PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     2nd amendment

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How many of you beleive that the second amendment does not ensure the right to own personal guns and why.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:06 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure you can own a gun but there is no reasonable explanation for owning one.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:46 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i use mine for hunting and sport shooting and if ever needed i will use it in defense.  those sound reasonable.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:57 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do they? I'll understand hunting for food, but for sport is cruel sadism.

And everyone knows the only reason they included that amendment was because we were at war with a country that was invading our personal homes.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 7:04 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's what I was going to say... now do you see my reasonable clause.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:29 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 7:04 PM on May 25, 2005 :
Do they? I'll understand hunting for food, but for sport is cruel sadism.

And everyone knows the only reason they included that amendment was because we were at war with a country that was invading our personal homes.


*Holds up hand* My bad!
We were invading lol, but you had just pissed us off with your nice lil tea party rather glad we don't own you any more because then we would be stuck in your "leadership" of the world role, and everyone would hate us instead ;) Although its nice being related, means we wont get nuked when georgey boi goes insane... lol

Come on guys you don't NEED guns.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:27 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah nothing sweeter than another world citizen free of American megalomania. On top of that you know what's right from wrong...


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 4:53 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with Iorek and Peter. Guns for personal use are more futile then useful.

And Britain kicks ass. Especially Cornwall and Oxford..
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 7:43 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everything i shoot i eat. i was talking about like shooting clay pigions or just shooting at targets for the sports shooting.

And u pissed us off with all ur taxes lol

Im not going to change how you think about guns but lets get one thing straight our founding fathers made it the 2nd amendment for a reason.  

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"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 in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-Decleration of Independence

You cant do that very well if you not armed.

Sorry its so long lol

I think that should leave no question in your mind what the 2nd amendment is for.

Yes actually we do need guns.  Who can we expect to protect us when our homes are broken into and the intruders intent is to kill? Not the police when it takes several minutes to get there once the call is made.  Yet the average home invasion is measured in seconds.  

r u saying i dont know whats right from wrong?







-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:15 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A good reason to own a gun is because criminals have them,for those who hold that curling up in the fetal postion and begging for mercy is the way to go when confronted with danger a gun is useless, they have neither the intelligence or courage to operate one and will be buried and forgotten about.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:26 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For those owning guns, they will start a shoot out and be responsible for the deaths of thier entire family.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:38 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 08:38 AM on May 29, 2005 :
For those owning guns, they will start a shoot out and be responsible for the deaths of thier entire family.



That is just about the stupidest  thing i have seen on the subject,your ignorance of real life scenarios is just as impressive as your ability to substitute fantasy in their place,.one homeowner,one criminal,one gun,one dead or severly injured criminal,assuming of course that at least one man is involved,cowards need not apply.

 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 12:55 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have to agree its a very ignorant statement.  ur view of how these situations really play out is very distorted.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 1:18 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How bout' people just not live in the southern areas of America, because that seems to be the only area that is so excessively
"threatened" by people running into your house and killing/robbing/attacking you :-)..
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 1:39 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would presume that the majority of people that break into houses have the intention of theft rather than muder. Considering the sentences for each, they gain nothing from killing the inhabitants of the house. However Mr Hero pulls out his gun and starts shooting at the intruders, the intruders then get worried start shooting back at anything that moves includeing Mr Heros family.

Seriously do you think all armed robery ends in murder. NO it doesn't. Don't you think it would be far better to make it harder for these people to obtain guns rather than say ok here everyone have guns then we don't need to worry about the people with guns.

Why do you think america has such a gun problem? I'm not implying anything from earlier in my post, I just want to know why you think there is such a problem with guns in america that isn't repeated anywhere else in the world.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 5:51 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, acutally Peter, ya see, here in America, we have this thing called Texas ;-), and their motto is "Ingorance is bliss, go buy guns.. in double to triple digit #s.."...lol, we love you Texas :-)..
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:34 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ha Fox you are a kidder.

But seriously, sure clay pigeons is fine but there should be ranges that rent out the guns rather than having you own one...

And usually a robber breaks into the house when no one is home and a family member is way more likely to be killed by the family gun than by a robber. But no I continue. What if the robber got to the gun before you? (here's a hint - if you say gun safe you are wrong, you won't have the time to open it when there's somone with a gun in front of you...) And what's the point of owning more than one gun? please I want to know.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:51 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Multiple guns, I think I can answer that...
1. A handgun to kill robbers (or even trick or treaters)

2. A Hunting rifle to kill deer (or pilots if you've seen hotshots)

3. A fully automatic rifle, because you can because its in the constitution.

4. A rocket launcher becuase thats also ok.

5. And about another 50 guns spread across the ranch in good ol' texas.

6. Not forgeting the shotgun/pitchfork ensemble for killing hippys.

And I think you should all keep your handguns under your pillow and hold the trigger while you sleep, maybe you'll role over and blow your brains out... then you could win the next darwin awards ;)


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:06 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.




-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:10 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

peter87

actually heres out it happens
gun owner reliazes someones breaking into his house. he has his wife call 911 while he retrieves his gun.  he then confronts the intruder at mostlikely a range of about ten feet. tells the armed robber to leave. one of two things can now happen he can leave or attempet to shoot the gun owner.  now the gun owner having practiced in which majority do is a pretty good shot see's the quick movement of the robber aiming his gun he then fires his gun and kills him.  that is how it happens if its a home invasion the family would hardly ever be in the  same room making it near impossible for the family to get killed.  

actually there are several other nation that are "safer" that have higher crime rates then the US


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:18 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

box of fox

in the US the highest gun crime city is wasgington dc and guess who has the highest gun control. washington dc.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:20 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lord Iorek

u cant just rent a gun and shoot it well. every gun shoots different even if its the same type

ur right most of the time robbers brake into homes that are not occupied.  most familes educate their children along with the rest of the family in gun saftey.  so for the most part these deaths do not happen

lets see u have the gun in a place where unless the robber lives there wont know where it is and u can get to it quickly.  no u dont goget the gun in the safe.  

well lets say i like to turkey hunt i need a shotgun but i also like to deer hunt then i need a deer rifle and if i like to squierrl hunt i need a 22 then i need a hand gun to carry with me for protection.  u cant have a all purpose weapon theres rules and regulation on what guns u can use to hunt what now if u only hunt deer all u need is a deer rifle and maybe a pistol for protection. if ur a big outdoors man ull probably end up having about 5 or 6 guns



-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:28 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guns are such a guy thing...i'm sorry to those who don't support gun ownership but SERIOUSLY - it's not hard to associate gun ownership with notions of increased masculinity/strength. I know this isn't really relevant, but what skins38 just said about the "gun owner getting his wife to call 911..." and "if you're a big outdoors man..." - it just gets a little much for females such as myself reading such things. All i want to say is LOCK YOUR DOORS PEOPLE!!!! INSTALL A SECURITY ALARM!!! GET A DOG!!! Prevention, prevention, prevention...see what i'm trying to say?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:14 AM on May 31, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

prevention is something that should happen but it doesnt always work. theres plenty of prevention at banks but yet they still get robbed.  

u must be prepared for when that prevention doesnt work


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 1:47 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 10:10 PM on May 30, 2005 :
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.





I noticed they are all from AUSTRAILIA not the US which follows the constitution... (stupid cut and pasting you really need to read what you paste)


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 6:10 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i know it was from there i was showing what happens when u ban guns


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:13 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why is it that those who choose to be defensless resent those who do not,i do not care about what happens to those who choose to not defend their lives, families and property it is certainly their right to surrender all to any thug that comes along.The suggestion is made that any man who owns a gun is a redneck,macho,rambo like bufoon,fine! i will assume that any man opposed to gun ownership is gutless,effeminate little panty boy who wouldn't have the brains to figure out which end of the gun the bullet came out of or the guts to use it when he did figure it out.There also seems to be some here who beleive crime in people's homes is some kind of fantasy dreamed up by people who just want to shoot somebody.I suggest that it is they who are in la la land and cannot face reality,just turn off "The Apprentice" or"American Idol" or any other number of imbecilic,half witted shows that are so popular with Americans who don't pay attention and watch the news and you will see that it is for real.The criminals WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS and it is the ones who realize this fact that have the better chance of surviving such an encounter while the rest wet their panties and beg for mercy.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 7:13 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fine, whatever, I don't care about the stupid amendment. Get your frikin guns and go live in Lalaland where you get to hunt and defend from the forces of evil all day.

And please, please, Fender/skins make an effort to capitalize, use correct punc, don't make run-on sentences, your not 12 years old. (Right? You might be around 13 though, sounds like it)..
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 8:25 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i like u fender. i will try and be better at my grammer and such though.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 10:37 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fender at 7:13 PM on May 31, 2005 :
The suggestion is made that any man who owns a gun is a redneck,macho,rambo like bufoon,fine! i will assume that any man opposed to gun ownership is gutless,effeminate little panty boy who wouldn't have the brains to figure out which end of the gun the bullet came out of or the guts to use it when he did figure it out.


Thank you so much for supporting what i said before about men and their guns.

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:51 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 8:25 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Fine, whatever, I don't care about the stupid amendment. Get your frikin guns and go live in Lalaland where you get to hunt and defend from the forces of evil all day.

And please, please, Fender/skins make an effort to capitalize, use correct punc, don't make run-on sentences, your not 12 years old. (Right? You might be around 13 though, sounds like it)..



That"stupid" amendment along with all of the others has created a country where a little sissy  can fret over  things like grammar because he has nothing better to complain about,so be thankful for itdespite whatever grammatical errors my post might contain it gets your panties in a twist and thats good enough for me.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 5:17 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The thing is that the majority of people who own a gun live in an area that doesn't have a high crime rate such as Camden. (unless you live in Texas but they just shoot each other for fun)


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:45 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think then a reason for that could be because of high gun ownership?


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:49 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or not...people who have the iminent threat of being robbed know that it is better to not start a shootout.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:36 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Fender

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 9:36 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Or not...people who have the iminent threat of being robbed know that it is better to not start a shootout.



Oh my no! they know its best to curl up and cry and beg,that's what any real man or woman would do,be completely helpless and do absolutely nothing to defend yourself or your family and the magic angels will come to your aid.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 10:59 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Charliegone

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The idea that gun ownership does not stop crime is rather distorted. In fact, it does prevent many violent crimes and other crimes such as robbery and home invasion.  You don't believe me? Do some research (unbaised of course) and you will what I am telling you that it is true.  An estimated 2 million times a year, thats a year, guns are used defensively.  That killed by guns (which is about 10,000 or so a year). Though that number of 10,000 can also be debatable, because it does not distinguish between defensive use or some involved criminal activity.  The so called "shootout" claim can be possible, but is not the case or rather very rare.  Also, why is wrong to fight back? Self-defense is A RIGHT, feeling safe, is not.  The second amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms, arms of course being small arms weapons.  Primarily guns.  The "collective" right belief has been descredited by most constitutional scholars as being false, even the once "collective" right mogul, Lawrence Tribe stated, reluctantly, that the 2nd amendment protected an individuals right to bear arms.  

Here is graph of the crime rates of both the U.S. and Great Britain (one is just England and Wales):

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/meth.htm

1999
(Last year results were available for both countries.)
-England
Report page 117
Rate per 100,000 inhabitants
*United States
Report page 492
Rate per 100,000 inhabitants

Grand total recorded crimes: -10,061.11 *8,517.19
Total recorded assaults: -833.72 *805.21
Total recorded robberies: -159.95 *147.36
Total recorded thefts: -3,357.60 *2,502.66
Total recorded automobile thefts: -711.12 *412.70
Total recorded burglaries: -1,721.33 *755.29
Total recorded frauds: -635.36 *133.74

Also if you check the Home Office website (the british equivalent of the DOJ or OJP), you will see crime is rising (of course they say it can be lower which is not more cover up maybe?)  

ALSO, you fail to mention nations that have higher violent crime with gun control such as Brazil and Russia; while nations with less violent crime include Israel and Switzerland, which have a mandatory keep and bear arms.


 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 12:18 AM on June 6, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a couple of flaws

great britain also includes scotland and northern ireland.
The figures don't distinguish between rural and city areas
Are you surgesting one in ten people report a crime every year?

Also, what about unreported crime?

Also I'm not saying that the figures are correct, but I don't see what this has to do with gun crime?

However if you check out population density you'll find that on a whole, brtain is much more densly populated than america, and therefore you would expect a higher crime rate.

I just checked out that website, and it isn't great britain its just england and wales like you said, but it doesn't actualy say great britain on the site.

But I also found this satement under the graphs
Notes on figures 79-82: In these graphs, assault includes threats; burglary does not include attempts; and auto theft excludes thefts of motorcycles.
And considering this is an American statistics site they have just screwed around with the figures for their own benefit.
Also try to find some information that is a little less out of date.

OK I'm going to pretend that all those statistics are correct, but you will find that in england still less of our crimes end up in the death of someone, shot or otherwise.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 12:47 PM on June 6, 2005 | IP
Five Seven

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Writen by a fellow rightist...

The Second Amendment, nor the rest of the Bill of Rights, grants rights. The Bill of Rights protects existing rights. I present to you the Preamble of the Bill of Rights followed by the grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment from the leading authority on early English grammer in the United States.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

As you can see from the Preamble itself that these rights already exist and they are put onto paper as further restrictions upon the federal government. This is done so to prevent abuses and misconstruction of the Constitution and the powers delegated therein. Now for the grammatical analysis.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he

security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."


As you can see that the right is pre-existing and the Bill of Rights does not grant the right to own them. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the pre-existing right to own weapons. Let's go into further grammatical analysis of the word arms. This is the definition from Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

2. War; hostility.

Arms and the man I sing.

To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.


As you can see that the useage of the word arms denotes military weapons. These weapons are not technologically fixed as the founding fathers saw changes in gun technology in their lifetimes. Also these weapons are the weapons the military uses even today.

For example, prior to the War of Independence most weapons were flintlocks that were unrifled. However, during the War of Independence weapons were rifled muskets and cannons had also improved. Prior to the flintlocks you had the blunderbuss design of guns. Sabers and bayonet designs had also progressed from the early colonial period to the time of the War of Independence.

Here's The Militia Act of 1792 for reference on military hardware as well as to whom the militia are comprised of.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.



III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.


As you can see that the militia is every man between the ages of 18 and 45. They are to be armed with the technological modern firearms of their day even down to the ownership of cannons of various sizes. There is no doubt that the Second Amendment protects the citizens rights to own and practice with military hardware. If there is some dispute in your mind on whether this is true or not here is some portions of the House of Representatives official journal of the debates on the Second Amendment.

Virginia — SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.


New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct...that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.


HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, July 28, 1789.

...[6] "A well regulated militia1, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."2

HOUSE RESOLUTION AND ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; August 24, 1789.

ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3


As you can see that in the debates the founding fathers were quite agreed upon the right of the people to keep and bear military hardware. No matter how many falsified statistics you pull up on gun deaths does not dispute the supreme law of the land. In fact, the sale of cannons and other military hardware continued up until the 1990's for the ownership of the people. Since any gun regulations is a violation of the Second Amendment they are indeed unconstitutional. For reference here is the definition of infringed from Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

As you can see that infringed means violated, broken, and transgressed. Make no mistake that gun control violates the Bill of Rights' protections upon guns and military hardware. If you still aren't convinced then here is part of the Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.

1. The Text of the Amendment Refers to an Individual Right

The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. 1 These rights are clearly individual — they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right.

What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? 2 It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 3

Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public.

And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment 4) — the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45;5 given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person.
2. Contemporaneous Constitutions and Commentaries Unanimously Treat the Right as an Individual Right

Contemporaneous evidence from the late 1700s and 1800s unanimously supports the individual rights reading of the text. It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights. England, of course, didn't have states, so the English right couldn't have been a states' right; Sir William Blackstone, whose 1765 Commentaries were tremendously influential in Revolutionary Era America, described the right as a "right of the subject," an obviously individual rights characterization. 6

Many early state Bills of Rights also protected the right to keep and bear arms; since these rights were protections against state governments, they surely must have protected individuals, not the states themselves. And many of the constitutions made this quite explicit. The 1790 Pennsylvania and the 1792 Kentucky Constitutions described the right as "the right of the citizens"; the 1796 Tennessee Constitution spoke of "the right of the freemen"; the 1817 Mississippi, 1818 Connecticut, 1819 Maine, and 1819 Alabama Constitution specifically referred to the right of "every citizen." The 1776 Pennsylvania, 1777 Vermont, 1802 Ohio, 1816 Indiana, and 1820 Missouri Constitutions spoke of "the people['s] right to bear arms for the defence of themselves," referring to the people individually ("themselves") rather than collectively ("itself"). 7 Throughout the 1800s, these unambiguously individual rights were seen as directly analogous to the Second Amendment. 8

The same goes for all the notable constitutional commentators of the 1800s. St. George Tucker (1803) treated the Second Amendment right as equivalent to Blackstone's "right of the subject"; 9 William Rawle (1829) did likewise. 10 Justice Joseph Story (1833 and 1840) called it a "right of the citizens." 11 Thomas Cooley (1880 and 1898) took exactly the same individual right view; 12 so did the 1866 Freedmen's Bureau Act, which specifically secured to "all the citizens" "the constitutional right to bear arms" as part of their "personal liberty." 13 A recent exhaustive study reveals that there was exactly one statement in the 1800s cases or commentaries supporting the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case. 14
3. The U.S. Supreme Court Cases Do Not Treat the Right as a Collective Right

The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions. In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15

One of the remaining five cases — and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right — is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16 But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard. Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

The only Supreme Court case that leans in the collective rights direction is Lewis v. United States (1980), which summarily rejected an ex-felon's claim of a right to possess a firearm, in passing citing some lower court cases that took a collective rights view. 17 But Lewis could equally well be explained as concluding only that ex-felons don't have a right to keep and bear arms (something that's also been held in the many states whose constitutions unambiguously guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms). In any event, if one relies on passing mentions, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) (quoting Justice Harlan) in passing described liberty as including "[freedom from] the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on" — a description that treats the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right on par with the other individual rights. 18

Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions. 19 If the historical or textual evidence were in equipoise, and if the cases dealt carefully with the evidence and explained why the pro-states'-right evidence was more persuasive than the pro-individual-right evidence, then perhaps we might defer to these courts' views. But when the lower courts' decisions are contrary to the unanimous weight of the evidence, and do not really confront this evidence but rely almost entirely on bald assertions or on citations to other lower court decisions, it seems to me that we must respectfully say that the lower courts are mistaken.

 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:43 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Harlan Peppa

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "You are more likely to kill a family member than the burglar," argument is flawed.

A burglar is less likely to enter your house if there is a possibility of the occupants having a firearm.

Please provide an instance of a dictatorship having no gun control.


-------
Socialism is at the point of a gun.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 7:00 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
defender

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

The Federal Government does not have the power to ban guns.  

So it doesn't really matter what the 2nd Amendment means.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 2:49 PM on September 25, 2005 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 6:10 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Quote from skins38 at 10:10 PM on May 30, 2005 :
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.





I noticed they are all from AUSTRAILIA not the US which follows the constitution... (stupid cut and pasting you really need to read what you paste)




I noticed you are a fucking idiot.  AUSTRALIA (spelled correctly) effectively banned civilian gun ownership, hence the relevance of the statistics.  Maybe you should read up on gun control before you express your ill-informed opinion.  
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:27 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 6:15 PM on May 28, 2005 :
Everything i shoot i eat. i was talking about like shooting clay pigions or just shooting at targets for the sports shooting.

And u pissed us off with all ur taxes lol

Im not going to change how you think about guns but lets get one thing straight our founding fathers made it the 2nd amendment for a reason.  

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"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 in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-Decleration of Independence

You cant do that very well if you not armed.

Sorry its so long lol

I think that should leave no question in your mind what the 2nd amendment is for.

Yes actually we do need guns.  Who can we expect to protect us when our homes are broken into and the intruders intent is to kill? Not the police when it takes several minutes to get there once the call is made.  Yet the average home invasion is measured in seconds.  

r u saying i dont know whats right from wrong?







Bravo. You have hit the nail on the head. I salut you Sir





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 4:30 PM on June 17, 2006 | IP
tempestv

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from defender at 2:49 PM on September 25, 2005 :
The Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

The Federal Government does not have the power to ban guns.  

So it doesn't really matter what the 2nd Amendment means.


Uh, no, it is very important. in the Case of US v. Cruikshank, 1875, it was declaired that the congress does not have the power to regulate guns, but that that was as far as the second amendment went. The States could regulate guns as much as they wished. For some reason, this decision has been ignored every time congress passes a gun control act. It is true that  the second ammendment may not really matter in states such as New York and California where the state is more restictive than the fedral goverment when it comes to gun ownership, it makes a big difference in states like Montana and Vermont that have few gun control laws.

 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:06 PM on June 23, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from tempestv at 4:06 PM on June 23, 2006 :
Quote from defender at 2:49 PM on September 25, 2005 :
The Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

The Federal Government does not have the power to ban guns.  

So it doesn't really matter what the 2nd Amendment means.


Uh, no, it is very important. in the Case of US v. Cruikshank, 1875, it was declaired that the congress does not have the power to regulate guns, but that that was as far as the second amendment went. The States could regulate guns as much as they wished. For some reason, this decision has been ignored every time congress passes a gun control act. It is true that  the second ammendment may not really matter in states such as New York and California where the state is more restictive than the fedral goverment when it comes to gun ownership, it makes a big difference in states like Montana and Vermont that have few gun control laws.


I may be wrong but dosn't one of the amendments to the constitution state that the first 10 amendments apply also to the states?





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 4:36 PM on June 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Isn't Roy Rogers looking for you?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:23 PM on June 24, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Met him when I was a kid very nice person to bad he's dead.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 12:04 PM on June 25, 2006 | IP
proudamerican

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 5:46 PM on May 25, 2005 :
Sure you can own a gun but there is no reasonable explanation for owning one.


You’re very wrong! Because I love my wife and children I am responsible for their safety. This is why I legally carry a gun with me at all times.

Would you not use deadly force should the need arise to protect your loved ones if that was the only option?
[u]
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 4:38 PM on September 15, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 7:04 PM on May 25, 2005 :
Do they? I'll understand hunting for food, but for sport is cruel sadism.

And everyone knows the only reason they included that amendment was because we were at war with a country that was invading our personal homes.


How badly did you flunk your Junior High Civics class?

The United States Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention which had begun drafting it (more or less) in 1786.

This was three years after the Treaty of Paris which formally ended the war in 1783. (Although for all intents and purposses the war had ended in 1781 with the British surrender at Yorktown).

Further casting doubts onto your theory is the simple fact that the Second Ammendment to the US Consitituion was written later still. The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments were adopted between 1789 and 1791.

This was more than a decade since the British Crown had invaded any American home... (Although in 1812 we'd be at it agian... but I digress.)

The 2nd Ammendment was written to formally forbid the government from revoking or tampering with the people's right to self defense.

It is not about hunting, it never has been. It is about self-defense, defense of the state, and defense agianst the state. But, don't take my word for it: ask the blokes that wrote the thing:

[quote="James Madison"]Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation .... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.


"The Federalist Papers Online." Viewed in January of 1999 at www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fedpaper.html (emphasis added, portions omidited for clairity)

[quote="Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Cartwright)"] The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."


"Civil Rights." Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government. Viewed in May of 1999 at etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

Of course, here in my State we never muddied the waters with a "militia clause" which anti-rights organizations find so confusing. Our State Consitution has changed a wee bit over the years, but one thing has remained the same:

1835: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

1850:  Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1908:  Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1963:  Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

D'you see anything in there about white-tail deer?


(Edited by Michigan 10/2/2006 at 3:15 PM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 3:12 PM on October 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not to mention, we weren't really being invaded as we were part of Britain in the first place.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:43 PM on October 2, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From an ex post facto legal standpoint, we were no longer colonys as soon as the Declaration was signed (and/or received by King George III). This is, of corse, only because we won. Had the war resolved differntly, we probably would have been a British "colony in name only" like our Canadian neighbors until the late 19th or early 20th C.

Regardless, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were not drawn up in a time of war. The anti-rights movement likes to claim it is, but they are mistaken. In fact, it was drawn up after a series of armed revolts agianst the government. (Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Revolt, et cetra).

Had the Framers had any doubts about the "danger" of an armed populace, these would have been perfect excuses to disarm the people. Instead they made it the highest law in the land that we couldn't be disarmed.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 07:42 AM on October 4, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.