gun shop in town for the month and to help out at least one gun show.

The choicest scene HAD to be when they took her out for "skeet" actually it looked like Clays. She fired ONE shot at a clay bird and blubbered like a toddler with wet cruddy diapers!!

She went to a "fun shoot" and was TERRIFIED to see WOMEN and CHILDREN shooting as well. She got EVERYTHING wrong and even referred to a SINGLE shot Barret .50BMG as a "machine gun".

THIS is the mindset we're up against. Even when faced with the stats showing that CCW states have no higher and often lower crime rates she STILL insisted on "reasonable" gun laws. She didn't even KNOW that there are already 22 THOUSAND on the books already. Want to know which gun law will reduce crime? Ask a gun grabber and they'll ALWAYS say "The next one."

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Keep & Bear Arms
Before the civil war, Americans were considered to be natural shots. During the civil war, it was discovered that recruits from the cities were not only not natural shots, they did not know even how to load and fire a gun. Hence the army had to start a marksmanship training program.
In the 1960's the army commission the Arthur D. Little company to survey soldiers, separating those with prior firearms experience from those without. Much to the dismay of anti-gun politicians, it was discovered that the soldiers with prior firearms training did better in all types of training courses. In addition, those with prior firearms experience were more likely to be enlistees, rather than draftees, were more likely to join combat arms branches, such as Armor, Artillery, and Infantry. Those with prior firearms experience were more likely to volunteer for combat assignments (i.e. Vietnam), were more likely to re-up, and were more likely to choose the army as a career. There truly is a connection between a well regulated military, and an armed civilian populace.

alopekos teumesios
If necessary, go after the sheeple while resisting the tyrants.

Why we keep arms...
For me, it is to always remind lifetime appointed judges who seek to interpret the Constitution as a "living" document, that their lifetime may be influenced by shortening. Since tar and feathers are no longer a threat, and "riding the rail" has taken a new meaning, the cartridge box will restore the ballot box when that is no longer the tool capable of removing the fools from office.

Want to permanently cripple liberalism?
Never happen of course but the Framers favored land and business owners as a voting bloc over others because they had a STAKE in the stability of the nation.

The indolent only have a stake in voting for and electing those who promise more "free" goodies every cycle.

We can't totally disenfranchise welfare folk from voting unfortunately so a fantasy Amendment of mine would be one to count only 25% of their votes coupled with another one requiring a 100% majority to repeal it.

Once the vermin in office don't NEED these leeches to get them elected each cycle MAYBE they will listen to the REAL taxpayers? Nah, they'd move to France first.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Left Angle
What the heck is a laser rifle? Do you mean a rifle with a laser sight on it? Because to the best of my knowledge, hand held laser guns are still science fiction.

Also, Im curious: Why is it ok for someone to own five or six sports cars or one one hundred cameras, but if they own more than two or three guns it is suddenly a sign of mental instability?

Oh and for the record, I own ten guns currently, but unless I grow some more appendages I can only fire two at a time. You need to clear your mind of whatever preconceptions you have about gun owners as a whole. When I buy a new gun, my first thought is not, "Wow I wonder what it would be like to kill somebody with THIS one!" In fact it is not a thought I entertain at any point.

As for the question I often get, "Why do you NEED all those guns?"...I would respond this way, why does one need ten wrist watches or a seventy inch plasma screen TV? Fortunately I still live in a country where people like me are not required to satisfy people like you with regards to "need".

How wrong is Left Angle?
You said "If you check with the average NRA owner and ask to see what guns they have collected you will be stunned by what they show you."
If you asked, most would never reveal all.

"What they have are small "arsenals" with the latest firepower of automatic and semi-automatic handguns and the latest highpowerd laser rifles."
You show here, your ignorance of arms but,
More than one can be construed as an arsenal if you think small.
"On top of that they have enough ammunition to arm a small militia."
They are after all, consumable and isn't that the point, arming the militia (that word "small" keeps popping up in your thoughts).
"speaking of the constitutional "militia" these folks ARE a one man army."

No, a one man militia, an army works for the government. And a militia means more than one.

"After viewing their "arsenals" one has to wonder exactly WHO are they expecting to DEFEND themselves against? you tell me."
Lastly, what we defend is freedom, a concept you probably have not yet conceived.

confiscation
Other articles on this subject have produced comments by many. One I remember in particular indicated he had many friends in law enforcement. When he asked these friends how they would react to orders to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens which could include family and relatives he was told they would not comply.
Y E S, I have seen the NRA film of the confiscation in Louisana. I think the larger part would not do the same thing....refuse.
I hope. I for one would resist.

heh
"""he latest highpowerd laser rifles"""

lmmfao

revolution
"""When he asked these friends how they would react to orders to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens which could include family and relatives he was told they would not comply."""

There is basically only one thing that would cause me to rebel against my country,and that is if they try to take our guns.

Bill of Rights is about INDIVIDUALS
It is not a Bill of Needs, it is a Bill of Rights. You don't need that Porsche in your driveway but no one disputes your right to own it. Same with guns. And the Bill of Rights was added into the Constitution to limit government power, not establish the rights mentioned which were already established as being God-given and self-evident. Very simple concept. We have that part memorized so why can't we ever remember it when we discuss the Bill of Rights? That is what is wrong with the SCOTUS decision, even Scalia cited the "right to protect yourself in your own home" as the need that justifies the 2nd amendment. Very weak argument. It is a self-evident God-given right that government has no right to even discuss.

Confiscation?
The citizens of New Orleans were disarmed by the city police, who already had a reputation for corruption and ineptitude. After all, how often do you have cops bugging out in an emergency as too many of those "cops" did? Like others on this thread, I've been told by police officers and National Guard troops that they would not obey an order to confiscate citizens' weapons. I also doubt that the regular forces would obey such an order, since resistance to illegal orders is drilled into the officers and enlisted. That's our first line of defense before we have to start shooting.

As for the guns stolen by the police in New Orleans, the city was ordered to return them. As usual, the city authorities dragged their feet and tried to avoid obeying the court order. NRA investigators finally tracked down at least some of the guns. They had been stored in barrels in damp conditions and must had become useless due to rust damage. Now, I guess the citizens will have to file another suit to force the replacement of their guns. Perhaps Bobby Jindel will make a difference?

Left Angle -- Where and Who
"What they have are small "arsenals" with the latest firepower of automatic and semi-automatic handguns and the latest highpowerd laser rifles."

LASER RIFLES?!? OUTSTANDING! Did they tell you where they bought them, because I WANT ONE.

"After viewing their "arsenals" one has to wonder exactly WHO are they expecting to DEFEND themselves against? you tell me."

Well, the Laser Rifles are probably to protect against hordes of invading Borg, Sith Lords, Cylons or perhaps Daleks. The REAL guns are to defend against predators, human and otherwise, and tyrants and their useful idiots -- like you.

a response to all
thanks for your reponses and yes i do not have
intimate knowlege of handguns or rifles because I dont own one. not a single one. I get along fine without them. IMHO firearms have two purposes: to maim or kill. I'm not interested in either.

Yes the govenment says the citzen has the "right to bear arms to protect themselves from state tyranny" but excuse me isnt a bit outdated as the consitution was written in a time when that threat was imminent. Does it truly apply today? are you actually expecting the federal government to commit a tyranical act against you?

finally, the point I was trying to make is a great many nra members or gun owner period do have small "arsenals" of the latest guns and rifles with more than enough ammunition to
arm them beyond just normal house protection or hunting.

I'll ask again. who is it that you are expecting to defend yourself against that you need so much firepower?

.

No 2rd no 1st
I find goverments that take away arms from their citizens usually have short life spans.
England is going thru a stage where its citizens have been disarm to the point of being at the hands of anyone with a butter knife getting away with murder. Really. Yet there is hope it seems that many people have become interested in machine shop operations, I do not see them making toys on the side.
During WWII machine shops spring up all over England making firearms. Even today a person with a little skill can pop out a good piece in a short time.
If American political hacks ever think that they can disarm Americans citizens by getting rid of the 2rd then I would say those citizens would take away the hacks 1st either by the lead ball or a rope.
What the heck maybe we should not wait to lose the 2rd, but take away their 1st now?

To those who think the armed authorities
To those of you who think the armed authorities would not confiscate your weapons I say you are delusional.

Whenever they can, and under any pretext they dream up, they do confiscate our weapons daily.

In some regional or national emergency the confiscations would be coordinated so fast your head would spin.

Those in power aim to stay in power.

for the wiseguys...
I think you know perfectly well I didnt mean "laser rifle" as in sci-fi. I meant
"firearms equipped with a laser sight"

Militia
Some people say that the Militia part of the Second Amendment of the Constitution refers only to flintlock rifles because that was all that was available at the time the Constitution was written. These people are incorrect, because at the time when our Militiamen had flintlocks, that is what the enemy had as state-of-the-art weapons. When we are attacked now by terrorists, the enemy carries fully-automatic, AK47’s - brought into the United States by the embassies and UN delegations of terrorist countries - real assault rifles used by the enemy military. Since our Militiamen are expected to stop the enemy with their own weapons, because the Regulars are not on the scene yet and the Militiamen are, our Militiamen should own weapons that are the equivalent of the enemy’s – State-0f-The-Art. Our Militiamen, law-abiding adult Americans, should all have fully-automatic personal weapons constantly accessible to them, just as the Swiss Militiamen do. This is what our Founding Fathers require for us in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Federal Firearms Act of 1934, and all other laws prohibiting our Militiamen from having state-of-the-art weapons are unconstitutional.

"Arsenals"
My wife and I each only "Need" three guns: one pistol, one rifle and one shotgun. My other 26 guns and her other 42 guns plus our closets full of ammo are because we wanted them. Some we shoot for fun, some are collectables. My wife has a Walther PPK with '007' on the serial number which she say will NEVER be fired.

SHOUTING
A WORD TO THE WISE FOR NANCY PELOSI, ET AL, HARRY REID, ET AL, AND SCOTUS: REMEMBER

WHEN KING GEORGE III AND PARLIAMENT CAUSED THE FIRST AMERICAN REVOLUTION, THEY HAD 3000 MILES OF OCEAN AND A LARGE ARMY AND NAVY BETWEEN THEM AND THE VICTIMS OF THEIR TYRANNY. THAT IS WHY THE AMERICAN PATRIOTS DIRECTED THEIR DISPLEASURE AT A SHIPLOAD OF TEA.

NOW, WHEN U. S. CONGRESS MEMBERS ARE CAUSING THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION, THEY ARE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE PATRIOTS THEY ARE BETRAYING, AS WERE THE FRENCH ROYALS. CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF THESE TRAITORS, AND THE SEVERITY OF THEIR OFFENSES, AMERICAN PATRIOTS WILL NOT SHOW THEIR DISPLEASURE BY THROWING TEA OVERBOARD TO SINK OR FLOAT OUT TO SEA.

Left Angle
Dear Left Angle,

I'm sure you're a nice person, who is not a convicted felon. You likely have a great family and you're well liked among your circle of friends.

You are probably somewhat concerned about reducing violent criminal acts where firearms are used as well. But you seriously do not have a clue what you're talking about.

You are certainly welcome to post anything you wish here and I hope you continue to do so. But you seriously need an education in both firearms and our Second Amendment if you intend to post anything engaging or enlightening.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Arsenal example
"A tip that a man was carrying a gun led cops to a suspected arms merchant and a massive arsenal of weapons in his Queens apartment, authorities said. Seven rifles, an automatic machine gun, bullet-resistant vests and more than 28,000 rounds of ammo including armor-piercing bullets were part of the haul.

Suwei Chuang, 36, was pulled over on Gold Street in lower Manhattan at 8:45 p.m. on Wednesday. A search of his car turned up a bulletproof vest, an assault rifle and 800 rounds of ammunition, police said."


left angle #35
Every one of the 25.000+ gun laws directed at law-abiding citizens is an act of tyranny by government.

Don't forget that SCOTUS ruled that the police DO NOT have an obligation to protect the people against criminals. That is why the police were missing during the Rodney King riots. They were vastly outnumbered by terrorist rioters and had no riot weapons.

Question for Gun owners...
Can you please give me examples of scenarios you envision as to why you would need more than a few basic arms for hunting and home protection?

Engaging Left Angle In Conversation
Left Angle, this is a tiny two-part quiz.

(1) What is the largest source of firearms that are actually used during the commission of a violent crime?

(2) Name a specific law that you would support that would diminish this largest source of guns that are actually getting used during the commission of a violent crime.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Left Angle's Thoughtful Question
I will answer you question, using a quote from a relative of mine, namely President John Adams.

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
-- John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: Thoughts on Government, 1776

Keilo and Heller
The same four justices that voted against Heller are the same four that voted for Keilo saying its ok to take a persons property to add to the tax coffers. They should be impeached.

Largest Source of Firearms Used In Crime
Left Angle, if you're in the process of submitting an answer, I sincerely apologize. The largest source of firearms that are actually used during the commission of a crime, comprise 39.6% of all illegally obtained firearms. Any guesses? Anyone else care to guess?

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Left Angle
First off, Mr Chuang was a "Suspected" arms dealer. Did you ever find out the disposition of that case? A few years ago here is CA, there was this guy who had imported a large number of full-auto AK47s with the intent of converting them to legal semi-autos. He ran out of money to do this and called in the BATF to come and collect the rifles to be destroyed. The media portrayed this as a HUGE gun raid, when in fact it was not. There was another "RAID" in San Clemente last year with the police confiscating another huge "Aresenal" that received big press coverage. It turned out that this person was a licensed collector and that EVERY one of the guns he had was perfectly LEGAL. Of course the press took almost a year to report this and the L.A. times buried it on page 18 amoung the dept store ads.

So Left Angle, just because the press says it, does not make it true. Especially when it comes to guns.

Left Angle is an Idiot
Not all NRA memebers have a full arsenal.

I own 2 pistols, a .22 Colt Single Action New Frontier and a Walther .380 ACP, one single shot .22 Winchester rifle that belonoged to my father and a Beretta 12 Ga. Semi automnatic Shotgun.

Is that an arsenal? See any fully automatic weapons listed there?

No one can legally own a fully automatic weapon without having a Federal Firearms license.

Left Angle's post is simply more bullcrap from a gun hating liberal Azzhole. Ain't it funny how liberals say they hate any stereotyping but they always use it when the hate something.

I am amazed given the quotes in this article how even the 4 communists on the Supreme Court cannot clearly see what the Constitution means on a citizens right to keep and bear arms.

Bubba

Savethe guns: a response..
Inmates serving time in state prisons during 1997 said they obtained their guns from the following sources in percentages:

Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2

From the info I'm researching most handguns used during crime are stolen from friends, family or some other illegal source as stated above.

name a law to diminish this source? one doesnt exist.


Question for Gun owners...
Left Angle Writes: "Can you please give me examples of scenarios you envision as to why you would need more than a few basic arms for hunting and home protection?"

Answer: for the same reason anyone would "Need" a car that can go faster than the speed limit. Because we WANT them.

But on a more practical level, when you have a large number of rioters(I lived through the LA Riots in the '90s) coming down your street, all of a sudden, having more than a few guns around begins to look really GOOD.

Left Angle
Again, you are laboring under the assumption that we must justify our reason for owning a given firearm, or a certain number of firearms.
Fortunately we are not, for the most part, required to satisfy you with an answer to your "why do you need them?" question.

Moreover, I suspect there are no answers we could give that would satisfy you. You seem to think that because they are weapons, we should be restricted by arbirtrary quotas and the like. My question to you is why? If a man is sensible and law abiding, his tendency towards lawlessness does not increase based on the number of guns he owns or the amount of ammo.

I go to the range a great deal, which means at any given time I may have between two hundred and five hundred rounds of ammunition at my house. I realize this may seem odd to you, but it is no more odd than the guy who owns ten snow boards because he likes the sport. Perhaps if you tried to remove your preconceived notions from the equation, you might better understand.

Husker Jeff,
Once we've achieved our goals in gun purchasing we might have a "small arsenal" in our house.

For each person of suitable age there is/will be:

A .22 plinking pistol
A centerfire range pistol
A .22 rifle
A centerfire rifle (which may be an AR-15 because the mild recoil and adjustable stock makes it particularly suitable for growing young people)
A 12 or 20 gauge shotgun depending on size, strength, and personal preference

For adults with carry permits there will also be:
A primary carry gun
A "summer carry"/deep concealment gun

Additionally, there will be a few extras such as the heirloom Japanese military rifle my FIL brought back from WWII, the little .22 with the tip-up barrel that is ineffective for most practical purposes but which suits my desire to have a classic "ladies' gun" and the .410 over and under shotgun my DH has a similar fancy for.

Should a family member take up a serious interest in hunting a black powder weapon or two might also take up residence.

Should a family member start shooting higher-level competition than higher-quality competition guns will be required.

And if we find good deals we're likely to do as a friend of ours has and pick up some extras in the categories most useful for introducing new shooters to the sport to have available as loaners.

Antis are welcome to call 8-15 guns per person in the household an "arsenal" when they explain why its "necessary" for a house that holds 2 people to have 5 bedrooms and 8 TVs, why they own more than 7 days' worth of clothing, why they have a battery-powered drill when the model with the cord was good enough for all those years before, and why fishermen own more than one rod and reel.

;)

Press coverage
Left Angle, please keep in mind that NY Times is EXTREMELY anti-gun, so you shouldn't expect them to report fairly. Always look for what wasn't reported.

Left Angle
Actually there are laws on the books to prevent selling or giving firearms to others, even family, without following BATF guidelines. If a parent gives a weapon to an adult child with no criminal record then no requirements are necessary at the Federal level.

But if you wanted to sell twenty guns to a friend, you are required to do so through an FFL dealer who will do a NICS check on the potential buyer. Failure to do so is a crime. So if you sold a rifle to your good buddy and he shot up a school, the feds had better not find out you skipped the required trnasfer process, otherwise you will also be headed to jail most likely. Now anyone wanting to sell a gun can certainly ignore these rules, but to do so is foolish in the extreme.

Wow, great research Left Angle.
Notice in the sources that law abiding gun owners are not peddling their "arsenals" on darkened street corners. Legislation to diminish these sources should keep honest gun owners out of the loop entirely.

There are ways to diminish these sources of guns that are used during acts of violence without affecting the law abiding gun owner.

But our elected officials are focusing on the gun instead. Oh where do I begin?

* Fine the friend or family member who willingly provides a firearm to someone they know to be a felon. Perhaps $10,000 is a good start.

* Add a prison term of five years onto any home burglary or the burglary of a licensed gun dealer where a gun is stolen and that's five year per firearm.

* Add civil fines of $10,000 per firearm for ANYONE who lawfully purchases a firearm specifically for a felon who is prohibited from owning one, otherwise known as a straw purchase. Straw purchasing is a huge source of illegal firearms, but most often these charges are dismissed.

There are dozens of other things that I could post here and I might just do that.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Militias?
I have been reading various commentaries on the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the 2nd Amendment, namely on SCOTUSBLOG. Even if the Supreme Court decided to interpret said Amendment as meaning militias rather than individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, I do not believe the government would allow it in the sense of militias being an entity that is entirely separate from government control. The national Guard in reality is really part and parcel of the Armed Forces (in so far as being under government control). A while back, I remember reading about these bunch of guys in Michigan, I believe who called themselves a militia--started principally for the reasons mentioned in Mr. Elder's article. Now these guy were hounded and vilified (I don't know if they were prosecuted)by the MSM as Nazis, racists, KKK, nutjobs, dangerous, hide the women and the children ---you name it, they were called it. Now, I am wondering now that this ruling has given gun owners some breathing room as individuals, will the NRA and other such gun owning organizations will take the initiative of actually forming militias. It could start out as aggressively being willing to properly train people in usings armed weapons. Where it could or would go from there, who knows? I am definitely interested in comments on this one.

Inside info
The FBI keeps statitistics on gun crime which they update fairly regularly. Anyone wanting find such statistics should visit their site.

Owning "guns"
Left Angle: Maybe we keep weapons as protection against "liberals" like you! "Not as lean, not as mean, but still a Matine"! WW2.

Effective Legislation Continued
Here are some more elements of effective legislation to significantly drop rates of the four traditional violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault and murder where a gun is used, but which leaves the honest gun owner alone.

* Deny all parole for anyone convicted of one of the above crimes if a firearm was possessed, brandished or fired during the commission of the crime.

* Impose three strikes and you're out reforms for the four crimes listed above. For instance, two robberies and a rape and you'll NEVER GET OUT OF PRISON UNLESS IT'S IN A BODY BAG.

* Impose truth in sentencing reform for anyone convicted of a violent crime and make them completely serve the maximum sentence for the crime if a firearm was used in any way to commit the crime.

In short, we've got to refocus anti-crime efforts on the actual sources of guns used in crime and affect the mind of the criminal, by imposing additional prison and civil penalties if they choose a gun to commit a crime with.

These would be tremendously effective AND leave the lawful gun owner out of the loop.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter

Appology
Husker Jeff,

My apologies to you. I copied and pasted the wrong name. Post #55 was for Left Angle.

Left Angle, this is Right Angle, OVER!
I'll try multiple posts because I don't want to start a blog. . .

Thanks to Larry Elder for a great article!

Left Angle, this is "Right Angle" writing from Louisiana. I won't try to score cheap points on your misidentification of guns--you've admitted you don't have much knowledge of them. I will point out, however, that when gun-control advocates (like you, presumably) betray such a clear lack of technical knowledge, combined with your major emphasis on the "scary" nature of weapons technology and the implied "scary" nature of the people (like me) who own guns, you exhibit several of the major flaws in the gun-controllers' overall position.

Your technical ignorance leads you (?) to support bans on weapons with "scary" things like bayonet lugs, flash hiders, ventilated handguards, or perhaps the laser sights that seem to rattle you. To anyone with knowledge of firearms, it's patently obvious that these characteristics don't make any particular gun more lethal or "scary," much less criminal. Yet your emotional reaction is to support banning guns like that and override our individual Constitutional rights; that's one reason gun controllers tend to generate a pretty cynical response from many of us who very specifically believe in a natural right of self-defense against all comers, be they criminals or a tyrannical government.

More to follow. . .

More from Right Angle to Left Angle
(cont.)

Also, we get cynical because we know we're protecting you--yes, you--against the horrors of a world in which strong brutes have their way with the rest of us. You think, probably, that WE lawful citizens ARE the brutes, but let me assure you that we aren't. WE, not the police, are the main reason you have been able to live your life without guns and apparently without fear; the bad guys don't know which houses have US inside, and which have YOU inside. If they did know, rest assured you would soon see a need for better protection. If you disagree, then you should post a sign stating that your household is above such nastiness as protection and the struggle for survival, and that it is a gun-free zone NOT "protected by Smith & Wesson."

I wish our beloved press would provide you with the hundreds and thousands of stories in which lawful gun owners have prevented crimes by displaying, or occasionally using, their guns. If you could compare it with the fact that the police are generally there AFTERWARDS, to pursue the criminal rather than prevent the crime, you would see the distinction. Lacking any press cooperation for the foreseeable future, you should do some research. Look up John Lott and "More Guns, Less Crime" for starters. Also, read up about life in the frontier regions of the world and specifically of the USA, as we moved westward. Hard men (and hard women) often had their way with peaceable settlers, who didn't know what the pounding at the door might bring. (Does your heart beat faster when you answer your door at night?)

Still More from Right Angle
(cont.)
And yes, many of us see the government--especially the judicial branch over the last few decades--assuming powers it has no business exercising. No, few of us imagine it will come to outright armed resistance against our government in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, we believe that private possession of arms was intended to help establish a fundamental precept at the founding of our country: we citizens were the root of legitimate authority, not "The Government." Get rid of privately-owned guns, and you get rid of the idea that citizens have the right to exercise the ultimate power--armed force. Once you reserve that right to The Government alone, it's not only a separate entity from The People, it's a superior entity. Once it's a superior entity, then it's hand is likely to become heavier, and heavier, just like in Old Europe of the 18th Century. . .and often since. Once that trend begins, you won't get The Government to agree to reinstate natural rights that we gave away, or allowed it to take away. So, avoid the negative trend and retain the right that our Framers articulated as one of the natural rights of mankind.

Although I don't see myself shooting at soldiers (I was one for 24 years), let me offer something else for your consideration. As someone who lives upriver from New Orleans near a small town north of Baton Rouge, let me assure you that we were glad to have firearms when the evacuess from New Orleans arrived. Many were fine, and we extended helping hands in all kinds of ways. Others were demanding and belligerent, and still others were downright criminal. Guess where our tiny sheriff's department was? Yes, down in New Orleans, trying to help.
(MTF)

Au contraire, Left Angle
"I think you know perfectly well I didnt mean "laser rifle" as in sci-fi. I meant
"firearms equipped with a laser sight"."

Oh no, L.A., I assumed that you were educated, enlightened, and using terms you understood to discuss a subject of which you had some knowledge.

I'm frankly disappointed that's not the case. One, it raises the question about why anyone should take seriously anything you say. Two, I had already earmarked my recent bonus for a Laser Rifle.

Philadelphia May 3rd 2008
In Philadelphia on May 3rd of this year a Philly police officer was shot and killed when responding to a bank robbery as he was exiting his cruiser.

The shooter had many prior felonies including FOUR (4) ARMED robberies. He had enough felonies on his record to be in prison until the year 2036, but he was out free on parole with Philadelphia's failed criminal justice system.

His family would still have him around and a dangerous person who could not control himself, would have been in prison for another twenty eight years if my recommendations were implemented. Instead, the Mayor of Philadelphia and the Governor of Pennsylvania could only manage to support more gun control. How utterly pathetic.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter


Final note from Right Angle
Many NOPD officers left their posts to get their families out, and that contributed to the breakdown of order amidst the flooding. Oh by the way, that left citizens of N.O. on their own to protect themselves and their property from the looters, druggies and hellions who did their best to take over. And that's why many of the N.O. poor didn't evacuate--because they stayed in an attempt to protect what little they had from the looters!

I don't know where you live in Maryland, but I'll bet you don't go into large areas of Baltimore at any time of day or night, and you definitely wouldn't go there if natural disaster struck that city! And if the bad guys were flushed out of that hellhole--and it is one, as I saw when I lived in Edgewater, MD for 3 years--you would not feel safe with Baltimore toughs roaming streets that your police force had to leave unsecured while they went into Baltimore. . .and you might ask yourself "what now?"

In your case, you'd probably answer: I'll take the kids and go to Mom's in some other area, and count on insurance to cover my losses. Ma'am, I respectfully submit to you that most men do not want to see themselves that way. We do our best to look out for ourselves, help protect our neighbors, and back up our law enforcement agencies--they're our friends, relatives and neighbors, too. Please, PLEASE stop (1) viewing gun owning citizens as the same as gun-toting criminals! (2) demanding that free men live like the scared woman (and her scrambling, fleeing husband) on the Brinks commercials, breathing a sigh of relief when the strong voice on the other end of the line assures them that all is well, help is on the way.
Left Angle, we love gentle souls like you probably are. We don't want to entrust public policy to you and to your apparent emotionalism. We're independent-minded and insist on our rights, for ALL OF US.

In re: Ammo
Anti-gun scare stories always seem to throw numbers out without any relationship to how the ammo is packaged and sold or to how much is consumed at a time in normal use.

We currently have just shy of 1000 rounds of 9mm in the house right now. That sounds like a lot until you realize that just like buying groceries you *Shock! Gasp!* get a discount for case lots. In the case of the local gun store its a dollar a box. So a case, a little box not as big as your sneakers came in, saved us $10 -- just like when we bought a case of boneless chuck to put into the freezer last month.

As for normal use, ...

The local club had a benchrest .22 match last month. "Bulk pack" .22 comes in boxes of 500 (which are about the size of a roll of toilet paper). To prepare 4 shooters for that match and then compete in it, we used 2 of those boxes (yes, I know, we probably should have bought match ammo for the actual competition but we're on a budget).

When not buying bulk its usually 50 rounds to the box. Shotgun shells are 25/box and a single shooter out for a casual hour or so of breaking clay will sure shoot one box and may, if the range isn't too crowded and the recoil pad is good, may shoot 3-4 boxes.

Just the other day, when sighting my Mark III in at 25 yards and comparing 2 brands of ammo for the tightness of the groups I shot 150 rounds myself in about 2 hours. Not counting what my DH and DD shot through my gun or what DS#1 put through the rifle to sight it in after remounting the scope.

Yet, if we stacked up all the boxes 5 shooters used in the past month for every form of firearms we own the pile wouldn't be the size of my mid-tower desktop case. If it weren't for the bulk of the shotgun shells I could probably load those 3-5K rounds in my purse. Not that I'd want to try to lift the weight.

A pile that small isn't an arsenal by any faintly reasonable standard.

rights
Rights do not come from government. Rights are from God!

Kudos to Marc--great website!
Marc,
My compliments on your website, and especially on your approach to gun controllers. I think you hit the nail on the head when you assert that most of them simply want to help provide a safer society, even though they are going about it the wrong way.

I taught history at USMA for a number of years, and know from experience that most Americans love a good, historical story, but don't know a lot about history. They are present- and future-oriented, quite often, and don't tend to sift through the past to see trends. Thus, they may view 18th century concerns as dated, rather than timeless, woven within a fabric of natural rights doctrine that is central to our way of life. Thus the Left Angles can view "2nd Amendment / opposition to tyranny" as simply non-applicable in contemporary America. And since their own intentions are kind-hearted, they don't see Elder's citations of historical precedent (Stalin, Hitler, et al) as relevant.

Although I've given your website only a cursory once-over, it seems as full of good sense and sound recommendations as your posts. Keep up the good work, and Happy 4th of July to all Americans.

Left Angle
I found several articles on Suwei Chuang arrest and the so called arsenal. I found nothing on the disposition of the charges.

If none of the guns he had were fixed to fire fully automatic then there was no law broken. If that is your NRA arsenal then as I said before it is Bullcrap. There is no mention that I could find that he was an NRA memeber.

Well, I guess we have spanked you butt enough over you stupid post.

Onward!!!!

Response to all...
First of thanks for your responses and civility. I just wish more folks could have a disscussion of differing opinions without all the rancor. it's more interesting that way.

I never claimed I was a gun expert and I never said I was against anyone owning guns. somehow that got confused in the translation. lol
what I said is that i personally dont own any guns by choice even though I could easily have one. at times I have a bad temper....

my point and questions was that a lot of people that own handguns and rifles own what would be considered a "small arsenal" beyone just a few for hunting or home protection? you cannot tell me it isnt true because there are many states where you can apply for a "small arsenal liscense"

so the logical questions are why do you need that many guns and ammunition? when you arm
yourself in such a manner you are envisioning
a scenario in which you will have to defend yourself an use them as such...WHAT are those scenarios?

To Actually Eliminate Crime
This is part of a letter sent in response to Mayor Bloomberg's latest gun control drivel:

"Guns in the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens decrease crime, not increase it. “Gun control” laws are nothing but an empty, feel-good smokescreen to distract people from the real issue of solving crimes and punishing criminals. If Mayor Bloomberg actually wanted to reduce crime he’d end the catch-and-release-policing that puts offenders right back on the street without having seriously inconvenienced them, much less punished them.

If he wanted to chop crime to the lowest practical levels permitted by human nature he’d put time and money equivalent to all he’s put into his “gun control” efforts into providing a gun and a firearms safety course to every sane, adult, non-felon, citizen/legal resident in his city. It wouldn’t be all that expensive – widely-used models such as the Taurus 85 revolver in .38special and the Bersa Thunder semi-auto in .380 are available new for $300 or less and many NRA instructors would undoubtedly be willing to spend some time volunteering in NYC if their expenses were paid. It’s likely that wealthy donors concerned about reducing crime would assist with the funding too.

Instead of imagining a world without guns try imagining a world without helpless victims."

Still don't understand
The whole idea of arming yourself (Constitutionally speaking) is to protect yourself from an abusive government, not the occasional rabbit or burglar.

I think racism and other irrational fears are the main attraction to owning guns these days.

Many here support the wiretapping, the spying, the searches and seizures, and other unconstitutional happenings...so you can feel safe.

Why have the guns then, if the government will take care of you?




Left Angle,
Post 55 was accidentally mislabeled. It was for you.

Please tell me what is unreasonable and unjustified about the numbers and types of guns my household either owns or intends to acquire.

Not that I'm required to justify my gun buying in the eyes of anyone other than my husband (and that only on budgetary and household space allotment grounds).

JROTC...a response..
Lets get something straight.. i go ANYWHERE
i WANT TO GO.. toughest ghetto neigborhood to redneck..I really dont give a darn because I HAVE NO FEAR IN MY HEART...none whatsoever and you know what when I do I am UNARMED...and 98% of the time i am unthreatened. I get in and i get out.

What you dont realize it the reason people get attacked by gun-toting criminals has to do with you BODY language...if you carry yourself like WUSS then the average criminal can pick up on that and will attack you. you think they ARE NOT selective? get real.

Left Angle wants a scenario why people
feel it necessary to own guns. How about if Obama DOESN'T get elected?

Just Amend the document


The Constitution 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.

The constitution also says:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, … … .

So I say, rather than continue to violate the Constitution as originally written, let’s just make a small amendent.

It would then say,

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

Done and done.

Comments please


mother of 4: a response
if you want all those guns in your house then fine, thats your choice. I do not deny your right to have them. I just question your judgement especially being a "mother of 4"
guns n kids dont mix. lol

NO EXCUSE for IGNORANCE


There will always be those who post opinions on subjects of which they are ignorant; Left Angle being a classic example. She’s not only ignorant about guns, but of the laws governing guns; specifically the 2ed Amendment and the history surrounding its creation. In debating any subject a good rule to remember is: Prepare yourself with in-depth knowledge. Failure to do so gets your argument destroyed and you looking like a fool. Left Angle take note. Another problem for people like Left Angle who hate guns is that they’re disinclined to educate themselves on a subject they’re predisposed to dislike. It’s human nature. Even when they attempt to do so, their mind refuses to absorb much of the material. In other words; their heads are made up. They refuse to allow FACTS to interfere with their PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS. They argue from FEELINGS, rarely from FACTS. When a FACT refutes a FEELING, they ignore it. So when dealing with an IGNORANUS like Left Angle; its best to treat them like they treat FACTS........IGNORE THEM. You waste your time arguing with them. Their heads are buried so far into RECTAL DEPRIVATION that they will never see the light.

Left Angle
Let me answer as directly as I can: I own ten firearms currently. Most are pistols but I also own two rifles. The reason is simple: I shoot most of them fairly regularly and those I don't are used for home defense. One of my rifles rarely gets shot at all, but I like the brand and the caliber so I decided to keep it.

As for the term "arsenal" what constitutes one? More than three guns? More than five? More than twenty?

You seem to have this misconception that anyone with more than a certain number of guns is preparing for judgement day. The truth is, some folks just like guns. We like shooting them, fixing them, collecting by type. I really do not understand the problem.

I know a doctor who owns more than thirty pisols from the second world war. All are 32 caliber automatics with Nazi markings. He never shoots them. He just finds the type interesting.

As for your post to Mother of 4, having guns with kids depends very much on the kids. There are children out there who are significantly more gun savvy than some adults I have met. I knew a fellow who owned a gun shop. His eleven year old boy was around firearms all day, and sometimes even handed them to customers. He never once handled a weapon in an unsafe manner while I was there. In fact, he told me openly that he had little interest in guns and preferred fishing. I certainly would not suggest leaving a loaded gun where children can find it but one can certainly have kids and be a responsible gun owner.

Shooting is expensive
And that is the main reason I dont do it as much as I once did. Even those who reolad their own ammo are paying more than ever due to the cost of brass and copper.

Anyone can learn
Almost anyone can learn good gun safety. This anecdote should help to demonstrate that:

I had a very good friend who I took to the pistol range once in the 90s. We had not been there more than ten minutes before I had to take the gun away from him. He had a round in the chamber, the hammer back and was waving the gun around casually as he talked with other people. This was after I went over all the rules of gun safety, yet such recklessness continued until I told him he was no longer allowed to shoot.

Today that same man is a Sniper in the United States Secret Service. He recently told me of the reeming he took from his instructors when he first joined, and how they metaphoircally beat good gun sense into him within the first few days.

The moral of this story is that even the biggest gun idiot can learn to safely handle firearms of all kinds.

Left Angle, it's getting irritating
First, don't get preachy to Mother of 4. Obviously her kids "get it" and act responsibly with firearms. . .as do both of mine. My wife and daughters all know how to protect themselves if trouble comes looking for us here--and intruders can't see our body language from outside, at night. So, keep your nose out of my household.

Second, you're obviously rough & tough. Great, sell your body language techniques--we'll buy! (They're important, of course, but come on--YOU get real!) Millions of Americans apparently get this wrong annually, because they're victimized.

Third, come see my inner-city school and neighborhood where I work before you tell me I don't get it about things like body language.

Fourth, I'm glad LA and most other states don't try to impose "small arsenal licenses" on law-abiding citizens like me. It's none of their business, nor of yours, frankly, what I collect.

Try to limit my sister's collections of Depression glass, Blue Willow china, needlepoint pillows, books, and rhinos, plus her husband's collections of coins, stamps and records. They just added 1000 sq ft to their home to accommodate. If you think their collections are stupid and irresponsible, come try to scoff at or regulate them.

In short, I thought your comments about arsenal size wee based on the all-too-common concerns I thought I was addressing. Apparently, however, they are based instead upon your assumption that we are all maniacs bent on fighting the government in the streets, or on the assumption that guns are dangerous and we are irresponsible to own them. (Or you have the right to pass judgment on how many we own.) So, I'll chalk it up to "She's just a liberal busybody and I'm wasting my breath. Time to get outside and do the chores I should have done hours ago when the temp was lower. My mistake."

Response To Jim
Jim on amending the United States Constitution so a part of it can be more easily understood by modern-day minds will never happen. It's not a good idea for countless reasons.

Even though we came close to losing part of the Bill of Rights in D.C. v Heller, interpreting the Constitution to apply to modern-day situations is what the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is for.

Slapping that ball into the Legislative Branch and having a Democrat-led Congress re-write part of our Bill of Rights is NOT a good idea.

The Founding Fathers did not speak and write exactly as we do today. However, the plain meaning of the Constitution is exactly what it means.

Let me quote Thomas Jefferson just three years before he died:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter


JRoTc: what's irritating
is your condescending, concieted attitude, dude.

mother of 4 asked me a questions and i answered it...it's well know that keeping guns in the house is a prescription for disaster and family tragedy because while they might be in the house for protection, they end up being used relative on relative. there are countless examples of this.

I dont need a gun because i have self confidence in myself that i can take of myself in any situation, evidently you like most right-wing gun toters dont. you live in fear because you lack intestinal fortitude. a gun gives you a false sense of confidence that you dont have in youself in the first place...

frankly i could care less how many guns you have in your house...to me they are symbols of you own inadequacies.

btw: the next time you read my post, turn up the bass control nob.

JROTC Instructor
Thanks for the kind post earlier. I've taught gun safety to about 90,000 children and more than 400,000 other visitors. I stopped teaching in-person gun safety courses at my gun club, because I knew I could reach a ton more people online.

I personally do not know of anyone who is more concerned about guns and kids than myself. My son shot his first gun at age four (4). He could reliably unload a fully loaded semi-automatic handgun by himself at age six (6). I trusted my son around firearms more than most adults by the time he reached first grade.

But then again, he had an experienced teacher I suppose. The best time to teach kids about gun safety is when two things are present:

1.) An interest in firearms.

2.) Traits of personal responsibility such as reliably doing chores or taking care of a pet.

If those two things are not present, wait until they are. Each child matures at a different rate and learns at a different rate as well.

They need to be taught enough about guns and how to handle them to extinguish their curiosity. Beyond that, keep the guns locked away and tell them not to touch them until they "get it".

I also agree that putting off outdoor chores like cutting firewood for this winter was a bad choice. Off to wood cutting I go.

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com
NRA Certified Firearm Instructor
NRA Membership Recruiter


Jim: Re: “Just amend the Constitution”
An impractical idea, which I assume was posted in jest. Amending the Constitution, is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT task. (see article 5). This is especially true of the Bill of Rights, (so far never amended, nor likely be). And with the DC v Heller ruling, such an amendment is no longer necessary. Last night I meet with Stephen Halbrook and Don Kates, the 2 attorneys who prepared and argued DC v Heller case. We discussed where we go next, now that an Individual Right to bear arms is no longer in question. Both agreed that the next step is to incorporate section 1 of the 14th Amendment, so that no State may infringe on or abridge a privilege or Right granted under the Constitution. Once this is done, you will see the Right to Keep & Bear arms enforced uniformly in all 50 States and we will never hear from people like Left Angle again.

Re: Define "government forces"
"Firearms in the hands of citizens would only play a minor role in keeping tyranny in check today. It is far too easy for government forces to isolate and destroy small pockets of unorganized resistance."

In order to reach the "critical mass" necessary to overturn a "tyrannical government", fully 1/3 of the people must fully adopt the cause. The American Revolution never enjoyed the total support of more than 1/3 of the People, with 1/3 being Tories loyal to the Crown, and the other 1/3 wavering between the two sides depending on which way the wind was blowing at any given time.

While Tory militia served the Crown and fought against the Continental Army, the "heavy lifting" was handled by imported British "Redcoats" and paid imported mercenaries, such as the Hessians.

In the case of a present day revolution, the so called "government forces" would consist of our fellow Americans - our brothers, sisters, cousins, friends and neighbors. What leads you to believe that these "government forces" would so loyal to a tyrannical Federal Government that they would "isolate and destroy" without question their liberty seeking kin and country men?

Most members of our military are firm defenders of our Constitution. It is instructive to note how the Soviet military reacted during the "August (1991) Coup" that led to final breakup of the Soviet Union, in contrast to the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army's performance in the "Tiananmen Square Massacre". But even the ChiCom's couldn't rely on local troops to do their bidding and instead imported Army Units from far-off provinces to put down the people.

Well Done Mr. Elder
Your article is well written and based in historical fact. Why the Founders gave the citzenry the right to bear arms is self-evident (no pun intended)and is summed up eloquently in your article. I agree totally with you about how the DEMORAT party has changed over the years, alluding to Hubert Humphrey's insight on the subject of gun control. Good article!

LA
WOW, calling someone else concieted and condescending!! Amazing. This from the person who said if you own a firearm than it is an example of your own "innadiquacies"? Dude.

You came to this board in order to condescend and teach all of us "gun-toting" plebes a lesson. You don't want discussion, and that is clear by your posts. If you didn't care how many guns people own, or what kind, you would not have shown up here to comment. So don't get upset when your own condescending attitude gets thrown back in your face.


Left Angle
I was nice to you. Now, perhaps not so much. Your post at 2:11PM #88 was insulting. I have flagged your posts as offensive.

I assume that anti-gunners are good, well-intentioned and decent people, who just don't know what they're talking about. In your case I could be wrong. When personal insults begin instead of reasoned argument, what are we to think?

It's so typical that people of the anti-gun persuasion resort to insults and throwing hissy fits, when they have to face the fact that they're just simply wrong.

Maybe in the future, I will begin by insulting anti-gunners and save them the time and effort from being mean and insulting in response to reasoned and informed argument. Got to go for now, bye.


FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH


Please don't get me wrong. I'm not for gun control, I think we should have the right to bear arms. But in this day and age, I can't see where us, the citizens, being armed is going to do us much good other than for personal protection from criminals. The government has us out gunned. Every gun I own is but a pea shooter compared to the hardware the government can bring to bear on me. Did you ever see an AC-130? Man! That's some hardware! And another thing, is gasoline. If the government wants to “take over”, all they have to do is turn off the gasoline. I live more than sixty miles from any US military instillation. What does the government care if I have a gun if I have to walk sixty miles to shoot at them? Their AC-130's will find me and dispose of me long before I get close to any base. But the crooks, criminals ect, I doubt that they would out gun me, so when it comes to them and their kind, it makes sense for me to be armed.

Left Angle,
That's a cop-out. If you want us to justify our guns with scenarios where they're actually required we can demand that you explain why they aren't justified. My post in particular specified a number of particular guns, the use of which was either explained or should be obvious to anyone with the slightest familiarity with types of firearms.

Furthermore, you act as if you actually thought that we were leaving them lying around. Every single one is properly secured.

If you doubt that guns can be secured from children (and I'll admit that securing anything away from an intelligent, small child's hands is difficult), you need to go to http://www.corneredcat.com for a detailed exploration of how guns and kids can co-exist safely.

Three of the 5 shooters I discussed in the post about ammo use are kids -- 16, 14, and 8. The 8yo made a credible showing with his own rifle (a Davy Crickett, single-shot model specifically designed for safe use by children), even at 100 yards. He'll do better when he learns proper follow-through and even better than that when, having learned good technique with the iron sights, we let him have a scope.

With proper training and dilgent adult supervision, kids and firearms are a very good mix because shooting, like any sport, teaches many valuable lessons about responsibility and perseverance. Additionally, and unique to the shooting sports since adults and juniors compete against each other directly, it gives kids a rare opportunity to earn respect from adults for outperforming them on their own ground.

In our club anyone who beats one of 4 girls from a particular family knows that he's had a good day no matter how many gray hairs he has or how many years he's been shooting. Anyone who beats the oldest teen in that family probably won the match.

Re: Where is it written?
"Even though we came close to losing part of the Bill of Rights in D.C. v Heller, interpreting the Constitution to apply to modern-day situations is what the Judicial Branch of the United States Government is for."

Please provide the Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America that grants the Federal Judiciary the Power of "interpreting the Constitution to apply to modern-day situations".

In re: Body Language,
I've got great, "don't mess with me" body language and a "command voice" (I call it the MOM VOICE), that will make anyone who is accustomed to authority get 10 feet of air when I say "Jump!"

This does not change the fact that I'm 5'3", double my desirable weight, and encumbered from running by both my natural lack of athletic gifts and the toddler in his safety harness. Those facts mean that I have "prey" written all over me. The only think that can make a woman like me equal to even the most absolutely average man in a confrontation is a gun.

In a world without guns the strong oppress the weak and women are the property of any man who wants to take them.

Brinks Commercial
JROTC - good one! Just last night I saw that ad and turned to my husband to say - "yeah right." "Sure hon, YOU go see about the burglar, while I get my FNH 5.7 and cover your back." He said "how 'bout we BOTH get out the FNH's."

Mother of 4 - absolutely! Buying ammo by the case is the way to go; the 5.7 ammo by the case saved us $100 last time we purchased! Just wish it were more readily available!

Happy and Safe 4th to all.

Left Angle - promise us you won't go out and shoot a few into the air tomorrow to celebrate!


JUST Amend the document


SaveTheGuns.com
Location: ME
Reply # 87
Date: Jul 3, 2008 - 2:09 PM EST

Subject: Response To Jim
Jim on amending the United States Constitution so a part of it can be more easily understood by modern-day minds will never happen.


Ragnar
Location: CA
Reply # 90
Date: Jul 3, 2008 - 2:23 PM EST

Jim: Re: “Just amend the Constitution”
An impractical idea, which I assume was posted in jest. Amending the Constitution, is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT task. (see article 5).

=========

How ridiculous, you both would rather disobey what the Constitution really says, rather than correct it.

How many times have each of you complained because the Supremes came to a conclusion you didn’t like, and how much did you complain. And how many times did you say that just the Supremes saying it is so, doesn’t make it true.

Amend the second, and that’s all it would take. Of course it is difficult, and what of value isn’t?

And as for Article 5, you read it. Congress does not need to have a thing in the world to do with amending the Constitution, if enough people in the country wants it, it will happen.

Not over night, but it will happen.



Sunthe1: a response
evidently you havent been reading the responses to my post. I've been insulted numerous times and what is amazing is that it's for things I DINT SAY. the 2:11 post was to JROTC who said my post "irritated" him. the thing of it is if you dont like what I'm saying dont read or respond to it. lol

a lot of repubs/cons in are here are here of putting words in ones mouth and arguing points the person DIDNT SAY.

I defy you to go back read my post and show one instance where i said i was A ANTI-GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE. Also show me one post where I said I ADVOCATE OF TAKING PEOPLE GUNS AWAY FROM THEM OR THEIR ABILITY TO BUY, SELL OR OWN THEM.

yet and still folks are coming at me in a negative derogatory way as if I DID SAY THESE THINGS..LMAO

all i asked is why the need for small arsenals
beyond a few guns for home safety and hunting and what scenrios predicate having them..

still no answers. you tell me why?

Higene Re your response 2 John Acton
You fall into the same trap as “Left Angle”: Specifically; those who argue a position without doing their homework look like fools. (See my posts of 2:23 & 1:42 PM.)
Although the Declaration states our Right and Duty to “Alter or Abolish destructive government”; The Constitution DOES provide a means to “Alter” it, short of revolution. (See article 5). So if you’re unhappy with the decision of DC v Heller, you’re welcome to exercise your Unalienable Right, and attempt to amend any part of the Constitution you believe necessary to insure your peace of mind; including any article of the Bill of Rights. Lotsa luck on that one.

Note: It’s obvious from your post that you’ve never attended law school and lack a good foundation in how our government and the Constitution works. But a few hours of homework would be beneficial next time you post so as not to appear so ignorant.

Re: Hysterical Historians
"It's not in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence, which states that, 'Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it'."

Where does the does the Declaration of Independence of the United States "enumerate" the powers of the Federal Judiciary that wasn't even created for 10 years after it was written?

The Declaration of Independence does not establish the "powers" of government. It establishes the source and the powers of "the People" to govern themselves by a constitution creating their government for the SOLE purpose of "securing these unalienable, Creator given, rights". As for the Supremes being "people's representatives on the courts", when was the last time you voted for a US Supreme Court?

Nowhere in our Constitution will you find that the Federal Judiciary is empowered to interpret the "Constitution to apply to modern-day situations".

Don't believe me, then ask Alexander Hamilton the primary author of Article III, to wit:

"In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State." The Federalist No. 81
"The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority"

The power for the "national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution" was usurped by the Supreme Court itself when the Marshall Court agreed to hear and decide "Marbury v. Madison" (1801).

mother of 4: calm down...
like i said you can have all the guns in your home you want to have. I dont object to it because it's your right to do so. it's just something I WOULDNT DO. and i think for obvious reasons.

it's great your kids have all the requisite training and safety classes and that they are secured...but the thing is this...I've heard this same story youre telling me and time and again it has ended up in family tragedy with those same "secured" guns being used on family member vs family member..there are numerous examples of this that happen almost daily.
I sincerely hope it doesnt happen at your house.

Ragnar: looking like a fool? lmao
no hearing frompeople like left angle again?

i understand the 2nd and 14th amendment totally.

can you please show me the post where i identify my self as a anti-gun advocate?


this is totally hillarious.

Jim: Re “Amend the Document”
As previously mentioned, I met yesterday with Attorneys Stephen P. Halbrook and Don B. Kates Jr. who appeared in the Supreme Court to argue for Heller. Both are law professors and are recognized as 2 of the best 2ed Amendment Scholars in the country. If they tell me the way to go is to argue for incorporation of the 14th Amendment, I tend to follow this advice. Note: Im also an attorney but in am in another profession. But you’re welcome to get their email address on Google and contact them for amplification of this.

Higene
Frisco already restricts gun ownership to a Draconian degree. How exactly is your example relevant? Could these hooligans purchase the guns legally in a city where such transactions are forbidden? Moreover, I'm hardly surprised by the prevalence of gang activity in a liberal enclave. Left-wing crime deterents don't work.

Finally, when you so eloquently demanded that we "get rid of the freaking guns!" I assume you had an alternative plan in mind for warding off aggression. Please tell me, as nobody else from the left ever has an answer when asked how they would respond against a physically stronger force. Would you negotiate like Obama and Ahmadinijad? Would you simply accept "survival of the fittest"? Perhaps the liberal self defense course (where you learned a few eye gouges and arm locks on complacent participants) would come in handy. Somehow I doubt it...

TYRANNY
IF THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED BY TYRANNICAL DESPOTS IN AFRICA AND ELSEWHERE ROUND THE WORLD...HAD THEIR OWN WEAPONS...they would not have been slaughtered!

Left Angle
Well LA, it would appear that you want a reason for my collection of guns. Not that you will understand, but:

1. I hunt, kill, and eat wild game.
a. I have the following shotguns..A .410 for doves, a 20gauge for Grouse, a 12 gauge for Pheasants, and a 10 gauge for Turkey, Geese, and Ducks. About 50 rounds per each at a given time unless I am shooting clay birds when I'll have several hundred rounds.

2. I have numerous rifles,
a. 7mm for Elk & Moose & Bear
b. .243 for light varmit hunting
c. 30-30, 30-06 for deer
d. .22 Mag & .22 for Squirrel and Rabbit.

3. I have the following Pistols
a. .45 Home protection
b. .25 Cal Beretta ladies purse gun
c. .44 Mag for bear protection
d. 9mm for personal protection
e. .22 Target Pistol

Mostly I keep them for the purpose stated, but any can be used for anything that I might want to do regarding firearms. Target, hunting, protection, whatever I want. So do I have too many guns.

You seem to be so naive that you probably don't see a reason for 1 gun, but like a Carpenter, you can't do everything with only a hammer.

I hope you never suffer for your pollyanna attitude. There are bad people out there, and they will hurt you.

Regards





2 Left Dangle
Here's my "arsenal":
1 28 year old CVA Big Bore Mountain rifle in
.54 caliber percussion. That's a muzzleloader to you in Rio Linda.

1 custom built Tennessee Mountain rifle also in .54 caliber with swamped barrel in flintlock.

1 Marlin .22 rifle for tin cans and squirrels. The cans sometimes taste better actually.

WOW! What a "scary arsenal"!

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Left Angle
Seems to me I've read several answers to your repeated "scenario" and "arsenal" questions. Guess you're not reading them though......but here's another scenario, exactly opposite of Motley Crew's post - how about IF BHO does win?Terrorist attacks will happen in multiple big cities destroying what's left of our economy, and anarchy will rule those very streets. How then will you protect your family? My guess is you will run to your nearest neighbor who keeps an "arsenal" for protection! And if this future scenario doesn't do it for you all you have to do is look at what has already occurred; some of the folks who suffered thru Katrina (in New Orleans) and stayed, were only able to protect their property because they were armed! But then again, you probably do not support the idea of being able to protect property with force. Lastly, since I live and work in downtown Detroit, I wonder if you'd have the guts to walk down one of our west-side city streets after dark, with only your "body-language" as protection. Me, I'll take my .380 Colt every time!
Marc, Mother of 4, and JROTC Instructor KUDOS to all three of you for sensible, and intelligent posts! I LOVE reading posts from folks who know what they're talking about and can back up what they say with facts instead of "feelings"! Very Refreshing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice Story
http://www.local10.com/news/13594353/detail.html



.....
"Fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional retardation."

-Sigmund Freud

Ragnar
Concerning your 2:23 post: "We discussed where we go next, now that an Individual Right to bear arms is no longer in question."
Justice Scalia specifically addressed the Individual Right to KEEP Arms, but left restrictions of the Right to BEAR Arms in place.
I can understand a restriction on taking weapons into a court house and a requirement to only carry frangible ammunition onto an aircraft would be sensible, but why must I leave my personal protection in my vehicle when I enter the post office to check my mail or when I go onto a college campus. "Gun-free" zones are also "free-fire" zones for criminals.

INFRINGED????????
I have but one question that NO ONE has answered as of yet and that is this: How can you put Weapon / Gun Regulations and Shall not be INFRINGED in the same sentence?????? As the Court has just said it is a personal choice / right to have a Weapon / Gun. That makes it the LAW OF THE LAND and not the law of New York or Florida. Will this right only apply to D.C. a Non State????

Alopekos
Persistence against a tyrannical government will see to its overthrow. And at some point, if a government has to live in fear of its life and root out disorganized factions from time to time it would only serve to demonstrate how ineffective the tyranny has been to restore order. True, there would be terrible losses, but the militias would adapt far better than the government forces would because the government would think, invariably, that they are winning, and have no need to adapt. Increasingly, as was the case in the American Revolution, the more they face the militias, if their hubris doesn't get in their way, the better disciplined and trained the militias will be.

The Framers certainly didn't expect any revolution to be resolved overnight.


Higene
You obviously misinterpreted my question when I asked how you would respond to a violent attacker with superior strength.

Oh well...

I'm beginning to wonder if your response was satirical since you speak so fondly of Russia's government (gotta love Vladimir RasPutin). Regardless, you would be hard pressed to assert that the Second Amendment does not apply to ammunition. What kind of fool would honestly believe that our founding fathers wanted us to own guns but not ammunition? Sounds kind of pointless, no? If you think it will work, go ahead and break out your lawyers. We have ours (as you have witnessed).

I'll ask again, what will you do if you are attacked by someone stronger (armed or otherwise)? For your sake, you'd better have a plan.

Great Satan
Awesome quote!

Higene
"There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to 'keep and bear' ammunition. So, the Federal, State and Municipal Governments would be perfectly in their rights to confiscate all existing ammo and to control the production, importation, and distribution of any form of ammo, as BTW the Russians do."

So now we should emulate the Russians? Using that logic, we should also have periodic "purges"...and "five-year plans".

Maximilian
That's one of my favorite quotes.

Higene
Your argument seems to be that the SC has interpreted a clause in one Amendment incorrectly, therefore the rest of the Constitution is open to poor (activist) interpretation. My response would be that the SC needs to rethink its 5th Amendment interpretation.

But I disagree with your premise that the witness clause has been misinterpreted - at least, insofar as I can tell from the Bonds example you cited. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know exactly how the courts have interpreted that clause. I also know very little about the Bonds situation. But I'll take a stab at this anyway since you asked for my opinion.

Bonds could not have been compelled to testify against himself. You conflated being compelled to testify against oneself with Bonds being "subpoenaed (i.e. 'compelled') to appear before the grand jury". They're not the same thing. If Bonds testified, then he did so willingly as part of his defense strategy. I don't see how the "literal" interpretation that you think is different from the common view would have made any difference in this case.

Higene, Part II
I also don't think there's a real difference between the "literal" interpretation and the one you attributed to the courts. Your analogy to a waitress, making a distinction between "to be" and "to do," fails. If a person appears as "a witness against himself", he necessarily is testifying against himself (not the broader "giv[ing] evidence", as you put it, which the courts do not do or else no warrant could compel anyone to give blood for a DNA test - or even appear in a lineup for identification!). If he does not testify against himself, then he is not "a witness against himself". The waitress does not cease to be a waitress because she does not serve drinks. She could be temporarily assigned to other duties. A hostess could be asked one time to serve one drink to one customer without her suddenly becoming a waitress - you're dealing with arbitrary job descriptions, not a noun that is fundamentally and inalterably defined by what it does. The instant you compel someone to testify against himself ("to do"), you have made him a compulsory witness ("to be").

You're the one who wants "to parse the subtleties of the written constitution". My approach is the exact opposite.

Left Angle, close but no cigar
Left Angle, I'm sure you're a nice and well meaning person, but you're falling back on hysterics instead of facts.

A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay. This "astonishing" fact was recently brought to light by Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in the book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

Again, no one here is trying to be snide with you, but you're really coming across as hysterical and your argument is clearly not grounded in logic. Why do I "need" an "arsenal?" I don't. I CHOOSE to do so. For the same reason I choose to own an "arsenal" of music in my collection... because I choose to do so.

Higene
"The point is: We have to take the guns away from such people. They are dangerous animals. What good would it have done the man, or his sons, to have been armed at the time? What warning did they have that they should have shot first? If they had, they could easily have been the perps themselves, instead of the victims."

Any regulation that restricts the ownership of firearms only disarms the law-abiding. You have to understand that we live in a chaotic, competitive, violent world, and it will always be that way. Sometimes, the bad guys prevail, but so long as you undermine the tools necessary for good people to succeed and survive it will be very difficult for good to triumph. You cannot rely on government to protect you, because it simply can't be around all the time, and when law enforcement does come and help it is usually too late to be of any good.

Being a free citizen means you take full responsibility for your life and the lives under your care. This means trusting your fellow citizen enough with that responsibility, and when he abuses or misuses it, that's when society is obligated to take it away. But because some people choose to abuse their freedoms doesn't mean it's necessary to punish the rest of society who do not. It is impossible to prevent all tragedy, and one must be careful not to infringe on personal freedom while seeking to avert them.

Higene, 3:10 PM EST
The Declaration states that THE PEOPLE have the right to alter or abolish an oppressive gov't. It does not say that the gov't has the right to change itself to suit its own desires, which the SC often does in spite of the will of the people. Where was the consent of the people in Kelo?

The Declaration was citing the authority under which the colonies were justified in rebelling against the oppressive and tyrannical British gov't, the nature of which rendered it illegitimate. You're trying to twist that around to mean that the gov't can remake itself without regard to the law (the Constitution) that we the people ratified. In that constitution, we agreed to a process by which it can be changed: the amendment process.

Instituted is a key word you've ignored. The Constitution instituted our form of gov't. That gov't is bound to operate within those parameters or else it has become the very tyrant we sought to replace. In that case, as the Declaration states, we have the right to institute a new form of gov't. Form a new constitutional convention or propose an amendment, but do not claim that changing the constitution by judicial fiat is a legitimate function of gov't.

It's kind of surreal that I would have to explain this to you.

Gunz
Thank you Larry for a brilliant article. I's sure the pinko commie lefty libs would take the quotes you mentioned and skew them around to claim they mean something else. Hey left angle....Do you own more than one pair of shoes??? You wear different ones to fit the occasion right? That is why I own more than one gun (way more). All my guns were obtained legally and I keep them clean and maintained just like my cars (I also have more than one car, is that OK with you)? Oh yes, I am a cop and when I am off duty I am NEVER without either my Glock 23 or my trusty H&K 40. You also say you can handle yourself in any situation. Does that include a thug sticking a gun in your ear and saying "Gimme yo car Mfer. You are such a pathetic lib and you better thank your lucky start there are armed people around who would not only protect themselves with a gun but would also protect you. GOD bless America and long live the NRA!!!

Great aritcle and blogs--
We like for home protection the 28ga. Remington 870 pump that belonged to my late mother plus our own rifles and more 28ga. semis.
We use a #4 shot in the pump.
One never know these days when it will be necessary to protect your home.

Go Get 'em Sage!!
It is absolutely incredible that so many justices think that the second amendment is meant as a loophole opportunity to remove citizens' rights to bear arms.

Such numbskull opinions insure ever more that I will definitely be voting for McCain --- early and often!

anything is possible.


Ragnar
Location: CA
Reply # 11
======

Don’t say the Constitution can’t be amended. A bunch of drunks got together and passed the Amendment XXI, so anything is possible.

I won’t go into details, but in the mid-1970s, I came up with a solution to a problem people were complaining about, so I created a Proposition, got it passed through the Assembly and the Senate, and 3,021,947 Californians voted for “my” amendment to the Calif. Constitution, and 2,390,947 voted against, it and it is now part of Article xx, Section xx of the California Constitution. (No need to get started on that debate, so xx will do.)

So don’t say it is impossible.



TH error, not mine

That said Amendment XXI, when it left here. the 21st, in case the XX doesn't arrive again.

Higene - Lost In Translation
Higene offers, "There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to protect the right to 'keep and bear' ammunition."

Absurd!

Arms is a complete package. Without any of its components, including ammunition, it is not "arms", but a paper weight. And, if we are only talking about paper wieghts, it would not be in the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

Guns...
As a gun owner with a very "small arsenal" that consists of a .410 shotgun and a .45 caliber semi-auto pistol(for home defense and personal protection).

Given the criminal aspect in our world today, I refuse to be a victim. I am obligated to protect myself, my family, and my home. The 2nd Amendment has always given us("the people") that right despite the fact that it was written over 200 years ago.

I find it hard to believe that there are so many people who choose to let themselves be open to the possibilty of becoming a victim and quite possibly a statistic. It does not matter a whole lot to a criminal that one walks with an air of authority because he will get what he wants, no matter what...

I, along with my wife, have chosen to minimize the impact of a criminal act by refusing to become victims. Think about that...if one is able to level the playing field with a criminal by have a gun present and pointing at him, odds are that he will run like a bat out of hell if he is given the chance. You will still be a victim of a criminal act but you survived.

Founding citizens were yokals!
It should be noted that the author's citations do not hold together harmoniously. One person he quotes was imagining one situation, while another he quotes was imagining another situation.

1> WHO DO WE ATTACK TODAY? If we decide that Bush is unlawfully expanding executive power and wish to challenge him with out guns, who exactly do we rush out and kill, capture or conquor?

2> WE DO HAVE A STANDING ARMY. Many of these quotes seem to be aimed at a situation in which there is not standing army or imagines a standing army that has extremely less firepower that aroused citizes would have. Today, this is not true. Today, we have the most powerful army history has ever seen. Our standing army would crush a citizen uprising or a citizen militia like a bug.

3> OBJECTION TO A STANDING ARMY WAS THE POINT of some of those quotations. The citizens were to bear arms and use them in case the president decided he wanted to start a standing army. Presidents seem to have won that argument.

4> HAVING DEMOLISHED THIS AUTHOR'S THESIS the question has not been answered. Why in the 21st century when the army would make short work of an armed uprising of the citizenry, why do we bear arms in order to frighten the government that we will oppose the government?

Dear CLOTHs:
Dear CLOTHs (Closet Leftists on Townhall):

No explanation is owed to you as to how many guns anyone owns, what types they own, why they own them, or in what scenarios they expect to use them, although if you had read Mr. Elder's column, you would already know the answers to your irrational questions.

And if you and your ilk do not intend to implement any more collectivist laws or issue any more collectivist court rulings, then you should have absolutely no objection to this reason, now should you?

Further, if innocents lose their lives to gang violence, that is a crime and a tragedy, but it is not my fault or even my problem. My problem is to determine what types of weapons I need for my purposes and how to acquire them. If you are really so concerned about the lives of innocents, why do you protest every tightened-up criminal justice law or precedent in existence? If you do not take your own life seriously enough to recognize the potential use of guns in protecting it, then on what grounds can you possibly insist that we endanger our own lives - by foregoing guns - for the sake of yours?

For a people who readily admit to not having anything to do with guns, you sure are very arrogant in your opinions about what is or is not a reasonable level of guns&ammo ownership.

If you don't like gun freedoms in this country, you are free to move to another one. We were here first.

Most sincerely,

Wendy
Spirit of '76

Higene, In re #99
No. You are wrong.

IF you could read the Declaration of Independence that way it would not give the judiciary the right to change the meaning of the Constitution. Rather, it would give the people the right to abolish the Constitution and write a new one.

HOWEVER, The Constitution came after the Declaration of Independence so it supercedes the prior document. Additionally, the Constitution contains not one but two means of changing it in accordance with the will of the people -- either through the long, slow process of having states ratify proposed amendments or by gathering another Constitutional Conference.

The whim of the unelected judiciary is not part of either process.

Left Angle,
In re: post #106

Guns in a household do not cause domestic violence any more than table saws in the garage causes bookshelves.


Lefties,
Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean you can impose your "wishes" on everyone else. And all this nitpicking around the Constitution, such as saying ammo wasn't included, is truly ridiculous.

Higene, in re: #108
Were the gang members' guns legal or illegal?

If not, how would making them even more illegal have helped?

News flash!

Criminals do not obey laws. This is why we call them "criminals".

This ought to be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

Keeping criminals from getting and using guns is impossible. Even the most repressive of police states can’t achieve that despite draconian laws and Stalinesque police powers.

However, when criminals take the the streets an armed populace can resist and take them down. Had there been armed citizens in that neighborhood when the gang members started their "war" they could have been taken out long before they killed those unsuspecting motorists.

Higene, In re #144
Laws can change.

But only by being voided or altered by the duly elected legislatures.

Or, in the special case of The Constitution, by the amendment procedures specified in that document.

The judiciary is not the branch of government entrusted with making laws because they are not directly answerable to the people. The legislatures are the only bodies entitled to legislate. (Note blatently obvious similarity between those words due to their common Latin root).

Hubs: Statistics!
I had saved an article that gave statistics but unfortunately copied over it. I really don't take sides as far as the statistics go. Statistics are statistics.

But the article said that prowlers are as likely to get the gun in the home as is the home owner. Suicides are up. Domestic use of guns are a big statistic, bigger than shooting intruders. Rarely has a gun owner dealt successfully with an intruder. I was going to download the article to a thread such as this but, as I say, found it necessary to copy over.

Read the whole thing


Mother of 4 Location: NC
Reply # 140
Date: Jul 3, 2008 - 7:29 PM EST
Subject: Higene, In re #99

… … … either through the long, slow process of having states ratify proposed amendments or by gathering another Constitutional Conference.

The whim of the unelected judiciary is not part of either process.

==============

Come on Mother, read the whole Article 5, neither the Congress nor a Constitutional Convention, can change anything in the Constitution.

They can propose amendents, but the states must aprove in either case.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; etc., etc.





Still ridiculous Hygiene!
Keep trying though!

Why do we need an "arsenal" of guns?
For the exact same reason that a golfer has 14 golf clubs in his bag! Each club (gun) is the correct tool to use in a particular application and situation. Sure, the golfer could play a round with nothing but a 3-iron, but it would be incredibly frustrating, his performance would be poor, and he could never be competitive in his favorite sport. I could not shoot the National Match Course with a .22 plinker, nor would I ever try to introduce a new shooter to the sport with the match rifle!

Reply to Bobby in FL
Sheeple are typically not an imminent threat in a survival situation. It would not be honorable to "go after" the weak willed or defenseless.

Reply to John Acton #91
John,

I think that you made my point. I truly doubt that you could convince 1/3 of the population to revolt over an abstract concept such as individual liberty. Most people don't differentiate between freedom and liberty. Americans want comfort, prosperity and stability. They will sacrifice liberty for those things, as long as it is done incrementally by the statists.

Higene
Either you're being intentionally obtuse or you're simply not very bright, so this will be my last attempt to reason with you.

Forcing someone to stand trial, or to face a grand jury to determine if there should be a trial, is not the same as compelling someone to testify against oneself. Bonds could have opted to keep his mouth shut rather than perjure himself. He chose not to.

Bonds was subpoenaed to face a grand jury for possible indictment by the prosecutor, not "to provide evidence". You're implying that he was presumed guilty and was summoned to prove his innocence.

In your bizarre world, no court could ever compel anyone to stand trial. A defendant's mere presence in court would, according to your tortured reasoning, "compel" him to testify.

Compel: to force somebody to do something (Encarta dictionary)

Bonds was not forced to testify under threat of physical harm or imprisonment. He was forced to appear and face charges, but he chose to testify. There are cases every day in which defendants choose not to testify. Cases are not built solely upon confessions or denials, and neither of those is a guarantee of a conviction or acquittal, respectively.

If a defendant chooses to testify on his own behalf, he is not being "compelled" by anyone. You can search centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence and I'm sure you will not find a single example of a court agreeing with your absurd interpretation of "compel."

Gun Needs
LeftAngle - your posited questions themselves present evidence of an anti-gun stance. Not that it is absolute proof of it - but keep in mind that liberals such as yourself are keen on pointing out conservative "code" words every time affirmative action is discussed.

When liberals ask about why we need so many guns - it is usually set up as an argument to put limits on that right - not that many liberals believe it is a right of individuals.

You are either posing a serious question or belligerent questions. Since you have not accepted any answer I must assume the questions are sarcastic, and you would not accept any answer.

My answer to it will also be fairly sarcastic - I want as many guns as I want - not as many as I need. You probably think it frivolous - but there is much frivolity in the world and so what. You will definitely not reduce crime by limiting the number of firearms a person may procure - they are not who you have to worry about - it is the guy who only wants one.

Rely to Mike #121
Americans tire quickly even when OTHER people are making the sacrifices. How long would your militia be able to stay in the field against modern military and paramilitary force with the latest surveillance technology? What can be seen, can be killed.

I admire your conviction and would try to indirectly assist those who resist tyranny. I intend to move and lay low with my small fry until the smoke clears. I'm not a brave man and my idealism has diminished over the decades. I would choose to die protecting my small children from harm than leave them defenseless in a war zone. I'm merely a survivalist, not a revolutionary.

Hubert H.Humphrey
Could anyone believe Humphrey was a very liberal Senator? One of the most liberal,in fact. I can only say to the Democrats...'you've came a long way,Baby'.

Higene
Further clarification

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecutor is the only one who must provide evidence of a crime. All the defense needs to do is shoot holes in the prosecutor's evidence, and the overall case, to establish reasonable doubt. That often does not include the defendant testifying - for various strategic reasons.

Reply to Higene #151
You are kidding right? Completely disarm is your solution to the evil that lurks in man's heart

You are either completely naive or represent some quantum leap in human nature. I'm betting on the former.

Ban Ammunition
From a pure numbers standpoint, banning ammo makes even less sense than banning guns. You would have to ban lead, brass and gunpowder. It would likely be even less successful than banning drugs - considering that nearly everybody in the US has tried or knows someone who tried marijuana - or kids who get alcohol and cigarettes.

I believe the 5-4 decision prevented much violence - had it gone the other way, actions would have likely precipitated actions leading to civil war.

I give us about 25 years
Based upon our demgraphics, we will lose our gun rights in about 25 years. We are fixated on letting in as many immigrants as possible right now -- they will be voting way before any assimilation will occur. New voters and young voters will support politicians who ban guns and force gun owners to register guns. It might get ugly, it might not. I doubt that I will fight it out. The media will paint those who want to keep guns as radicals. The only guns that might be allowed would be single shot target and hunting guns -- the kind that help very little with an intruder.

I give us about 25 years
Based upon our demgraphics, we will lose our gun rights in about 25 years. We are fixated on letting in as many immigrants as possible right now -- they will be voting way before any assimilation will occur. New voters and young voters will support politicians who ban guns and force gun owners to register guns. It might get ugly, it might not. I doubt that I will fight it out. The media will paint those who want to keep guns as radicals. The only guns that might be allowed would be single shot target and hunting guns -- the kind that help very little with an intruder.

Spirit of Resistance
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Sadly, the spirit of resistance was not there when the CPS of Texas conducting the largest unlawful child abduction (children of FDLS) in US History.

The parents and others who value freedom should have been armed and resisted.




When was the law written? Wh cares.


Those of you who claim that ammunition is not included in the Second, should remember that a few years ago when VP Gore made illegal telephone calls from his VP office, he said, “That law does not apply to the telephone, phones did not exist when that law was written.”

At the time, I made a phone call to a TV program, live, and reminded them that they did not have freedom of speech because TV did not exist when the First Ad was written.


Higene the hyena!!!
The tech argument holds NO water. Otherwise we could shut down ANY publication that doesn't use a primitive one sheet at a time hand cranked press. We could shut down ALL electronic media as that was NEVER imagined in an age where instant communication past 100 feet was impossible.

Try selling THAT the to antigun media you orc.

Watch a reenactment. The Rev War guys carry at least FIFTY cartridges in boxes on their belts. These are paper tubes wrapped around a ball with the powder inside. This allowed a trained Redcoat to get off 4-5 shots/MINUTE when a long rifle (I know from long practice) takes about a minute to fire a second shot. THAT was the assault weapon, the AK-47 of its day.

Ray
NRA Life Member

God and Country....
There seems to be some on this page, who crept from underneath rocks, or the moveon.org crowd, to voice their opinion. Protecting one's family is a given. I don't own a gun, but would still use a bat on any intruder, armed or not. In the case of tyrany or terrorism, I would easily take up arms to save my Country. Our Men and Women in uniform do it everyday! So in comparison, those of you who would rather lay down your arms than fight for the US of A, are pathetic!! Just wrap yourself in the Flag, as you step on the bodies of those who died for this country, as you tell them they died in vain. No argument can you shout, or foul language laced comments aimed at us who understand what Liberty is, can deter us. Nor can it disprove your cowardice!!

Sorry, Larry,
The government already has raised the army to face the citizens. No, not the United States Army. This is an army beholden only to the government and it does not care one whit about the Constitution, your Second Amendment or any other rights. All the government has to do to issue this new 'army' marching orders is to pass a law and tell this 'army' to go enforce the law. This 'army' is the alphabet agencies that the government has formed ostensibly to combat moonshiners, drug runners or interstate criminals. The ATF, the DEA, the FBI will rush to enforce, with overwhelming force, any law the government enacts without regard to the constitutionality of the law. They proved that at Ruby Ridge and Waco and probably a few other places we have not heard about. Local police departments do not need SWAT teams or snipers. They would rather batter the door down, run in wearing their black jump suits and ski masks and terrorize their prey instead of just cutting off the utilities and waiting. (You cannot stay in a house for long without food and water.)
Local SWAT teams, local snipers will team up with whichever alphabet 'army' the government sends to enforce their laws. And they will enforce the laws without regard to constitutionality.

Independence Day
Happy 4th of July to everyone. Especially all service connected families!!!

WHAT new direction?
In 1976 only ONE state had statwide preemption laws re: gun carriage. 32 years later the PEOPLE demanded and GOT laws favoring CCW in a total of FORTY STATES!!! WHAT trend are you imagining? With the exception of a few Sheeple's Republics like CA, MA, IL, WA, OR, MN and a few others the trend is TOWARD more CCW.

-Ray
NRA Life Member

Higene -- Stew
"The Constitution did not 'supercede' the Declaration of Independence."

The Declaration of Independence has absolutely no force of law.

"I really have difficulty understanding how any group of people (e.g. the majority of TH'ers) can adhere to the idea that laws, the creation of them, and the interpretation of them, cannot and must not yield to changes within human society. If you develop a recipe for making stew, but essential ingredients cease to exist, how can keep making the same stew?"

Here's an idea. Since television, radio, the Internet, and indeed, even the ingredients, components, machinery and methods of making newspapers, did not exist in the 18th century, why don't we dispense with the First Amendment?

Ammunition ban stupidity
It is not only the right to keep arms or have them - but to bear them - as in bring them to bear. How can you bring any arms to bear without ammunition? Of course, it will take 35 or so years to get a court to recognize it - and by then maybe not.

I guess I had better learn how to reload my own ammo.

This will become like free speech zones (which libs also endorse) - you can say anything you want - over there, not there - over in that caged area well away from anyone who can hear you. It is another cynical runaround limiting our rights.

A ban on ammo also ignores the preface for why you have an armed populace - for the security of a free state. Libs only agreed with that part of the 2nd amendment when they thought it was a cleaver justification to disarm the law abiding citizen.

Is that you Sarah Brady?
Higene,

Why don't you test out your ideas first in Darfur? From what I can see you have the situation halfway solved. An unarmed refugee population faces militia groups who rape and pillage the innocents. Go over and abolish the janjaweed's ability to use firearms.

If it doesn't work there (and you're still alive) you can find at least a dozen places in the world where your vision is even more urgently needed. We're just not ready for your wisdom here in the USA.

Left Angle -- NRA Arsenals
"If you check with the average NRA owner and ask to see what guns they have collected you will be stunned by what they show you.

These people dont have a single pistol for home protection or a rifle for hunting. What they have are small "arsenals" with the latest firepower of automatic and semi-automatic handguns and the latest highpowerd laser rifles. "

And you base this assertion on, ... what, exactly?

Have you taken an exhaustive survey of NRA members?

Have you heard of some study in this area?

Has the NRA published any statistics irt their membership?

Or are you simply parroting some scare stories you've heard?

Disarm the government
I will take Washington's stance on arms control. During the continental congress - it was suggested that the US ban standing armies, later to limit the number in a standing army. Washington (who rarely said anything during these procedings) stated that he would agree to that, as long as the enemy were not allowed to have more troops than we have. Kinda killed the mood.

I say that citizens should only disarm if the government is disarmed. Even then - I will only disarm when EVERYONE else has disarmed.

The "we are out gunned" argument is so unbelievably stupid on it's face - pushed by the same people who think it is impossible for our military to subdue cave dwellers with 50 year old rifles.

antiquated rights
Since Wilson's days - it has been stated that the Constitution is antiquated and should be ignored. This is mostly because it gets in the way of and is inconvenient to government busybodies who want to run every aspect of daily life.