What Guns Would the Founders Ban?
This nation’s founding fathers were brilliant men. The documents they created more than 230 years ago are the bedrock of a system of government that has endured longer than any other. Since our republic was founded, France has gone through five constitutions. European kingdoms that once saw us as a useful foil in their own struggles no longer exist. Russia’s czars have gone to dust; communism has risen and fallen away.
Our enduring Constitution and its Bill of Rights are magnificently clear to all Americans — with the glaring exception of certain individuals and groups. Some even obscure and distort the plain intent of our founders in order to impose their own peculiar political views.
In the modern age, no constitutional declaration of intent has been abused more than the Second Amendment, which plainly reads:
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.
Despite its slightly archaic grammar, it is a simple statement, easily understood.
Our young nation had just burst forth thanks to the grit of a disheveled army of citizen-soldiers — one which overcame what was then the greatest military power in the world. From firsthand experience, those citizen-soldiers knew that the civilian ownership of arms suitable for military use was vital, both to their new nation’s existence and to the continued existence of their liberty itself.
Hunting and target practice were not cited as justification for the amendment.
Several weeks ago, Jared Loughner used a Glock 19 9mm pistol with an extended magazine to kill six people and wound 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the apparent target of his assassination attempt.
The mental health system and the local sheriff’s office are to blame for Loughner’s possession of the weapon used in his massacre. But gun control advocates are using the tragedy to claim that legislation should be passed to limit the magazine capacity of firearms to 10 rounds. Their pretext is that they can see “no sporting purpose” — that 30-round magazines are not useful for hunting, target shooting, or even concealed carry.
They are, by and large, correct. And their argument is utterly irrelevant.
The founders wanted to preserve the access of the American people to the kinds of arms necessary for the kind of militia that could keep a free state secure. They didn’t write a Constitutional amendment to ensure that Billy can hunt squirrels or Becky can shoot paper targets. They wrote a law to ensure we would not lose our most basic protection against tyranny without and within.
The rejoinder is a familiar one. “But the founders couldn’t have foreseen the advent of machine guns, and rocket launchers, and nuclear weapons.” It’s irrelevant, too — an attempt to deflect the argument away from the founders’ intent. No rational person is arguing that the general public should equip itself with crew-served, area-obliterating weapons, artillery, and bombs. The clear intention of the founders was to make sure the people have individual arms of the sort suited to equipping a militia.
it might be wise to compare weaponry available to the common people and what they had to face if we are going to make comparisons between ourselves and the people living during the creation of our nation;
The blunderbluss was a early version of the modern shotgun. It had a shorter barrel that was flared at the business end. Common used as a light cannon it was loaded up with lead shot, rocks, glass, steel weights, and piano wire soldered to weights which became a flying guillotine to dismember and behead groups of people.
Swords, bayonets, sabre, tree axe, pole axe, large knife, throwing knives and axes, all types of farming implements that inflict grievous bodily injury.
Horse drawn light and heavy cannons loaded with grape shot or welded chain drawn between cannon, ( a heavier version of the flying guillotine for the blunderbluss, used to dismember mounted calvary and rows of infantry), or also loaded with whatever could inflict injury such as metal shards, broken glass, rocks, etc.
an AR-15 is pretty tame weaponry compared to what our ancestors faced, in addition wounds killed slowly as result of infections and lack of medical attention. It was a rough world, and survival depending on being as heavily armed as the other side.
The sad truth is, that we can no longer can expect our corrupt representatives to protect the people. This also involves our police force, which many are corrupt. We have so many law enforcement agencies that they are actually tripping over each other trying to prove they are the best to receive more federal money. How long do we have to fight a war on drugs and are losing ground. When the government tries to take away our right to bare arms. Then they make law biding citizens criminals and criminals just make more money selling another illegal product. Our Founders want the people to bare arms to protect themselves from our own government. Why do we let some bureaucrat sitting safely in a government protected office, tell us what we can and can not carry?
Honestly, I suspect they would wounder why everyone doesn’t have an anti-tank weapon in their closet. If the British Army could have had tanks, they would have had tanks, and a 9mm pistol isn’t going to do much against one of those.
This is the least thought out argument that I have seen yet — but watch this space … I haven’t had the chance to read further yet.
In what fantasy universe would you believe that anyone who has any knowlege of firearms would consider fighting a tank with a 9m/m pistol? If you are trying to demonstrate the futility of disparte firarms in combat, then try to come up with something that isn’t so rediculous. Next you’ll be telling us that you can’t fight an F-22 with a 65hp Piper Cub. Or how about telling us that we couldn’t fight a Battleship from a kyak! Such irrevelatn relevations only make you look incapable of truely informed thought.
’nuff said
No…but someone who knows how to lead a target firing rounds from a reasonably decent caliber gatling gun could give even a lower-flying F-22 a bad day.
A pickup mounted 20mm firing DU or Tungsten rounds CAN bring harm to a tank or other armored units.
In your haste to make voyager look bad, it appears that you have completely missed his point. Which, by the way is valid.
Carpathian, I rather think perhaps I have a better knowledge of both firearms and what is currently called “asymmetrical warfare” than you do, and yes, if all I were armed with was a 9mm pistol and I was facing a tank, I wouldn’t wet my knickers at the thought. “Why?” you may ask. And that’s a legitimate question.
You see, my pistol wouldn’t be the *only* thing I was armed with…. Whether I’m carrying or not, my mind is my most dangerous weapon (as it is with anyone who keeps their wits around them). While not everyone can mix up napalm, I think that most of us know how to make your basic “Molotov cocktail”. And I believe that a Molotov tossed onto the rear deck of a tank (where the air intakes for the engine are) might make things a bit hot (so to speak) for the crew.
And that’s where the pistol comes in, eh?
The 9 mm may not be much good against a tank, but when I use the 9 mm to kill an opposing soldier and take his weapons, including his Light Anti-tank Weapon (LAW) I will be in possession of more weapons to do the job, still including the 9 mm side arm I started with. Liberals and those who know nothing of military tactics often make that kind mistake. This is very basic military training for those who have served. The second amendment is about your right and responsibility to defend yourself, your family, and your community.
Unfortunately the author isn’t very well versed in history. When the British set out for Lexington and Concord to seize the arms of the “rebels” these included shot, shell, and cannon. I would further ask someone to tell me what weapons the British Army possessed that the colonists didn’t and which the Founders didn’t envision as being available to the citizens. If machineguns, etc are to be out of bounds surely the militia would have been denied an equivalent armament when compared to the British Army?
No the Founders knew that an armed people was a defense against a government that felt itself no longer bound by laws or the constraints of the Constitution.
See comment below. In understanding this argument you must differentiate between the weapons that people were/are expected to have on hand, and those that would be supplied by the military. In this case, I believe, the cannon etc were property of the state militia, not individual soldiers.
Heavy arms were not supplied by the state but usually provided by the community itself, just as fire fighting equipment or the materials for the police were raised. The British didn’t provide it.
It might interest you that much of the confusion regarding the 2nd amendment stems from the phrase “well regulated militia.” This is due to the change in the use of English through the centuries. At the time of the founders this mean “equipped” rather than “controlled.” This is confirmed by the militia laws of the 18th Century which required all able bodied males to provide their own arms and munitions while serving in the militia.
I find it difficult to believe the founders really intended the state to have a monopoly on weapons or to allow the state to maintain security forces that were better equipped than the militia.
The Federalists Papers simply give no evidence of this. If it does perhaps you’d be kind enough to cite the relevant article for all of us to see.
While we ponder the definition of “well regulated”, and I don’t dispute it also meant well trained or equipped, I think it ALSO had another definition that continues being ignored.
The founders were very concerned that a standing army or militia could be used by those not faithful to the country or constitution to overthrow the government of the people, for the people. So they, knowing that any MILITIA or MILITARY would need to be “REGULATED” to prevent it getting out of control, wrote the 2cd amendment.
HOW do you regulate a militia? THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! By having ALL the PEOPLE be the “regulators”!
This has worked so well now for over two hundred years, and is still working well today. This is evidenced by how the left fear our RIGHT to bear arms. An ARMED man is a CITIZEN, an unarmed is a SUBJECT. This is clearly evidenced by the thread by our Australian cousins above (thread# 3), who are are now noticing the CONTEMPT of their government! One only needs to look at WHO the DHS declared to be potential terrorists, rednecks with 2cd amendment bumper stickers, gun owners, TEA party members, and ex-military and VETERANS, who are trained and have put their ASS on the line and fought for the Country and CONSTITUTION THEY HAVE SWORN to uphold! I could go on and on, but WE the people are the regulators, and I for one am NEVER going to allow a two bit lawyer like Breyer to declare my RIGHT invalid. I hope all of you feel the same way.
I live in Australia,and we have not had guns since the 90s I think.I used to think that everyone owning a gun was mad and dangerous. NOW,I think that with your President and Senate,you need them now more than ever.
I have also heard that as a result of eliminating guns in your country, that the crime rate shot up, especially home invasion. Any credit to that story??
As Americans, we seem to take pride in the fact that our president and his party are trying as hard as possible to destroy all aspects of this country. This is helped along by the other party and their attempts to make sure that no ones feelings are hurt or that the press feels comfortable. So, yes, guns are a necessity.
Violent home invasions went up, and the most important thing is that homicide by gun *did not decrease*, suicide by firearm, however, *did*.
All the anti-gun nuts pull out the old chart showing the decline in “gun deaths” after the new gun laws and hop all over the place patting themselves on the back. But “gun deaths” *includes suicide*. After our Federal Government strong armed our states to ban guns for the majority, people attempting suicide did stop using guns. Instead they simply started hanging themselves. Suicide by hanging increased at exactly the rate that suicide by gun decreased. So apparent was the phenomenon a study was conducted on it: http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.33.2.151.2277
Crime involving firearms has not decreased at a rate any faster than before the gun laws.
What has *noticeably* increased on the other hand is the belligerence of our political class, especially state governments. Now that they don’t have to worry about ugly things like a little insurrection here and there when they close down entire towns and districts because they make a living in a way that a few inner city lefties don’t like (rural forestry and with it a couple of towns and thousands of families livelihoods in an area of one state was shutdown purely to appease the smug urban inner city lefties said the minister responsible). Or when they forced (in all but name) collectivising legislation on farmers basically making them little more than state managers of their farms.
When the governments realise they can push and push and push and do anything they like to people, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it except yell and rant and rave, that’s when we get despostism, which in this state we’ve had a hint of with the current joke of an administration.
Finally, conservative estimates are that there were between 1.2 and 2 million firearms in Australia before the gun buyback. The government bought back 700,000.
Many (otherwise) proud law abiding men didn’t hand their guns in, no huss, no fuss, they simply put them away in a “safe” place. There’s still plenty of guns in this country, people like the OP don’t understand that because they don’t see any on the streets (though there’s multiple shootings a week in nearly every capital city yet the the dots don’t connect). But they wouldn’t have seen any *before* the buy back either, living a middle class life in the ‘burbs.
Check in the roofspace or under the floor or wrapped up in old rags stashed in most houses out in the country, and a few in the cities and you’ll find out what is meant when Aussies described as having an anti-authority streak.
Also there’s currently 10,000 guns a year being sold in my state alone, despite the totalitarian gun laws. Yet city people tend to think there’s no guns in this country.
There’s still millions of guns in this country mate.
Many in the hands of criminals, but many legally owned and many that were just not handed in.
Secondly we have an out and proud Fabian Socialist as prime minister, installed once by union bag-men after deposing the elected Prime Minister of the nation in what is very close to banana republic style politics. A Prime Minister who serves now only after bribing two “independent” representatives with billions of dollars of our as yet unborn grand-children’s money to lend her their support.
A prime minister who was a committee member of the radical left wing Socialist Forum until she was 40, who wrote a white paper for said forum on how the only way the revolutionary Socialists can take power in Australia is by co-opting the centre left institutions; aka the Labor party and Unions.
She’s spent our Grandchildren into debt and seeks to spend their grandchildren into debt as well, a staple tactic of Fabian Socialists (see : Gordon Brown’s UK another result of an out and proud Fabian) and is letting in 300k people a year into a country of 20 million, a huge percentage of whom are of course from the least desirable cultures (item two in the Fabian manual on how to bring a western country into Socialism: balkanize it, again witness the UK under Brown).
We’re in far worse shape that the U.S politically at the current time.
What say you now about guns and madmen?
As an American who came here to Australia with my sons,I have to totally agree with the comments about Gillard and her cronies.
I have been told (as a class A/B firearms owner, by the Fed and Firearms police) to be sure and put one in the ceiling if you get my drift. I look forward to the day that these progressive assh*les are voted out.
I see that there is a Teaparty and also an Australian Libertarian party starting up. Maybe we can be rid of them soon!
Obviously YOU are not well versed in history, either.
To feel unconstrained by our constitution, one must first HAVE a Constitution. The Revolution was fought, both as Rebellion and Formal Revolution, from Lexington in 1775 to the signing of the Treaty in 1783.
The Constitution’s first draft was penned in 1787, four years after the close of hostilities … and the bill of rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added in 1791.
No one could use weapons outside the bounds of a constitution when there WAS NO CONSTITUTION. And no where does the constitution describe what weapons were prohibited.
And, dear sir, a Militia was– and still is — constituted of the whole of the population (with exceptions)who were expected to show for muster bringing their own arms and equipment. And no, the National Guard is NOT the militia — although it was considered to be part of the militia until the federal government claimed absolute authority over it and made it part of the Reserve forces.
No, the Militia, as per the Militia Act as written and updated for more than 200 years declares the People as a whole to be the Militia. Both You and I are part of our respective militias … thts just how it goes.
Please read a book about the time period 1763 to 1788 …preferably one that doesn’t rely too heavily on pictures.
’nuff said
This non-issue has been with us long enough.
The Second Amendment’s guarantees are constrained by the overarching realm of property rights. The whole of property-rights law rests on a very small number of requirements:
1. The thing owned must have been acquired either by:
– homesteading: That is, it was previously owned by no one, and the owner gathered it in by his own action or the action of a contracted agent;
– trade: That is, it was previously legitimately owned by another, who parted with it voluntarily in exchange for some other consideration, or none.
2. The thing owned must be held apart from the common: That is, the owner must sustain his claim of ownership by assertion, use, and the maintenance of the thing in an “improved” state.
3. The thing owned must be within one’s adequate control: That is, one must be able to make reasonable guarantees that neither its possession nor its use will infringe upon the rights of any innocent party.
It’s at least thinkable that a private citizen could make or trade for a nuclear weapon. It’s possible that he could exclude others from its use and keep it in a safely “improved” condition. But how could he use it while guaranteeing that no innocent person would be harmed?
Armored weapons platforms, full-auto weapons, crew-served weapons, and explosive ordnance pose a “gray zone” problem, as it’s at least thinkable that the test of adequate control could be met by sufficiently skilled operators.
For a more complete discussion of the matter, see this essay.
Let’s address something here. Do you know expensive an anti-tank rocket is? Even if it were legal for someone to own one, its not something you just whip out. Unless you want to kill someone with the back blast, its pretty ridiculous to think it is going to be used in any way other than the way it was designed. At what time would anyone citizen with anti-tank weapon have a chance to use it as intended. Easy, either our own government, or a foreign government is attempting to impose martial law on the general populace. In which case, good on you, sir, for investing all that money in an anti-tank rocket to aid the cause of freedom.
Can’t be that expensive anywhere except the USA, as the pictures and videos show every other terrorist in the mid-east has one. AK-47′s are about $50 each everywhere in the world except here, and the government “regulations” run them up to at least $450, so anti-tank equip would be affordable here.
Citizens in our early history had WARSHIPS! WITH CANNON! Imagine! We should be allowed to have any armament we can carry or bear!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have been saying and posting forever, that the Second Amendment was about protecting the ownership of weapons suitable for militia use, that means weapons suitable for war NOT hunting.
While hunting weapons and military weapons were similar in the 1700s, they are not similar today. The so called “assault rifles” are the very weapons the Founders would have wanted in the hands of todays civilians. Finally, someone has spoken the clear truth that has been lacking in the gun control debate.
Now, if only those idiots at the Huffington Post would read your article!!!
kjatexas,
Absolutely correct !!!
In fact, your comment was formalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Miller case, where the court stated that a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd amendment because it was not a weapon in use by the military. (The court was in error on this point because they were not informed of the large inventory of sawed-off shotguns in the Army’s armories).
The concept was that the militia … at least as an infantry component … should have capabilities in armament equal to our standing army. Now, in those days, it was a bolt action Springfield 1903 with a 16-inch bayonette. We have since achieved new and more advanced weapons of battlefield slaughter — and those would be covered under Miller.
’nuff said
“Their pretext is that they can see “no sporting purpose” — that 30-round magazines are not useful for hunting, target shooting, or even concealed carry.
They are, by and large, correct. And their argument is utterly irrelevant.”
Bull! My AK47′s have 30-round mags that are perfect for hunting, target shooting and even concealed carry. You one of them grabbers?
“No rational person is arguing that the general public should equip itself with crew-served, area-obliterating weapons, artillery, and bombs.”
So, we should ban tanks and fighter jets (they currently own) from law-abiding Americans? We the People ought to be able to posses every kind of weaponry to be able to beat the enemy – foreign or domestic. That was the original intent of the Seconal Amendment.
If you need a 30-round mag for hunting, you’re a pretty piss-poor shot.
What of it? It’s his decision and his money that buys the ammo. Not yours. And I’ve found reloading a mag to be a pain some times.
Like my father used to say – “The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting…”
Who said anything about missing? YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE MISSING THE POINT
Pretty piss-poor comment.
Magazines for weapons that shoot animals that are bagged and tagged are restricted to 5 rounds in many states. But there are plenty of critters that you don’t need to bag and tag – nuisance animals, a/k/a varmints. You can’t carry enough rounds to kill hogs.
I hunt with a compound bow. I defend my property and my family with rifles and shotguns.
The point is that we have the right to defend ourselves and our property. If we seek to limit the ownership of arms, then it should be according to what land and property we live upon and seek to defend.
In this manner, cities may need to restrict self defense weaponry to something reasonable. However, they can not ban them altogether. That is why Heller won against the city of Washington DC.
Thus, someone who wants to own a weapon of mass destruction had better be living on an awfully large place. But if you happen to be Tom Clancy and you want to own a tank, I see nothing wrong with that.
I’m not rich. I hunt with my 6.8 SPC AR-15. I do not take a magazine, and I load it single shot and carry a few extra rounds in my pocket. It’s actually less powerful than a 30-30 or a .308, which is a common hunting rifle cartridge. I’ve had plenty of arguments with other hunters about using it and giving the antis ammunition (ha), but I don’t need another gun. It’s a versatile platform. I can swap out a hunting scope with an ACOG, or just use the ACOG, or even a post and aperture if I’m feeling particularly adventurous. However, if I have to defend my home, I can always put in the magazine. Simple, huh?
I would love to have the license and the funds to afford a fighter jet. The government does sell them as one of the recent presidents of GM had his own F-5 and one of my neighbors in Bel Air MD had one (he crashed it at an air show and was killed). In addition, they also sell them off for parts such as the engines for use in jet funny cars and jet dragsters.
personally, i would go with one of those a-10 warthogs (firing that cannon would be so satisfying)
My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it.
Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed.
Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least.
A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.
In the decades before the world wars, German criminologists defined The State as “that institution which reserves unto itself the legitimate use of force in society” — and this concept has, unfortunately, affected European gun laws. However, I assert that the concept of SELF-government means that private citizens may also retain rights to the LEGITIMATE use of deadly force.
Every King and dictator claims to be governing “for the people” — but the American and Swiss traditions of an armed populace ensures that we remain a government “OF the People, BY the People and (not merely) for the People.”
Since we were not there we can assume that you are correct based on the writings of these great thinkers and freedom fighters. You are certainly more qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court then a few of them. Just the opinion by Justice Breyer that Adams only added the 2nd Amendment to appease the states shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution. The only facts we had from that time, the Federalist Papers, were either not read or were skewed but how you come to that conclusion is beyond any of us that have read it. Kinda reminds us of health care legislation. Why read it? Would they have set limits on hand grenades and RPG? Probably just to stop the flow of grenades and RPG from our gun stores to the Mexican cartels. Yes, that lie is about as ridiculous as the opinion, except maybe to a TV news person.
Good stuff to think about. It is illegal for the army to be used against US citizens. But think of all the law enforcement agencies out there: local police, sheriffs, county constables, state troopers, FBI, Homeland security, ICE, etc.
‘When guns are Outlawed….
Only the Government will have guns.’
When you take away gums from the citizens, only criminal will have guns.
Without our guns, who will protect the police from the criminals?
“I hunt, therefore I eat” Ted Nugent
I own firearms, therefore I keep my family and my property safe from those who whould denie me my God give right to be free.
and the criminals
I thought he said that. lol!
The framers lived through the revolution. They knew, first hand, that even then there was a difference between hunting weapons and military weapons. The bayonet was the “assault weapon” of it’s day. Without it, a combatant fired his one shot and held a six foot or so long club, with it he held an eight foot pike and could keep killing all day without reloading if need be.
Yet, the word “except” is not found in the second amendment. The bayonet was not forbidden from the citizens, nor were canon or grenades for that matter. Thankfully the word “need” that so many statists throw around also is absent from the amendment.
It is clear to anyone with a 10th grade reading comprehension that ALL federal gun laws are unConstitutional. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to somebody.
Actually, it was the air rifle – rapid fire, more accurate, more powerful, quieter and no obscuring (and position betraying) smoke cloud. If you lived in France you would be jailed if caught with one, though a musket was perfectly legal.
Does anyone else see in the mind’s eye Korean shop owners firing their .45 1911′s over the heads of rioters and looters using a verdict to loot and riot…? (One wonders if all the shoots were fired over their heads.) And I heard Charleton Heston tell this story. As the mass of looters and rioters began getting close to some of his friends houses, one called him asking, “Uh hello Chuck…say…you have guns there, don’t you?”
Perhaps he could have loaned them an arquebus, or a wheel lock.
I remember the Mexican president blaming his problems on guns coming from America and thinking if we have the guns and we don’t have your problems why do you draw the wrong conclusion?
And the chuckle – knuckle heads in Congress gave him a standing “O”.
And it is with the notion that everyone SHOULD have the right to bear arms that it all breaks down.
How on earth do Canadians manage to protect themselves without the right to pack a little heat just in case?
What would it be like to drive down the street and KNOW that no one you pass had an automatic 9mm in a shoulder holster or in the glove compartment of their car?
The right to bear arms is like the cold war. You always have to have more, and bigger guns than your perceived opponent. We know how a nuclear deployment would have played out.
Conversely if some guns are good, why not make it mandatory to carry one once you have reached the age of majority. With the exception of minors and convicted criminals, everyone has to carry a gun. Would it be safer then? Would it be an even playing field? Or would everyone be afraid to go out in public for fear of having themselves or their children caught in the defensive crossfire when someone fires a shot.
Deaths per year per 100,000 people in US 7.07, Canada 0.76
If you cite statistics, why not use all of them? Compare and contrast the racial make up of the two nations and statistics of exactly who the victims and perpetrators of these crimes are. Facts are sometime ugly and don’t fit your politically correct world view but it’s a stronger correlation than the one you’re making.
Mr. McKay of Kingston:
Since you are Canadian, this discussion doesn’t concern you.
Frankly, your input is as unwanted and offensive as any notions I might have of how Canada orders its internal affairs would be to a right-thinking Canadian.
Here’s a novel idea…you worry about YOUR nation, and you let us Yanks worry about ours.
One nice thing about the proliferation of privately owned firearms is that people learn their manners.
It’s nice that Canada’s violent crime rate is low, but I don’t think there is much correlation between violent crime and restricting or eliminating gun ownership.
From the 7th UN survey of crime trends, per capita murder statistics (see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)
Russia : 0.2/1000
Mexico : 0.13/1000
US : 0.04/1000
India : 0.03/1000
For example, I know many people from India that tell me it is extremely difficult to legally purchase a weapon there (unless you bribe the right people). There is a long waiting period (years), so otherwise law-abiding people pay a premium and buy guns illegally. As you can see, their murder rate is comparable to ours.
Take a look at following links – you might find them interesting as well (the parable is great):
http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/sheep/
http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/
The people of India must be buying illegal guns for some reason. I think they call it protection!
Part of the crime statistics is what is classified as a “gun crime”. It varies greatly in this country, depending on whether Democrats are in charge or not.
To answer your question, when gun laws are loosened, crime rates go down. Always. About 8% decline. When gun controls are put in, crime rates go up again. The most violent parts of America are where the Dems are in charge. Always.
And yes, it is also those areas where blacks are a major part of the urban populace. Hispanics, too. I am not going to duck the race issue. It is not about violence. It is about lawlessness. Whites and Orientals tend to be more law-abiding. Countries which are overwhelmingly white have the lowest crime rates. America is not one of those places. You cannot compare America to Canada. Apples and Oranges.
If Canadians were to allow wide-spread gun ownership, I seriously doubt much would change for you. You would be in no greater danger. A gun in the hands of law-abiding citizen makes you safer, not less safe. It is not about violence. It is about lawlessness.
It is not so much a question of race as it is of social/economic status. The poor have less hope than others, thus less to lose as a result.
Mr. McKay:
In 1950, there were little or no restrictions on gun ownership in Canada and the murder rate was about the same then as it is now. The US has always been a more freewheeling and therefore more violent nation then Canada. It’s the guns that makes the difference, it’s the culture.
Unfortunately John you are either woefully ignorant of the facts, or choosing to mischaracterize them. Until some time in the late 1990′s when some nutter went on the rampage at a University in Quebec, and killed a bunch of female students rifles and shotguns were easily available in Canada. If it had been male students killed nothing would likely have happened. But the feminist movement became extremely vocal about this as did residents of Quebec. I had owned 2 guns before I was 16 much like every other young male.
Our Prime Minister at the time was not too popular in Quebec, and seeking to gain some political points with them and the feminists, instituted a firearms registry. Supposed to cost less than $50 million, and now close to $2 billion and counting. He won some political points short term. However, the crime rate didn’t budge. He had no personal knowledge of guns or their owners. He forgot or didn’t care that crooks wouldn’t register their guns, even under threat of severe penalties, only honest people would. Since this was all done for short term political gain, he probably didn’t care.
I hadn’t owned a gun for years when this firearms registry became the law. However I came very close to buying one and not registering it. Just because the Government is rarely right in choosing what should or shouldn’t be legal Particularly when they stray too far from those things mentioned by the 10 commandments. And most religious groups and societies follow something similar, so there must be universal underlying sensible appeal.
“… if some guns are good, why not make it mandatory to carry one once you have reached the age of majority.”
Great idea!!! Let’s do it!! Because contrary to your thoughts, I do think we would all be safer, kinder, gentler, more thoughtful and better shots. Heinlein comes to mind – “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Read some of the comments made by the Aussies about what happened when their government made a gun-grab. If you’re going to say something, say something smart, or back it up with facts.
We already have unwritten, widely accepted rules about civilian ownership of weapons that are being enforced by most local police departments.
And we are being occupied by the most radical government yet who has captured our Congress and White House. But, any militia that is discovered will be attacked, prosecuted, and incarcerated as “terrorists” by this ‘government’ and their cronies.
This ‘government’ has effectively made the Second Amendment null and void in all it’s practical senses. These commies will not cease their actions against the citizens, until all weapons have been seized and outlawed.
Is that Constitutional? What? Are you serious?
And Hussein Obama wants a kill switch on the internet
tsk tsk tsk
Dude, you’re using logic and thought. That’s considered “hate speech” on both coasts and some other scattered urban areas.
Of course, that brings up yet another “inconvenient” amendment that the previously-referenced areas wants to alter…
It is better to have a weapon and not need it, than to need one and not have it. I fully support a fully armed public and courts that back owner’s rights (right to protect your property). Places with high gun ownership have many advantages, such as few home invasions, muggings, and rapes. If a criminal has to worried that they are going to give up their life to commit a petty crime they usually think again.
Yes, there are always instances where a nut job uses a gun to hurt other people, but I wonder how different things would have been in Tucson if some of those in the crowd would have been packing? Would he been able to shoot all those people or would he have been able to take only a shot or two before someone protecting life and liberty put him down. It is definitely an interesting thought.
I think every adult American should own two weapons, a handgun for personal defense and a rifle for home/country defense (shotgun is also an option, but the standoff range is not sufficient against a determined adversary). Just think how things would go differently if criminals had to constantly worry about taking one between the eyes. The added bonus is that no enemy (foreign or domestic) really wants to face a fully armed public protecting its freedom and liberty.
“I wonder how different things would have been in Tucson if some of those in the crowd would have been packing?”
Some of them were sandy, some of them were. As I understand it one armed citizen was responsible for subduing the mutt when he went to reload.My instinct would have been to shoot him dead when it was clear that he was out to kill. Yet this brave guy decided not to. He kept his wits about him as a responsible gun owner.
Well that goes to show that if that guy had not stopped him from reloading it would have been even worse. I too wish that person would have put the mutt down, but it is likely he didn’t have a shot and pulling his gun probably would have gotten him shot by the police. Plus, the courts would have tried him for manslaughter or some such crap for protecting innocent lives with deadly force. It is a shame that is more than likely the reason that some one didn’t do us all a favor and permanently stop that nut job.
EXCELLENT OBSERVATION!
Of course the cops weren’t there yet but it’s logical to assume with all the accompanying chaos…the cops might have shot the wrong guy. Me, I’m all for open carry. It says to me that the guy carrying a holstered gun, better have a permit otherwise he’s toast. And that the guy has a permit and isn’t some gang banger mutt who has to hide it in his drawers. LOL
His name was Joe Zamudio
“Would you run to the sound of the guns?” By Russ Vaughn
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/would_you_run_to_the_sound_of.html
“Zamudio, legally carrying a firearm himself… ran to the sound of the guns where others in the crowd were attempting to overpower the shooter. Zamudio, who appears to be a young man of some physical substance, assisted in that successful effort.
“When asked … if he thought of shooting the shooter, young Zamudio wisely replied that he did not feel that was the needed course of action since others were already involved in taking down the perpetrator. Zamudio specifically stated that he did not draw his weapon for fear of collateral damage to innocents in the chaotic situation.”
THANK-YOU. This is the type of information that people need to know.
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” -Patrick Henry
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” -Thomas Paine
“Laws that forbid the carrying of guns…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes….Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, June 18,1789
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
If it shoots and a person can lift it, they have a right to carry it. If it cuts and a person can lift it they have a right to carry it. If it crushes and a person can lift it, they have a right to carry it. If a person goes there, that person has the right to carry their arms there. That’s what “shall not be infringed” means.
Look at poor Britain,the once proud nation has been torn down by LIBTARDS and is now, nothing but a shell of its former self.Now,if you carry a small knife,you are arrested.This because the immigrants from Europe usually use knives for fighting. America,if this President and his goons has his way will be just like England.Run by Sharia in many areas and immigrants that are untouchable by laws,meant for locals. Its a sad sight indeed.
Three quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Please let me assure you that I indeed am fully rational. And yes the Founders DID mean to include crew-served weapons, bombs, rockets and missiles. The Letters of Marque and Rebuke clause assumes in its historical context that private citizens are able to fully arm Men-of-War — ships able to battle with nearly the best of any Navy. It is no accident that the “Private Army and Navy” clause, for that’s another way of looking at Letters of Marque and Rebuke, PRECEDES the clauses establishing a Federal Army and Navy.
Even land-based militia would use cannon — a crew served weapon, mortars, and grenades, in addition to employing the bombs of sappers.
Yes, we citizens must have automatic crew served weapons, rocket launchers, missiles and anti-tank weapons — even fighter/bomber jets. How else can we stand toe-to-toe with a modern Army and Navy? Just speaking to what the FOUNDERS meant.
When the Constitution was written citizens could buy and own any weapon they wanted and could afford this included cannons. Well into the 20th Century citizens could buy and own machine guns with no special permits. Are we saver now? The Federal Government spends billions to control firearms in the hands of honest citizens and many more billions to defend criminals from honest citizens,. Does this seem right to anyone? Just asking.
Mr. Owens:
“That was true at the time of the founding, when the militia was armed with the same Brown Bess and Charleville muskets as professional military units. It was true when U.S. soldiers carried single-shot Springfield rifles beside frontiersmen armed with more advanced Henrys and Winchesters.”
Ummm, actually, the problem with hunting rifles pressed into militia service during late 18th and early 19th century infantry warfare were quickly apparent on an actual battlefield.
First, the frontiersman’s Kentucky or Pennsylvania long rifle was excruciatingly slow to load compared to the smoothbore muskets that were the government issue of the day.
This problem might have been ameliorated had commanders used militia units as snipers and skirmishers instead of as line infantry in dressed ranks, manfully standing and exchanging fire with other dressed ranks of infantry 50 yards away. Colonel, (later General), Daniel Morgan used his colonial militia riflemen to great effect at the Battles of Saratoga by letting his lads “hunt” British officers.
Secondly, since all too many commanders DID use militia as line infantry, the other problem with their weapons became glaring after the first volley had been exchanged. In 18th century warfare using single-shot smoothbore shoulder arms, the infantry doctrine was to fire one volley, and then press home the attack with a bayonet charge.
No hunting rifle of the period that I’m aware of was ever fitted out to accept a bayonet.
So here’s our militiamen, having fired their volley and received the Redcoats’ fire, when out of the cloud of gunsmoke between the two forces emerges the regiment of Foot, bayonets held low, with blood-lust in their eyes.
This is why militia units had the unfair reputation of not holding the line after their first volley. Once they had fired their shot, they were defenseless when the enemy charged them with what amounted to spears.
“It is only logical that, to remain the nation the founders intended us to be, “we the people” should be armed and equipped similarly to our professional soldiers. The founders would approve of the citizenry and the military being armed with small arms that use the same ammunition, magazines, and optics as those used by our military professionals.”
I would think so, although I’m pretty sure that the Founders would consider us having a professional standing army to be something of an anathema…and I wouldn’t want to be in the room when someone explained the theory and practice of the various levels of professional Police Forces to them.
In light of that, I think it might not be out of the realm of possibility that they might decide that all crew-served weapons be restricted to civilian ownership and control…as cannon commonly was privately owned in their day.
The left desire to disarm the American people because it is quite impossible to enslave and rule 100 million armed citizens. It’s no more complicated than that.
brevity is the soul of wit
All of our constitutional rights are constrained by reason; our right to keep and bear arms is no exception. In addition, they are neither mutually exclusive nor do they exist in a vacuum. For example, we have freedom of speech, but we still can be sued for slander. Similarly, we have the right to keep and bear arms, but we can still be prosecuted sneaking a gun into a courthouse. These examples are obvious and rational, but also, strictly speaking, unconstitutional constraints on our literal rights. Thankfully, common law and/or statute law come into play to guide us in how we may use or constrain our rights. And, of course, the Supreme Court and ultimately our power to amend the constitution exist to ensure that the intent of the framers and the will of the people are always the final arbiters. Bottom line, while we have to draw the line on our freedoms somewhere, we should always err on the side of more, rather than less freedom. 30-round magazines? Where’s the harm? A fully-auto AK-47? Not so much.
“Thankfully, common law and/or statute law come into play to guide us in how we may use or constrain our rights.”
Common law and statute are both null and void when they conflict with the Constitution.
Also, you cannot articulate any greater harm that would come from private ownership of any weapons system, whether rock in the hand or carrier group, that does not depend on criminal misuse for it’s criminality.
There’s no rational reason for the NFA stamp requirement for full auto ownership.
“Similarly, we have the right to keep and bear arms, but we can still be prosecuted sneaking a gun into a courthouse.”
A better analogy is “we can still be prosecuted for murder.”
Courthouses are not inherently sacrosanct. Human life is.
Dear M. Bilgeman
Thank you for your response:
The discussion does not concern me in the same fashion as it would if I lived in America. Nonetheless it should concern you that a significant number of Canadians are afraid to travel to the US because it is an armed state. That affects you.
Second, some consideration of why perhaps gun crime is less prevalent in another country is of value. Yes our demographics are different as is our approach to dealing with immigrants. But I NEVER worry about being shot. Surely that bears investigation.
As for worrying about my own nation…I do. And much of that worry has to do with the influence (positive and negative) of American economics and policy.
“One nice thing about the proliferation of privately owned firearms is that people learn their manners.” – do you mean that only people with guns should be able to speak freely?
“The discussion does not concern me in the same fashion as it would if I lived in America. Nonetheless it should concern you that a significant number of Canadians are afraid to travel to the US because it is an armed state. That affects you.”
And thank you for pointing out another positive effect of our Bill of Rights.
The only people who are afraid here are the liberal stateists who see their grip on power being loosened. Fear, class guilt, and following the directions of their betters blindly are all characteristics of the left. . . which is why it’s best left behind and why we drove as many Loyalists away to Canada as we could in the 18th century. It’s good to know you intend to stay there.
Mr. McKay,
There is no correlation between citizens legally possessing firearms and murder by firearm. All you need to look at is: El Paso, Texas, 5 homicides last year, citizens can freely own and carry guns; Juarez, Mexico, 3000 homicides last year, guns are effectively banned, citizens may not own or carry.
It is the people. It is the culture. It is not the gun laws. Responsible citizens can obviously own and carry guns and not murder one another.
In the United States, we like liberty, so we will keep our guns. If you don’t want to visit, that’s your perogative.
Bill,
Thank you for a clear and concise expl;anation to Mr. McKay, the sage of Canada.
You’re correct. Nothing more needs to be explained.
In that case, Canadians must be fearful of going to Switzerland since every able-bodied male has at least a battle rifle at their home. Switzerland also has a vibrant gun culture as well. Many of the arms are fully automatic.
Yet somehow Switzerland manages to have a low homicide rate. Could it be because the correlation between gun ownership and homicide is either not causation or high levels of gun ownership actually decrease crime in the USA (as is the case).
Since Canada is experiencing higher levels of violent crime over the past 3 decades, maybe you should concern yourself with Canada rather than comment on a country not your own and completely unappreciative of your thoughtless comments. As for some Canadians not visiting, in the case of Canadians such as yourself I would consider that an unrecognized benefit of our 2nd Amendment.
“Switzerland also has a vibrant gun culture as well”
Better not forget Israel as well. Israeli’s will forget what happened to them when they were denied self protection 60 years ago. The socialists rounded them up like cattle and disposed of them. That won’t ever happen again…at least not to freedom loving people fighting fascism disguised as liberal progressivism.
Sorry…Israeli’s will NEVER forget….
I wish that was the case. I work with a friend who lost all four grandparents in the camps, yet he finds it appalling that civilians in are allowed to own guns!
There are some phrases in the human vocabulary that are laughably stupid, among them;”It can’t happen again,” “It can’t happen here,” “It can’t happen to me,” and “free lunch”.
Interesting. The Swiss are armed to the teeth. And their gun crime rate is low.
JustAl
I hear you. The left has its issues. Like health care that is free but impossible to obtain. I’m living that dream. Perhaps I’ll wish I owned a gun before its all over.
As Abdul points out, Israel as well. However, the homicide rate in Israel is complicated because of the ongoing terror attacks by Muslim Arabs. Despite those murderous and cowardly attacks, Israel has a rate comparable with Canada.
I also would direct you to the homicide rate in the Russian Federation–where gun ownership is strictly controlled. Their rate of intentional homicide is nearly 3 times the USA.
John
Regarding free but unavailable (or sub par) health care–your formulation is much more frightening than stories about shootings in the USA. If only because health care will affect everyone, shootings among criminals not so much.
Ha! They aren’t afraid to come to our hospitals and get medical care they were denied in Canada, are they? I delt with this living in England. Above 80% of home invasions in England take place while the occupants are home, and they normally get roughed up, and sometimes stabbed in the process. Hooligans have no fear of meeting the business end of some double-zed buckshot when they kick open someone’s door. Yet, I would constantly hear from my English friends, or people in conversation about how dangerous American was with all its guns. Yes, if you happen to trawl around urban areas in cities with draconian gun laws, then you run the risk of being shot, otherwise, someone give me some stats on how many tourist are killed by Americans with firearms every year, as compared to say Rio de Janeiro or Mexico City.
I didn’t express that very well. Health care in Canada IS free and you CAN and DO get it. BUT, it can be slow. It took me quite a while to find a family Doc and I’ve been waiting for test results for two months. For those of us requiring surgery…it does happen but waits can be long.
Sorry to Hi-Jack the guns thing. Anyway we rarely require hospital care for gunshot related issues so I guess there’s Karma there somewhere.
John McKay, I see too many Canadian license plates in Florida to believe your statements.
I guess they aren’t afraid of our “stand your ground law” because they are tourists or “snowbirds” and not criminals threatening us.
Mr, McKay:
“Nonetheless it should concern you that a significant number of Canadians are afraid to travel to the US because it is an armed state. That affects you.”
It affects me not at all. In fact, the only reason to prefer Canadian to Mexican visitors to the USA is that Canadians are wont to voluntarily go home again.
As for your compatriots with the heebie-jeebies about our eeeeeeevil gun culture…I’m not sure anyone in Florida has noticed.
When November comes to the Great Lakes, the Sunshine State, (which has had liberalized concealed carry laws since the 1980′s, and now has further buttressed these gun-loving ways with the “Castle Doctrine” and the “Stand Your Ground” doctrine), still gets invaded by the Snowbirds.
“do you mean that only people with guns should be able to speak freely?”
Eventually, it comes to that, and you’re fooling yourself if you think it doesn’t.
But in this context, my meaning was that good neighbors know when to STFU.
You don’t strike me as a stupid man, so you knew this very well, and are just trying to be “clever”, (as the Brits would use the term).
Don’t try it…Canadians can’t pull it off at all.
Dear John, (Where have I heard that before). Have you ever heard the saying “an armed society is a polite society”? I spent 30 years in American law enforcement. 20 years of that was with the Federal Prison System. I have dealt with the worst of the worst. One thing that appears to be a common thread among the scumbags is that they are afraid of the armed citizen. Since the adoption of concealed carry permits in 41 states, (at last count), violent crime in those states has diminished considerably. In those states and cities with the harshest gun control laws, violent crime still ranks very high. That should tell you something.
Now the question I have been asked is, ” would you use that gun to take a human life?” IF, the circumstance was to protect another life, as Sarah Palin says, “You Betcha!” With regret I will add. I do not carry a gun to kill. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I might add I live in Arizona only a few miles from the border. We can’t even enjoy our desert flora and fawna without the thought at least of putting ourselves in mortal danger. So yeah, I and many of my fellow citizens carry guns. If I drive into the desert, I even carry an AR-15 as many of our southern neighbors like to hijack vehicles.
Arizona is a “constutional carry” state. That means we don’t have to have a permit to carry a weapon. It is in the constitution, second amendment. Only Alaska, Arizona and Vermont have this right.
Have a good day……….
You are so right, an armed society is a polite society! I received the following email sometime back, and found it so plainly stated and profound. We have unregistered conceal carry here in Alaska, and it is a huge deterrent to violence.
“As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun
Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine)
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last
paragraph of the letter….
“The Gun Is Civilization”
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if
all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well
as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but
because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those
who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who
would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why
carrying a gun is a civilized act.”
I’ve been searching the classified ads for an Ohio class sub in good condition. I don’t know of any laws that prevent me from owning one of those. The wife won’t like the galley, I know. But, just think of the attention I’m going to get at the yacht club when I pull up to the dock.
When I was young I always wanted my own aircraft carrier I wonder if a ship get decommissioned could I buy it as salvage? Of course you need lots of money for a crew along with aircraft and weapons as well as fuel (lots of it!) But If I had one I guess I could charge admission to board the craft and look around.
I served on two aircraft carriers in the Australian Navy and would be delighted to be your Medical Officer on board.Free !!!
Steve:
Yea, you could open it to tourists like they do in San Diego for the USS Midway.
But, you need to go nuclear so you don’t have to block up the fuel dock. Just think; You could have a golf course, motocross track, state of the art machine shop, ‘fly-in’ movie theater.
And I don’t think you’d have a problem getting crew; Looks like you already have some volunteers. Count me in, too. I can help out until my sub is delivered. And I have diving equipment to clean the bottom with.
Y’know…if you hang out in the right bars along Fort Street in Bawlmer at the right time of night, there’s simply no telling what some guy will offer to sell you out of the trunk of his, (or SOMEONE’S), car.
But the sub thing…I think you need to hang in the bars in St. Pyotrsburg. Try the ones along Nevsky Prospekt.
“If anyone in Tuscon had been carrying.”
Some were, true. But what influenced the mindset of the murdering shooter? That folks generally are NOT known to carry guns. What if Tuscon was populated by more citizens dressed-gun-wise like “3:10 to Yuma”? In other words it is common knowledge that in any crowd a fair number of men (if not women) will be carrying pistols ready to fire at any moment.
If that were the case, I do not think the mob shooting would have happened at all. The crazy man would not have bothered.
“That folks generally are NOT known to carry guns.”
All the more reason for open carry.There’s no mistaking by some mutt that they’re in a bad place if they’re thinking of unloading on innocent people.
Re: 30 shot mag and hunting
If I was out hunting, (not likely), I don’t want some bureaucrat in a DC office deciding what I do or don’t need. If faced with a big mean old bear, I want all 30 rounds. Or, in the alternative, one fat juicy DC bureaucrat to feed that bear. Although, it would probably cause indigestion due to hardening of the brain in the typical DC bureaucrat.
Exactly.
If a well trained police officer feels they need more than 10 rounds to subdue an armed opponent, why shouldn’t the average person owning a gun ( who may not get to the range once a week ) need less ammo to achieve the same result if attacked? Too many times I’ve read accounts of 2, 3, 4 or more police officers become engaged in a firefight, using 40 or 50 rounds only to find that the suspect was wounded by one or two rounds! Again….the heat of the moment and fear just might dictate how accurate one might be in a stressful situation. Yet, the swells ( who know very little about guns…just “feelings” ) would deny me every available chance I might have to protect myself, by limiting my guns legal & defensive capacity?
Having spent 30 years in the US Army and two trips to Viet Nam, I am of the firm opinon that it is better to shoot a lot of bullets and hope for the best than to shot once or twice and not have the chance to reload. In a fire fight, the one who puts out the most lead lives to reload.
Fire power saves lives.
Love, is never having to say, I’m sorry I didn’t have enough ammo to save my families life.
I am in agreement with 19.bvw. The stated intent of the second amendment is to be able to protect the first amendment. The founders would have no reservations with the citizen being armed with crew served weapons. In fact I would go so far to say that if it was within the means of said citizen they would have seen no problems with any weapon/system that would be the equal of what the govt could bring to bear. There were privately owned ships of war in their day. Which at that time was the pinnacle of weapons.
Just how dense are you McK? You are comparing apples to oranges.
America and Canada are vastly different demographically. You do not have the black and latino problems here; where blacks and latinos commit vastly more violent crime per capita than white Americans do. You do not have the black/latino gangs who kill many more people per capita than do violent non-gang affiliated criminals do. You do not have a legal system that declared letting distrubed and violent people out of asylums or reducing their sentences bec. of said illness was a right; or a system that disallows you to intervene and stop a distrubed person from committing a crime. You do not have criminals being let out of jail bec. of over-crowding or state budget deficits. You do not have the problems of inner cities that have become jungles. You do not have the drug crime that we do and our totally ineffective war on drugs.
All these reasons can be pinned on the leftists, and trembling people like you, in this nation who have done their best to ruin this once proud nation. Were we allowed to deport illegals esp. gang members; lock up the sick and violent, demand sentencing that puts a violent criminal in jail until he rots and quicker executions, and does stop drugs from entering our nation, we would similarly have numbers like Canada.
And as far as you not coming here-GOOD! Just don’t call me when Mr. Sharia comes to your door.
It is legal in 35 states to own machine guns, including those which could be classed as crew served…the .50 caliber. There are also several artillery pieces out there in civilian hands. They don’t shoot explosive rounds, but even those could be procured in theory with payment of a 200 dollar NFA stamp.
The 1934 National Firearms Act did not ban these weapons…they regulated them, per the Constitution. A good number of the machine guns in private hands were released to civilians by the government and military. Why didn’t that act simply ban possession of such arms? Probably because it would have been overturned immediately by the Supreme Court. So they took another time honored approach…tax them.
The nuclear weapon example is an argument to absurdity, which could equally be argued in the opposite direction…the government could consider razor blades, bats, pipes, wrenches, or thousands of other implements as “arms” and seek to see them classified under the Second Amendment.
But even if you accept that nuclear weapons could be owned by an individual…ok, simply decree that legal possession would require a 500 billion dollar tax stamp paid to the government.
I agree with everything you wrote except “. . . they regulated them, per the Constitution.” How is “regulation” not a form of “infringement” and where does the Constitution state that the federal government can “regulate” firearms? I hope you’re aren’t talking about the interstate commerce clause since it should allow these weapons to be owned in the state of manufacture with no federal regulation or other “infringement”.
As a caveat to my posts here. I am not personally in favor of more readily available full auto and explosive weapons. Well, OK, I don’t see full auto being that big a problem due to their inherent inaccuracy, but explosives constitute a problem with unbalanced people. I certainly wish silencers and suppressors were more readily available to protect hearing. But, I will not lie about what I read in the Constitution to justify my personal opinion.
The Constitution was written so that the average literate citizen could read and understand it. To learn how to manipulate and subvert it takes a lot more education.
“A well-regulated militia” is how it reads!
What was the meaning of this phrase…According to Oxford dictionary at the time “Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.”
Order is the opposite of disorder. In order to have a calibrated, functioning militia, then some rules of order are necessary. To this end, it is contitutional and legal for the federal government to deny firearms ownership to certain individuals, provide for record keeping and identification such as serial numbering of weapons, etc. Even in the 1700′s, I’m sure there was recognition that some people…mentally ill, etc. should not possess firearms.
What is the difference between infringement and well regulated…well, that’s the rub, and that’s where there is room for disagreement (or abuse) isn’t it? I would say that if the regulations imposed become either too onerous or so burdensome as to render the mechanism inoperable or defeat the intent of the purpose, then that’s infringement.
As for explosives…well, really, those aren’t that difficult to get licenses for and are used daily in commerce.
The common meaning of “well regulated” was (and should still be) well equipped and, as you say, functioning as intended.
“To this end, it is contitutional and legal for the federal government to deny firearms ownership to certain individuals, provide for record keeping and identification such as serial numbering of weapons, etc. Even in the 1700′s, I’m sure there was recognition that some people…mentally ill, etc. should not possess firearms”
Please show me that Article/Section of COTUS that supports this statement. And as already discussed, do not cite the commerce clause, as its only intent was to create a “free trade zone” among the several States. One must also keep in mind that the COTUS was designed, written and ratified as a bulwark against the FEDERAL government, and, as such, was never intended to apply to the individual States. The incorporation of the BoR to (read against) the States didn’t begin until the ’20s. The Founders rightfully felt that, with the few exceptions specifically allowed for, all other matters rested with the States or The People… as it should be.
Dantes,
A “well regulated” militia is one, as you say, that functions well … not one buried in tons of federal regulations.
But you are way off base when you state that that it is the federal government who has the authority to deny firearms.
Historically, the 2nd amendment was not included in those rights protected by the federal government, unless when under federal jurisdiction. To that end, since militias were traditionally STATE militias, the Feds didn’t get involved.
Now national guard is something else, as I am sure you know.
Even the NRA agrees that there are certain people: criminals, the insane, and other categories that should be restricted from owning arms. But no one will just turn over states rights or INDIVIDUAL rights to the whyms of bureaucrats so that they can determine the regulatory process for firearms ownership and use.
I am a Canadian and I agree with the premise of this article. I a glad that the US are our neighbours. I would just like to point out to the other Canadian (and Americans) posting here that we do have a “black problem” in Canada. 80 odd percent of the murders in Toronto last year were blacks killing other blacks. I have read that the white murder rate in the US is almost exactly the same as the white murder rate in Canada. So adjusting for racial demographic differences we are almost the same.
“I would just like to point out to the other Canadian (and Americans) posting here that we do have a “black problem” in Canada. 80 odd percent of the murders in Toronto last year were blacks killing other blacks.”
My condolences. I hope you lot work it out.
There is a strong streak of paranoia running through American culture, which shows up every day on the Internet and in the gunfire blood of about 100,000 Americans each year.
The Second Amendment says nothing at all about the personal use of arms for personal missions such as self-defense, hunting, or insurrection. Rather, it speaks of a free state’s need for the security of a well regulated militia, and about the right of the people to keep and bear arms to meet that need.
A well regulated militia is one that is governed by what George Washingt on called “a well regulated Militia Law.” Such militias were made up of persons who were qualified physically and by age, who were enrolled in a company for training, and who were legally liable to bear arms when required. Militarily speaking, the militiamen were the active part of “the people.”
Ridiculous, the right to self defense is inherent, universal, inalienable, and non-delegable. The rights detailed in the bill of rights is not, nor ever was intended to be, all encompassing.
So, your contention is that the same people who relied on civilian ownership of guns to help establish the nation would then design the fundamental law of that nation to exclude civilian gun ownership?
Listing one of the reasons, but only one, for civilian gun ownership does not in any way give Congress the right to infringe the ownership of arms , by the people.
“No rational person is arguing that the general public should equip itself with crew-served, area-obliterating weapons, artillery, and bombs”
Just as a note, “Arms” is a technical term, referring to the hand-held personal weapons that an infantry soldier might be expected to carry – especially in the Revolutionary days when he would have to supply them himself: rifle, pistol, sword, pike. Even today, the Army is having problems because it gets soldiers who haven’t the foggiest idea how to safely handle or use a rifle.
Crew-served weapons, grenades, bombs, etc are properly referred to as “ordnance”. Even in the Revolutionary days our founders had access to cannon and grenades, and would hardly have counted them among the weapons that a typical soldier would be able to provide or routinely know how to use.
That is an interesting and accurate observation which I’ve never read before. Thank you for a valuable point of view.
“Crew-served weapons, grenades, bombs, etc are properly referred to as “ordnance”. Even in the Revolutionary days our founders had access to cannon and grenades, and would hardly have counted them among the weapons that a typical soldier would be able to provide or routinely know how to use.”
OK – where do you think the Founders, in the beginning stages, obtained their “ordnance”? It was from the local communities (read “The People”) who either gave or sold them to the Government, or by “confiscating” them from The King.
“Crew Served Weapon” = more than one person usually required to employ it. However, there are many instances of a “crew-served weapon” being employed by a single individual – albeit not usually as effectively. BTW, I remember (a long time ago) seeing an old “blunderbuss” type waterfowl shotgun that required 2 – 3 people to deploy it – was about 8′ long. They were not uncommon… amongst The People. Using your interpretation, then these should be classed as “military weapons” and, therefore, subject to control.
As has been stated here by several… FedGov has NO Constitutional authority to “regulate”, in any manner, ANY “arms”. I will allow one exception here – thermonuclear weapons, as they are “regulated” in numerous international treaties… and we all know how well that works. If you can buy it, barter for it, get it as a gift or make it, they have no right to control it.
One last thought – the right to “… keep and bear…”. Some want this to be construed as the ability to “bear” dictates the ability to “keep”. Wrong. The term “keep and bear” is equalivalent to the term “to keep and to bear” – two distinct actions. Think of it this way: you have a hunting license – but you don’t have to own a gun to have one. You have a gun, but that doesn’t mean that you have to have a hunting license. Mutually exclusive yet complimentary. COTUS doesn’t always get it right.
Consider this quote from Tench Coxe, one of the second rank of the Founders, who wrote extensively on the right to keep and bear arms:
“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.”
Americans were always intended to be armed sufficiently to stand up to a professional military. With all the great respect owed our military men and women, it was never intended that we should, as we have come to, rely upon a standing army, as it might, under a corrupt government, become a tool to oppress its citizens.
Before I read anyone else’s comments let me breakdown what I view as the truths about gun ownership. First a quote from Emile Durkheim. “Where mores are sufficient, law are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, law are unenforceable.”
Now before anyone jumps on me, I know Emile Durkheim’s politics, but I still believe this statement to be an undeniable truth of life. If men are moral, as the paraphrased version goes, then laws are not needed; and likewise where men are no moral, then laws are useless. We can keep passing gun laws, but the fact remains that 50 years ago more people probably owned a gun than today, and guns were not locked up with mandatory safety locks, gun safes, and the like, and nobody thought of taking one to school and shooting up the class. We are a society destitute of morals. Our justice system serves a referee between two competing lawyers, rather than a means to establish guilt. In such a society were criminals are regularly treated like victims, and people who defend themselves from perpetrator the epitome of evil, it is no wonder criminals are emboldened.
The next thing, is that there is three reason for a man to process a firearm. The defense of himself, the defense of his nation, and as a check and balance to the nature of government incursion. Why do many politicians want to ban guns, easy, it makes it safe for them to tax you into oblivion. Why do leftist want to ban your guns? Because they don’t want you screwing up their overtly stated goals of governmental overthrow and the tyranny of autocracy that they would install to keep the dumb proles in line. Lastly, no nations can be invaded where every citizen is willing to resist. It’s why the Germans didn’t invade the Swiss, and it’s why Hiroshima occurred, we had no desire to see millions of Americans die trying to take the Japanese mainland.
You can’t uncork the technological genie. Modern firearms are semi-automatic. The AR-15 platform is no different than any other military made rifle that has made its way into non-service use. The lever action sharps repeater represented a huge leap in technology for its time, and eventually it was a common place rifle among western settlers. It all goes back to my original sentiment, however, when men are moral, laws are unnecessary; where men are lawless, laws are useless.
Don’t be out-gunned whatever weaponry that might entail. Isn’t that the main point the founders meant or am I being too literal?
Yep. It’s that simple.
Thinking like you come out with is part of the problem, John M.
As for the ‘all encompasing’, expansive commerce clause, I want holder to appeal Judge Vinson’s decision. The SCOTUS ruling will remove these expansions of the commerce clause. The judge articulated the law to do just that. “The commerce clause cannot be used to limit an enumerated right guaranteed in the Constitution” Shall not infringe… comes to mind.
Hell, he quoted Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson…. There is not a man dead or alive that is of an authority… greater. Judge Vinson dug out the very documents in answer to two states that had that exact question regarding the possible future government expansion and over reaching of the commerce clause. The words and meaning are irrefutable.
I want that ‘rewritten’ in stone and ‘remade’ as the standard it is. Most of the governments overreaching has been through these expansions. It will slap the governments hands from the states business.
Most every title 18 firearms law, has the element of ‘in or effecting commerce’… without that element… the laws have no Constitutional standing… and they will be struck down. Maybe even the automatic weapons NFA stamps.
The Founders did not make for there to be equality between The People and their Government, the intent was for The People to have atleast, equivalent arms… and advantage be by an armed People in mass. …and they Are surrounded
I remember reading in the Heller decision that there were distinctions between ‘keep’ and ‘keep and bear’ arms. Anyone could keep any sort of weapon they wanted but if it could not be carried by one person, then it was not a weapong in the ‘keep and bear’ category: crew served weapons and other forms of weapons were perfectly legal to have, but you couldn’t be carting them around to a town meeting. Anything a man could carry was in the ‘keep and bear’ category, which meant you could carry it around with you.
Regulations were typically on the crew served weapons which one could use to defend more than just their home or estate, but were typically limited to those environs unless there was civil need of them (such as pirates landing or the sudden appearance of an invading force). Also those weapons (or armed vessels) could be volunteered for use via the Private War capabilities in the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which was the way a Nation could go after its Private enemies (that is citizens of foreign land waging war on the State) by engaging its own armed private citizens who could then auction off any takings under their grant via the Letters. Grotius described this as the efficient method to cause harm to Private War groups (typically pirates, but armies of thieves, brigands, etc. also fall into that category) on a 1:1 basis: as they have descended into the savage state of attacking the foundation of Nation States, they have become an enemy of all mankind and must not profit from their depredations. We would call such individuals waging Private War to their own ends (not just cash but power over others) as ‘terrorists’ today as they fit into the Private War category.
As for restrictions – this is an age in which weapons of war are much more destructive and yet we trust our citizen soldiers to fight with them Publicly via declared war… and we have Private enemies who utilize them against all mankind to their own ends. Thus to protect against the savages we must, as citizens, have the right to defend ourselves in kind and volunteer when the call goes out to inflict upon our Private enemies the exact, same amount of pain they inflict on us. An eye for an eye is what savages understand and that is what they deserve via sanctioned Private war against them. Our enemies see no need to restrict themselves, and we only harm ourselves when they show up ready to kill us and we cannot respond in kind.
Our Founders would not care what kind of weapon you owned or carried. They knew if the people had weapons than the government would think twice before they acted against the people. The minute you give up your rights to own weapons you start to lose your freedom! Let`s be honest, if you have the money you can buy any weapon you want any time!
In released videos from Egypt, a protester is shot dead by security police after opening his coat to show he is unarmed. Our Second Amendment needs to be vigorously defended. History has shown that countries that only allow the state to be armed, ultimately drift towards authoritarianism, and turn those state weapons against their own people.
Let’s remember one thing: In the US we have over 50 million gun owners. There are approximately 200-250 million guns. That makes us the largest army in the world. In North Carolina alone, they could muster 20-30 divisions or 200-300,000 armed people. Averaging 10 divisions per state on the extremely conservative side (no pun intended), that’s 500 divisions or 5 million armed Americans. That’s as many as the entire Red Chinese Army, Navy, and Air Force. And, some larger states like Texas, California, Florida, most states in the South, and yes, even New York (upper NY State mostly), you’d probably double that number easily.
They can pass all the gun laws they want. People will still get them, whether legal or not. And, some people know how to make them from scratch (just like the Afghans).
Actually, I seem to remember the latest “accepted” number of gun owners was between 80 – 100 million.
When the Constitution was written, private citizens could own artillery and warships. Privateers were privately owned and equipped warships. The ownership of artillery was legal until the Gun Control Act of 1968. You could buy artillery shells mail order. I remember seeing the ads in American Rifleman and similar magazines of the time. I know of no crimes committed with artillery on land.
At sea it was a bit more wild and wooly, with artillery being used for and against piracy. We could use some light artillery on Merchies today, for the same reason.
Well, according to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia, Heller decision (case no 04-7041). It is about hunting as well as self-defense:
page 46
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
An interesting bit of the decision (page 53) which came up in the orals before SCOTUS, as the Attorney General for the US acknowledged he would be hard pressed to argue that the M16 or other assualt rifles aren’t protected under 2nd Amendment:
“The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).”
styrgwillidar,
With all due respect, you can list all you want,the 2nd amendment does NOT guarantee one the “Right to own ammunition.”
Tax ammunition so high that the common citizen can not afford it for the purpose of using the new tax funds for social items.
Jonathan,
No, you can’t because it would interefere with the exercise of a fundamental right as indicated by it’s being incorporated against the states under the 14th amendment.
It’s kind of like imposing a poll tax or test prior to allowing someone to vote.
I believe that the reason we are not still British is that our colonist militia and other troops were much better shots than the British. I would have been terrified to be a British officer in my bright coat and a target for all of those frontiersman, who knew how to shoot accurately. The food that their family ate depended on their ability to shoot.
I also believe that the progressives that are trying to take over our country will be cautious because of our armed Americans. The police and military are more like us tea party patriots than the socialists Obama has brought to Washington.
From the oral arguments before SCOTUS in Heller, and keep in mind that Atty General Clement was arguing in support of the ban:
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that opinion also, it didn’t use the militia prologue to say it’s only the kind of weapons that would be useful in militia, and that are commonly — commonly held today. Is there any Federal exclusion of weapons that applies to weapons that are commonly held today? I don’t know what you’re worried about. Machine guns, what else? Armored bullets, what else?
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it.
Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre –
pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is –it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well –
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”
Now, if this Court wants to say that they don’t — I mean — I mean — we’d obviously welcome that in our — in our obligation to defend the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
The one other thing I would say is that this is an opinion that is susceptible of different readings. It’s interesting that Respondents’ amici have different characterizations of it. The Goldwater Institute calls it strict scrutiny; the State of Texas calls it reasonable — reasonableness review.
Ya-all need to remember, Law Enforcement, National Guard, Standing Military, whomever, have no Constitutional duty or obligation to “protect” individules. The duty and obligation falls to the individuale for protecting ones self and family and possessions. I once asked a blurry eyed Liberal anti-gun person, I would pay for all damage to his yard, as well and the materials and labor, to put a 8×8 foot sign in his front yard the read, “There are no guns in this house. I don’t believe in them.” & leave it standing for 60 Days. He would’nt take me up on the offer. I asked why. He brilliantly responded something to the effect of every criminal would probably try to break in. I then asked him what would he do if some blurryeyed, drooling, drug punk-slimball-sack of schmidt, broke in intent on rape and plunder. He just stared at me. I pushed for an answer. None was forthcoming.
The moral of the story, Anti-gun Liberal nitwits do not possess the courage of their convictions.
Who knows, maybe he was kind of turned on by the “rape” part.
I’ve made the same point to anti-gunners on numerous occasions, likewise, never a taker on the signage.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
That shouldn’t be difficult to understand.
Wasn’t Jefferson the one who had the child with the slave out of wedlock?
He also ended up bankrupt i believe. Great wisdom there, for sure.
lame… go back where you came from
I have to believe that the greatest salesmen for weapons and ammo is none other than Obama. Who else in recent history has made it more obvious that the common man and woman had better be armed to halt an out of control government? If I didn’t know better, I would have to say that B.O. was a card carrying N.R.A. member. But I do know better, and I would also bet that the founders of our country had an individual like B.O. in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment. An unarmed population are called “subjects”, an armed population are called “citizens”. No other explanation is needed.
One must also remember when citing Homicide statistics that “Justifiable Homicides” (Police shootings of criminals, self defence shootings, etc..) are included in the homicide rates. Statistics are a strange and confusing subject and can be seriously misleading if all data is not included and properly correlated.
This is the subject and the argument that I used on my brother and I discussed before he cut off all communication. Yet when we were teenagers he had a semiautomatic .22 that he used to chase pigeons away from the barn.
Since then he has become a flaming liberal, and very hard to have a reasonable conversation with. Still, I try whenever possible.
The Founders were neither ignorant nor short-sighted. They understood that technology would advance in all areas of society … and made no provisions anywhere to stifle our society by denying new technology and science. They gave a constitution against which new concepts in law and regulation could be measured, but a constitution that remained constant to the intent of those who wrote it … and those who ratified it.
Even back then, firearms were the purvue of the states, not the federal government. The States restricted those who were mentally incompetant and others from owning and displaying arms. And that tradition has advanced … and no one (not even the NRA) has denied the sound reasoning behind this restriction.
We now have the dicision that the 2nd amendment is, in fact, a federal right that is protected by the constitution. States may do their best to ban through taxation or other means, but now, with that under constitutional scrutiny, it will be more and more difficult.
But what would the founding fathers ban? Nothing! Back then “Privateers” owned personal armed warships — with which the government would contract when necessary. Cannons? Warships? And these weren’t banned? What infantry weapon would supercede the power of an armed warship to such extent that it would require banning?
It all boils down to the citizen. A law abiding citizen, by definition, is a pillar of society, not a threat to it. A Law abiding citizen can own 1,000 weapons with millions of bullets. But since they are determined to be law abiding, they cause no concern to anyone except for those who fear anyone having the ability and the right to be and think independently of the doctrine of self-incompetance and reliance upon everyone else for their safety.
Those outside the “law Abiding” definition, are, to my mind. not to be trusted with any sort of weapon: guns, knives, teeth! They are the legitimate sub-cultures which may be restricted.
No, the founders would not ban any weapons. They would, however devise brave punishments for the misuse of weapons. In this way, the law abiding do not have their rights and privileges as citizens dictated or restricted by the actions of the lawless or incompetant.
’nuff said
Now as far as I an concerned, the citizen needs to be trained in the use of firearms. The police can not be everywhere, so it falls to the individual to be able to defend himself or herself,his or her home and family. We have criminals who don’t fear the law, they laugh at the laws. Now they don’t laugh when they see a revolver, or simi-automatic, or rifle or shotgun pointed at them. It strikes fear in their hearts because the owner of that weapon just might call 911 after they shoot the bastard dead on the spot.
We need to make sure that we have the weapons to fight back against all criminals, be they street scum or wearing 3 piece suits with law degrees or from a tyrannical government. I am not for the ownership of mortars or field pieces. I am for everything short of the latest military weapons.
Worst article I’ve seen concerning the absolute right presented in the 2nd Amendment. It sounds as if it was written by an anti-second amendment proponent, attempting to present a reasonable argument to slowly erode our rights.
You need to read the Constitution, where it clearly illustrates the militia is an arm of the government. In outlining the responsibilities of the state (or government) in relation to the militia (or military) one of the responsibilities of the goverment is to arm the militia. This tells us that the Second Amendment is not to maintain a bank of citizen soldiers. If it were, the government would be required to PROVIDE arms to every U.S. citizen, not merely allow them to own. (come to think of it, not a bad idea!)
Coupling the Constitution’s outline of the government/militia with the Second Amendment, and its grammatical construction, its purpose is clear.
The Second Amendment was added to give the citizens of the U.S. parity with the military, thus preventing military coups or government tyranny.
Never make the mistake of seeing the militia as a collection of citizen-soldiers. That argument is completely demolished by the most cursory reading of the Constitution.
It is not only guaranteed federally, but it is protected at the state, county and city levels by the 10th and 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court should be declaring any 2nd Amendment restrictions at any level unconstitutional and null and void.
Gunny, I believe you’re confusing the activated militia called up by the state to form a force, with The Militia- all those people of a certain age and capable of bearing arms. The Militia exists regardless of whether the government chooses to activate them or not.
And note, various states required members of the militia to report bearing their own arms if the militia was activated. Hence, part of the purpose of 2A is to ensure the militia are well-regulated, which meant at the time equipped with suitable weapons so that if called upon by the state they would be ready.
I can’t see the logic of that argument. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791. The Militia act wasn’t enacted until 1792. Also, in reading the Militia Act, it was the duty of officers of the Militia to enroll militiamen.
The Militia act also states that those between certain ages were required to be registered for duty in the militia. Sounds like selective service registration to me.
Please remember that the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, defines the relationship between the government and the militia previous to the enacting of the militia act. The 2nd amendment delineates the difference between the people and the militia.
Note that there is an age bracket for service in the militia under the militia act. Do you honestly believe that “the people” also has an age bracket where under or over a certain age they are not considered “the people”?
Please read article I, section 8. It says, basically, it is the state’s responsibility to train, pay, arm, equip and discipline the militia. If we say the people are the militia, then the state has to train, pay, arm, equip and discipline the people.
Nowhere is the word regulated used in reference to the militia except in the second amendment. Look up the definition of the word regulate. I believe you’ll see it basically means to hold in check, rein in or control.
The logic is that the SCOTUS decisions (see posts 44 and 46 above) were based on the right which PRE-EXISTED the constitution. That is, the right that the colonists enjoyed PRIOR to the constitution was not to be infringed by the new government.
That respecting the right of THE PEOPLE to continue to keep and bear arms was beneficial to the militia was a secondary benefit, not the reason for the 2A.
Your rationale appears to add weight to those who attack 2A by emphasizing it’s connection the militia, when, according to SCOTUS, that is strictly a tangential benefit of preserving the existing right. Hence, under that reasoning, regardless of what the states do with the militia, the right upheld by the courts “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad).”
The connection to the militia is “In addition…” not the purpose.
Great points Gunny.
Thanks. I tried to argue for decades based upon the arguments the anti-guners presented. I finally wised up and realized I needed to fight “on my home turf” and not attempt to refute false statements. Reading the Constitution and defending it is more effective than trying to refute illogical statements.
This is pure common sense. Well said and wisely put. We need to hear more clarion voices such as that of Bob Owens to set forth this proposition so that all may hear it and know it. Political double-speak accomplishes nothing in the face of governmental intrusion and bullying tactics. The Constitution is plain and the intent of the Founders and Framers is clear to all. Our best advice to those who hate the Second Amendment and wish to expunge it from our Bill of Rights is this: move to Europe. Because that Amendment is not going anywhere any time soon. It is here to stay. In wonderful Europe they will be able to live in a “gun free zone” for citizens. But know this, the lawless will have their guns with which to prey upon the helpless victims and their families, and all they will be left with this their victimhood. We patriotic Americans choose not to be victims so we treasure our Second Amendment along with all the rest of our Bill of Rights.
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms NOT the right to bear the ammunition or accessories to those arms. All we need are very strict laws allowing you to own what ever gun toy you need to make you feel powerful but tax ammunition and accessories so high that you could never afford to shoot the evil pieces of violence.
Tax ammo 10,000.00 per bullet, tax any accessory 500% of it’s value, make special hunting rounds that are serialized and can be recovered and must be turned in to take your game home.
Have mandatory schools at 10,000 per one week class per weapon or you have to leave it in a special facility and not your home.
Easy issue, you still get to own and bear your arms.
Pass the Tax, long over due.
Gun control is very easy if you TAX it correctly and not infringe on the second amendment.
You have the right to bear arms, nothing says you have the right to bear the ammunition for the arms,noting,not one word.
Jonathan,
Even if you’re just being sarcastic, you should read the decisions in Heller and McDonald. The reasoning of the court regarding storage directions addresses the same issue you do. The intent of the amendmend is for the people to have firearms for use in hunting and self defenese in an operable condition in a timely manner. Regulations designed specifically to prevent this would fail constitutional review.
Jonathan, you do not deserve the freedom that this country provides you. Guns are not toys, but means of defense against criminals, of both the hoodlum and governmental types.
“The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms NOT the right to bear the ammunition or accessories to those arms.” –Jonathan
Actually, you are exactly, completely wrong. Those items are precisely what the Second Amendment and case law protects. Your fundamental misunderstanding of both law and history is comical.
Amusing among the various places that “Arms & Accouterments” (including weapons, ammunition, military gear, other accessories)are recognized are in bankruptcy exemptions, where such items are exempt from confiscation being recognized as being vital to “the security of the free state.”
Advice: try not to use content from Chris Rock sketches to form public policy.
Jonathan, I do believe your approach is best summed up by a quote from Herr Clinton– “If we can’t ban private weapons, we can legislate them out of existence.”
As to your statement about using the tax on ammo for social programs, that is balderdash. I have never used a bullet to take money from someone, but you want to use the ballot to take money out of mine.
If it’s that all fired important to you, dig into your own pocket. We (shooters, hunters et al) already pay a hidden tax on every round of ammo we by that preserves wild lands where we are not allowed to hunt. We do this willingly, as we know preservation of natural lands is important. Hikers and backpackers can use them, but pay no tax on hiking boots, sleeping bags, tents, etc.
I have heard many people beat the drum for more social programs, social services. One particularly upset me because the fundraiser addressing us was making about six times what we were. When the Q&A period came, I asked him why he didn’t lead by example and ask the government to cut his pay by 10% and apply that to the social services he wanted US to pay for?
Total silence.
I think you are on to something, however. I think I’ll ask for legislation where anyone can apply for welfare, but they can only use the pen for the paperwork provided by the state, and the price will be fixed at $10,000.
Mommy’s calling you for lunch, and it is definitely time to change your diapers.
By the way, I think you are an abortion that was missed…..
it is so sad that when the proverbial $hit hits the fan ordinary citizens will stand up for the rights of jonathan to be an imbecile
David Koresh and his followers in Waco, TX had guns, Janet Reno had tanks. Who won? If Americans do not wake up, and fight back now, someday they may not wake up at all. Stop electing Republicans and Democrats, elect Independent Candidates and Restore not Change America.
Styrgwillidar,
Federal Statues and SC Decisions say what they mean and mean what they say exactly. The Decision was for “the right to bear arms-gun ownership.” It does not mean we can’t tax ammo and accessories into being beyond the reach of anyone but the very rich.
My comment is very serious and not sarcastic.
Background checks aside, many of the people I see daily shouldn’t have a power tool let alone a firearm.
Tax the Heck out of the ammo and game over, I vote for………
100 per bullet .22 bullet and go up from there.
Jonathan, I resectfully disagree. The SCOTUS decision in Heller threw out the regulations on storage of weapons because it infringed on the purpose of 2A as held by the lower court(see my post 44 above). Because your proposal to tax is for no other purpose than to interfere with the right of US citizens under 2A, as defined by the lower court (again see post 44) I believe it would fail constutional review for the exact same reasons the DC storage provisions failed.
I would go into more detail, but really, the rulings and even amici briefs in both Heller and McDonald are well worth your time to read. The amici in McDonald are particularly good at understanding the racist basis for gun control.
Jonathan, let me put it another way. Under your reasoning, it would be acceptable to tax every anti-2A comment on a blog/newspaper/website etc. at, oh $100 for the first line and go up from there.
styrgwillidar
No Sir, not any 2A program. Only Tax ammunition for the sole purpose of raising revenue for important social programs,like Health Care and free school for minorities and poor.
The right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The right to Tax Ammunition shall be used to fund social programs.
The Votes for this are coming and sooner than later.
We have figured out how to end “Gun Use” in America.
Jonathan,
As I said above, this would be the equivalent to a poll tax or test prior to allowing someone to vote. Both found to be unconstitutional.
Again, if you read the rulings, they uphold the 2A right as understood by the signers of the consitution. It was a pre-existing right- not something being established under the constitution. The rulings go into great detail to define what that right was understood to be at the time the declaration was signed. The restrictions on storage were thrown out since they interfered with the ability to exercise the right to self defense. Just as excessive taxes which would interfere with exercising the right.
Again, who knows what some court will decide in the future. But as on other tax issues, the court could recognize the right of the states to raise funds for the purposes you state, but direct they not do it on 2A related materials.
Why exactly do you assume that only the rich are responsible enough to own shootable firearms. Are wealthy people just naturally superior to us poor folks? They never do anything wrong? Never murder, rape, etc? How exactly does making it impossible for ordinary people to defend themselves make them safer or better?
Ah, I see. You assume that anyone reading this MUST be rich, because naturally only rich people are conservative. Once more we see leftist fantasy land, where only Monopoly Man could possibly believe conservatism. Hate to break it to you mate, practically all conservatives are middle class or lower. We just believe that we are free human beings, and it is our responsibility to provide for ourselves. I’d rather be poor and self-dependent than rich and beholden to anyone, whether government ‘manager’ or wealthy patron. So admit it. The real reason you want to take our guns away is so you can round us up in reeducation camps, and teach us to be good little worker ants in your Platonic Republic.
No thanks! I’ll keep my rifle so that at the very least, when your ilk send their bully boys to round me up, I’ll be able to take one or two with me.
But then you’d never dare while I have a rifle and 1,000 rounds of ammo, and millions of others just like me. One Jew with a tiny revolver kept the Nazi death squads out of the Warsaw ghettoes for two months. Bully boys are by their very nature not up for fighting–they had to call in actual soldiers. And you gun-grabbing socialists, whether nationalist or internationalist, only pretend to be for the common man, but in reality it’s all about increasing the power of the wealthy.
Renaissance Nerd,
Sir, the rich can afford lawyers and to pay civil fines for killing with a gun.
You would never get a chance to fire your thousand rounds. The tax would be retroactive and 1000 rounds times 10,000 bucks per box……….
KNOW WHAT JONATHAN?
I think you’re about two french fries short of a happy meal.
I’d like to remove the tires from your car ( or tricycle ). You do sound seriously incapable of owning or operating either. Hopefully…you have a neighbor that can save you if the time ever comes that you need defending.
You can pay him or her back by giving them your tricycle in exchange.
Really, would anyone living near that nut job really help him? I doubt it. I smell a troll anyway. They leave a distinctive odor of failure where ever they post.
So only the rich, who can afford ammunition under your proposal, would be able to defend themselves?
Ken,
Yes, the rich can afford Lawyers and to pay civil penalties for killing with a gun.
“Guns don’t kill people do and guns can’t pay civil judgments but rich people can do.”
Well Jonathan, it’s good that you aren’t King then. Your reliance on the government to blanket you with a nice warm cover of protection is what most of us know is unresonable and indeed impossible. Be responsible for your own freedom and actions, and safety, no one can or will do it for you. No one with any sense will depend on you for their safety and freedom.
Michael
Never want to be King, but on a counsel for a Social agenda and fair taxation of Ammunition would be fine.
Any misuse of a Gun or hurting any individual with any firearm one should lose all wealth and property and be sentenced to labor for the good of the people in a government camp, not a prison, and work camp.
sounds like jonathan got picked on in dodge ball in elementary school
Jonathan,
I’m sure that you have a plan to employ all the people that your Taxation would put out of work. The thousands (more likely 10′s of thousands) of people who work for the firearms industry and the ammunition manufacturers.
As for your hunting bullet plan…..another great idea…..many if not most hunting bullets are not recovered and if they are they are greatly deformed so that serial number identification would be nearly impossible, and of course with your hunting plan….how much game would be left to rot if the bullets could not be recovered and identified?
I think it would be best if you would learn something of your subject before you comment. Remember “those who have not swords may still die upon them”. Hopefully one day you will not require the help of an armed neighbor to save you from an armed criminal.
Steve,
you watch to many action movies. sitting around dreaming of the day you can shoot somebody.
You are right, so if the hunting bullet is not recovered add 10,000.00 and you can take the game.
The Tax would be used to feed and cloth those in need.
The right to Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The right to Tax Ammunition shall be used to fund social programs.
No need to watch action movies…..I don’t need to fantasize ..I live in the real world…..and I notice that you have no answer to my first question……perhaps some of those people out of work will get jobs making coffins for the people killed by your taxes…..I’m reasonably sure that if you wave your tax at a 300 lb felon hopped up on cystal meth bent on breaking down your door and killing you or a family member (with a knife or axe or …yes even a gun) you will most assuredly be able to keep some of those coffin builders in a job.
Steve,
Sorry Steve, you are correct.
The answer to your first question is that we will need to reeducate these workers with the new tax windfall from the ammunition tax.
We can educate them for a useful purpose to serve the society as a whole and not a “special interest group like gun owners.”
Computer technicians, medical, anything useful and not wasteful like the “non green” gun industry.
“Guns don’t kill, people do and guns can’t pay civil judgments but rich people and gun owners do.”
Vote now for the AMMUNITION TAX. END the deficit.
Social agenda for taxation, sentencing to a government camp, redistribution of wealth to gut a constitutional protection, reeducation for society’s uses. Wow, quite a pogrom for your enemies list.
If you want to change the Constitution then do so in the prescribed manner. It’s all written right there in the Constitution. Read it some time, it’s our only protection from dictators.
This is exactly what 99.99% of the trolls on Mother Jones actually believe.Take a ride over there…you’ll need a shower afterwards.
Uh… Jonathan,
You do realize that your plan would require a radical increase in social service programs, right? If your plan eliminated the practical use of weapons in self defense similar to the UK, we could expect at least a tripling of the violent crime rate. With the associated medical and social services cost of dealing with disabled folks from crime, orhpans, widows etc. You wouldn’t even break even…
You do know, if you feed the Trolls, they just get fatter!
To all the people who may think “What good are small arma against armored vehicles?”, I say, not much. HOWEVER, small arms are mighty useful against dismounted crews. Trust this Army veteran, troops can’t stay in their tracks forever. Think of #1 and #2, if you smell what I’m cooking.
And who says people shouldn’t have crew-served ordnance? Granted, it may be difficult to find a suitable range for an 81-mm mortar or 105-mm howitzer.
Jonathan,
You have a 1st Amendment right to free speech, BUT using any words to actually exercise it will cost you $1,000 per word, so you have run up quite a tab in this forum! Afterall, the tax YOU pay will fund all kinds of scoial programs, so enjoy!
this id for those that think that a small weapon can not take down a combat chopper. at F. benning GA. a local farmer got sick and tired of the cobras flying over his property so he started shooting at them with a .22 cal rifle and brought it down, all it takes is a man trained and a simple weapon, even a flock of birds can bring down, why would anyone say you cant fight a tank on foot, it ha been done many times in the past all you need is terrain and the equipment, even a simple bottle with gas and diesel, rice or soap det will slow down a tank long enough to put it out of action a few of those will blind them long enough to take out the tracks and shoot the crew when they come out when it gets to hot. a simple 55 gal drum filled with the same and add nails glass and other items can take out a heavy vehicle and shred a platoon like burger meat so i can sit here and give simple examples of how to take out all kinds of stuff and its the poormans version of warfare. and it was written by the army these procedures of unconventional warfare. i learned well my friend, so if it hits the fan im able, willing and ready to defend from all enemies internal and external. as are many vets and the plain civilians of this nation and we will train those to defend.
Rights, by their nature, are a species of property, and it is in this light that they must be seen. It is for that property in rights that we may sue for their infringement, and if necessary, fight for their use.
Just as property is not the thing, but the rights pursuant to that thing, rights are not the title, but the actual expression, use, dominion, and control of that right. The right to keep and bear arms must be seen in the same manner.
If I remember aright, it was King Charles that introduced poaching laws, circa the 1640s, prohibiting arms in the hands of the people in general, unless they had a certain amount of land of their own. It has always been, by taxation, limitation, and monopoly, the policy of ruling governments to expand their own powers at the cost of the people’s liberty.
It was for this reason that article 1, sections 9 and 10 were established, for it was known that in order to tyrannize, some must be given greater benefits, and others greater penalties under the law. Attainder, as an act, was prohibited from any power of the state, and from all actions by federal government as well. The juries were established to levy punishment, separate from state action, and even then, the states themselves could not follow through with an act that was not congruent with that constitution.
It has always been the policy of would-be tyrants to establish some in favour, and some outside of it. The interplay between the two, by actions at law, keeps the nation in turmoil… a religion played against another by targeted acts, thoughts forced to be the law of the land against the beliefs of others. Rights become privileges at that point, to be determined by the majority, and as Madison expressed to Monroe “There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore more needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. Taking the word “interest” as synonomous with “Ultimate happiness,” in which sense it is qualified with every necessary moral ingredient, the proposition is no doubt true. But taking it in the popular sense, as referring to immediate augmentation of property and wealth, nothing can be more false. In the latter sense it would be the interest of the majority in every community to despoil & enslave the minority of individuals; and in a federal community to make a similar sacrifice of the minority of the component States. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right; and in this light the Western settlements will infallibly view it.”
One must ask.. for whose benefit does the statute exist? It exists only for those who are excepted from its grasp.
“Guns don’t kill, people do and guns can’t pay civil judgments but rich people and gun owners do.”
Shoot someone and 90% chance you will be in Court and 50-50 whether you go to prison or not. 99% chance a Lawyer will take the victims civil case vs the shooter.
Tax the heck out of ammo and we eliiminate 85% of the problem.
Make any gun purchaser attend a 1 week safety school and a 1 week weapon specific school at the buyers expense, mandated by Federal and State Law, and gun sales go bye bye.
75% of you that own guns have no idea how to care for them, maintain them or actually use them correctly. School/Training should be mandated like a drivers education class and a comprhensive test on the specific weapon and it’s care and operation.
The ignorance of the purchaser will eliminate 20% of gun owners to start.
Facts are facts.
Perhaps the same method should be enforced for the first amendment as well. If ignorance is an issue there. . . we’d never, every read or hear of you again.
A friend of mine owns a condo in Mexico. He says no private citizens in Mexico are allowed to own firearms. So the only ones armed are the police, who are corrupt, and the criminals. That policy hasn’t worked out very well, judging by the news reports coming out of Mexico.
Current weapons should also be judged by the ammo it provides. Most military ammo is designed to wound and not kill. Granted there is a variant which (50 Cal.)utterly destroys it’s target. Denying my fundamental right under the 2nd Amendment is comparable running bare in LA traffic. It’s only a matter of time. The Federal Govt. has weapons to protect our nation. We have the means to protect us from the Federal Govt!
Has anybody on the Left checked out the Swiss? Their government GIVES every male the latest in automatic weapons and requires them to train with them! Every year! Does anyone think Hitler just avoided them? There was a reason: EVERY male would have been called upon to fight the German Army. The Swiss may be known for watches and chocolates, but I wouldn’t want to attempt an invasion!
When I was in the cops (more than 30 years ago – I’m STILL armed!) a discussion was taking place about a Police State; one of the guys said that it could never happen here because we had a free press and an armed populace. I would submit that, by and large, we do not have a free press today; BUT WE’RE STILL ARMED and that’s the way it should stay. The folks who wrote the Constitution had just vanquished a tyrannical government – THEIR OWN! I am not advocating violence, but the Second Amendment is a weapon placed there to safeguard We the People! Respectfully submitted.
Rik wrote “Where mores are sufficient, law are unnecessary; when mores are insufficient, law are unenforceable.”
Well said (quoted}. This stuck in my head over the last few days. It’s not about the right to carry guns, or the right to carry bigger guns. It’s about the quality of the “mores” of the people with (or without) the gun in their pocket. A variation on the theme that guns don’t kill, people kill. Explains perhaps why the Swiss and the Canadians have lower per capita gun deaths.
The police are there to clean up the mess and try and find the criminal. They have no ability to protect you when the bad guys are breaking into your house, grabbing your child of any other heinous act. Suicides do not decrease when guns are confiscated and violent crime explodes.
Jonathan, I want nothing to do with the fantasy world you want to live in. You see, not matter what is legislated people will still be the same, there will still be predators and I refuse to be the prey.
“As part of a well regulated militia” is the part that many seem to conveniently omit when arguing that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to keep an assault rifle in their home.
The foundings were brilliant, and that’s exactly why they included this clause. While they did want to give citizens the right to defend themselves from threats foreign and domestic, and were wary of military power consolidated in the federal government, they surely were aware of the real risk of danger they were entertaining – that in allowing citizens to own guns, implicit in this allowance was the fact that psychopaths, criminals, the mentally ill and the just plain old stupid morons could get their hands on a gun and use it to do something evil or unlawful.
If you truly believe that the founders thought that wholesale slaughter was an acceptable risk, and that Americans just need to accept that freedom to own a gun trumps the freedom of everyone else to not be shot by a gun, then why on earth would they have put the “As part of a well regulated militia” clause in the Constitution? It makes no sense. The only logical reason for the insertion of this clause into the Amendment is that the founders took guns and gun ownership so seriously that they decided it should be reserved only for those responsible, likeminded individuals who also take gun ownership seriously. And part of that duty means deferring to a “well regulated militia” – an organization recognized and regulated by regional/state/county government or some other similar authority tasked with keeping public record of membership and gun ownership, ensuring that those who do own guns receive proper training and evaluation, and ensuring that those who abuse this right are barred or discharged from the militia and reported to law enforcement if necessary.
Truth Time,
Nothing like re-writing the Constitution.
The words are the words. Your conclusions or opinions are the problem.
Because you think it does not mean it has any meaning.
Guns don’t kill people, Militia’s do. Guns don’t pay judgements Militia’s do. Guns don’t go to prison, Militia Leaders do.
GUNS DON’T KILL, PEOPLE DO AND GUNS DON’T PAY CIVIL JUDGEMENTS,GUN OWNERS WHO SHOOT PEOPLE DO.”
YOUR RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, SHOOT SOMEONE AND YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD CHANCE OF BEING SUED IN CIVIL COURT AND POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CHARGES.
WHAT TRAINING DID THE SHOOTER RECEIVE, DID THE SHOOTER LEARN TO SHOOT AT SPECIFIC AREAS, WAS THE GUN MODIFIED IN ANY WAY, WAS THE GUNS MAINTENANCE KEEP UP WITH A REAL GUNSMITH QUALIFIED ON THAT GUN, WAS THE AMMUNITION EXCESSIVELY LOADED, WHAT PROBLEMS HAS THE SHOOTER BEEN DEALING WITH IN LIFE LATELY……..
ONLY RICH SHOULD OWN GUNS BECAUSE THEY CAN PAY THE JUDGEMENTS AND THE LAWYERS WHEN THE SHOOTING HAPPENS.
comment
The Founders being fully aware of the difference between arms and small arms (look it up)made no destinction when writing and approving the Second Amendment. The Continental Army could hardy have won the war without cannon and motars(the nuclear weapons of the day)so the fact that they are NOT excluded is very telling on their feelings upon the meaning of ARMS.To suggest now there is an exclusionary level of arms would be un-Constitutional. The same weapons available to the professional military is the level of limit for the militia(PEOPLE). With the number of authors and the numerous writings on the subject it is abundantly clear to all but the most disengenous exactly where the Founders stood on the subject. Shall not be infringed is rather straight forward,is it not?
Mr. Owens,
Once there was a property owner in New England. This property owner did not want to sell the property to a Group of Developers. The case went all the way to the SCUSA.
The SCUSA decided that it is Legal to take a persons private property if it benefits the higher Social benefit of the community.
It will not be long before the USASC allows excessive Tax on “luxury” items, booze, tobacco,marijuana, AMMUNITION, etc… and other unneeded and frivolous items, in order for the higher social benefit of the community be better served.
With all due respect, you don’t really understand how the world works. Economics not Justice rule a Capitalistic Federal Republic, disguised as a Democracy.
We don’t need Ammunition, we have a Police Force for protection.
The fact is if you ever do fulfill your fantasy of shooting someone, rightly or wrongly, you will be in a Court of Law fighting for your temporary Freedom and no matter what your Economic Status in the real world will suffer.
We can now take your private property by SCUSA rule.
The Ammunition Tax is coming.
You may have your Right to Bear Arms but you will not be able to shoot them without winning the Powerball.
Mr. Owens,
Once there was a property owner in New England. This property owner did not want to sell the property to a Group of Developers. The case went all the way to the SCUSA.
The SCUSA decided that it is Legal to take a persons private property if it benefits the higher Social benefit of the community.
It will not be long before the USASC allows excessive Tax on “luxury” items, booze, tobacco,marijuana, AMMUNITION, etc… and other unneeded and frivolous items, in order for the higher social benefit of the community be better served.
With all due respect, you don’t really understand how the world works. Economics not Justice rule a Capitalistic Federal Republic, disguised as a Democracy.
We don’t need Ammunition, we have a Police Force for protection.
The fact is if you ever do fulfill your fantasy of shooting someone, rightly or wrongly, you will be in a Court of Law fighting for your temporary Freedom and no matter what your Economic Status in the real world will suffer.
We can now take your private property by SCUSA rule.
The Ammunition Tax is coming.
You may have your Right to Bear Arms but you will not be able to shoot them without winning the Powerball.
Self-protection is hardly “frivolous” and many folks live in rural areas where the police may not get to them for 10-20 minutes or even longer.
You socialist whack-jobs are something else. “You can have your fries but you can’t have salt”.
“We don’t need Ammunition, we have a Police Force for protection.”
Here’s a little test for you. Dial 911…tell them your door is being broken down or your windows are being smashed and someone is in your home. Tell them to hurry. Please, please hurry. You’re very afraid and they have a gun too.
Now get your stop watch out…and wait and wait. 5 minutes? 10 minutes?
You’ll be quite cold by the time the cops get there friend.
Seconds count….you don’t have minutes.
Maybe your family will set up a memorial fund where donation to the poor and underprivileged can be made in your honor.
Oh how I thank my lucky stars you are not in power or have any power to begin with. I know why you want those social programs funded though. You want your time in the sanitarium paid for by ammunition taxes. Well you will get the funny farm but other things will have to pay for it. Till then enjoy your cardboard box under the over pass and visits to the library to post comments on digital boards.
And yet, there is no right to police or any other protection other than that you extend yourself.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and at least 20 other court cases at the Supreme Court level have proven that, time and time again.
There is no right to police protection, nor do you have any right to sue them for failure to protect. There is no protected property interest in that protection, even if they, by law, have fully disarmed you.
Secure? The only security in life is that we’ll all die eventually. There is no safety, even in the most ‘secure’ of environments, and the deaths within the prisons maximum security sections are some of the most brutal, painful, and lingering you can imagine.
I see no reason to extend those rules outside of the walls.
Great job..
They do seem to be the ranting, rambling, ridiculous recriminations of a reprobate revisionist!
“We don’t need Ammunition, we have a Police Force for protection.”
No. In accordance with the SCOTUS decision in Warren VS DC, among other cases, it is not the duty of the police to provide protection. They exist to enforce the laws and have no obligation to protect any individual unless under a particular and specific arrangement to that individual, for example, taken into protective custody.