Guns and the Constitution

[spare_change]

From the Wall Street Journal

November 24, 2007

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has discovered any number of new rights not in the explicit text of the Constitution. Now it has the opportunity to validate a right that resides in plain sight -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declared unconstitutional the District's near-total ban on handgun possession. That 2-1 ruling, written by Judge Laurence Silberman, found that when the Second Amendment spoke of the "right of the people," it meant the right of "individuals," and not some "collective right" held only by state governments or the National Guard.
[Hot Topic] HOT TOPIC

Court Sets Its Scope on Handgun Ban

That stirring conclusion was enough to prompt the D.C. government to declare Judge Silberman outside "the mainstream of American jurisprudence" in its petition to the Supreme Court. We've certainly come to an interesting legal place if asserting principles that appear nowhere in the Constitution is considered normal, but it's beyond the pale to interpret the words that are in the Constitution to mean what they say.

However, it is true that, despite our vitriolic policy fights over gun control, the Supreme Court has rarely ruled on the Second Amendment. The Court last spoke in detail in 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, involving a bootlegger who claimed the right to transport an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. That opinion was sufficiently complicated that both sides now claim it as a precedent.

The dispute arises from the first four words of the Second Amendment, the full text of which reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the first two clauses were omitted, there would be no room for ambiguity. But part of the legal controversy has centered around what a "well regulated militia" means.

Judge Silberman's opinion argued, with convincing historical evidence, that the "militia" the Framers had in mind was not the National Guard of the present, but referred to all able-bodied male citizens who might be called upon to defend their country. The notion that the average American urbanite might today go to his gun locker, grab his rifle and sidearm and rush, Minuteman-like, to his nation's defense might seem quaint. But at stake is whether the "militia" of the Second Amendment is some small, discreet group of people acting under government control, or all of us.

The phrase "the right of the people" or some variation of it appears repeatedly in the Bill of Rights, and nowhere does it actually mean "the right of the government." When the Bill of Rights was written and adopted, the rights that mattered politically were of one sort -- an individual's, or a minority's, right to be free from interference from the state. Today, rights are most often thought of as an entitlement to receive something from the state, as opposed to a freedom from interference by the state. The Second Amendment is, in our view, clearly a right of the latter sort.

As a practical matter on the Court, the outcome in D.C. v. Heller might well be decided by one man: Anthony Kennedy, the most protean of Justices. However, in recent years he has also been one of the most aggressive Justices in asserting any number of other rights to justify his opinions on various social issues. It would seriously harm the Court's credibility if Justice Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing now turned around and declared the right "to keep and bear arms" a dead letter because it didn't comport with their current policy views on gun control. This potential contradiction may explain why no less a liberal legal theorist than Harvard's Laurence Tribe has come around to an "individual rights" understanding of the Second Amendment.

By the way, a victory for gun rights in Heller would not ban all gun regulation, any more than the Court's support for the First Amendment bars every restraint on free speech. The Supreme Court has allowed limits on speech inciting violence or disrupting civil order. In the same way, a judgment that the Second Amendment is an individual right could allow reasonable limits on gun use, such as to protect public safety.

Here's hoping the Justices will put aside today's gun control passions and look to the plain language of the Bill of Rights for instruction in this case, as Judge Silberman had the courage to do.

[Iwantutowantme]

I wonder what the Brits think of gun control? ..........

[UltimateNaneki]

I wonder what the Brits think of gun control? ..........

Well the Canadian government tried it and failed...all that happen is they spent moneys that we did not have to spend...the morrons :nu

[Pebbles]

I wonder what the Brits think of gun control? ..........



"Earlier this year the Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared: "Guns in America are accepted but we don't want that for Britain." A state of affairs like that in the United States is still a long way off but there is no room for complacency".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7047649.stm

[Annie]

"Earlier this year the Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared: "Guns in America are accepted but we don't want that for Britain." A state of affairs like that in the United States is still a long way off but there is no room for complacency".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7047649.stm It's interesting that the author compares murder numbers with the US... perhaps a per capita comparison would have been a bit more accurate?



"During the past year the deliberate use of guns to take life has risen in England and Wales. According to the Home Office, there were 58 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year - an increase of 18%.

But the overall level of gun crime is falling. Firearms offences in total fell 13% in 2006-07 to 9,608 incidents. Compared with the US - where 14,000 murders involving firearms were committed in 2005 - the UK is a safe haven."

[hank69]

When you outlaw guns.............Only outlaws will have guns......

I'm not giving up mine...today...

[p.a]

So then every gang banging dope dealer, neo-nazi, skin head, white supremacists, bad aiming Dick Cheney type hunter will be able to bare arms until they actually kill somebody. Wow what a great Idea!!!! To bad we can't temper some of this gun ownership with common sense. But then common sense is a dead concept isn't it.

I'm slowly beginning to believe in armagedon. So many are trying to push us to that end.

[Annie]

So then every gang banging dope dealer, neo-nazi, skin head, white supremacists, bad aiming Dick Cheney type hunter will be able to bare arms until they actually kill somebody. Wow what a great Idea!!!! To bad we can't temper some of this gun ownership with common sense. But then common sense is a dead concept isn't it.

I'm slowly beginning to believe in armagedon. So many are trying to push us to that end.

Well, based on the numbers provided in the article Pebbles posted, I did a little rough math. Using data from this site: http://www.indexmundi.com/ I came up with these stats.

United Kingdom Population
60,776,238 (July 2007 est.)
9608 gun related incidents
One in every 6325.5


United States Population
301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)
14,000 gun related incidents
One in every 21509.9

So what does banning guns do? Keep us safer?

[spare_change]

So then every gang banging dope dealer, neo-nazi, skin head, white supremacists, bad aiming Dick Cheney type hunter will be able to bare arms until they actually kill somebody. Wow what a great Idea!!!! To bad we can't temper some of this gun ownership with common sense. But then common sense is a dead concept isn't it.

I'm slowly beginning to believe in armagedon. So many are trying to push us to that end.


Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Patrick Henry
1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Thomas Jefferson
1776 - Draft Constitution for the State of Virginia

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].

Thomas Jefferson
1824 - letter to John Cartwright

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . 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, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

Zacharia Johnson
1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.

James Madison
1788 - Federalist No. 46

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

George Mason
1778 - speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

Noah Webster
1787 - An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution

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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

[oldandnaked]

So then every gang banging dope dealer, neo-nazi, skin head, white supremacists, bad aiming Dick Cheney type hunter will be able to bare arms until they actually kill somebody. Wow what a great Idea!!!! To bad we can't temper some of this gun ownership with common sense. But then common sense is a dead concept isn't it.

I'm slowly beginning to believe in armagedon. So many are trying to push us to that end.


I'm not sure my common sense tells me that if guns are outlawed, the groups you mentioned in your post will run down to the closest authority and turn theirs in. I know I wouldn't want to be the guy that has to take Cheney's away from him. Yes, it's a bit trite and corny but, like the bumper sticker says: "Outlaw Guns then only Outlaws will have Guns".

[mrdiscreet]

I've always had mixed feelings about unrestricted gun ownership. Most large city police chiefs want them off the streets. A high correlation to suicides and domestic violence as well.

On the other hand, as we march closer and closer to a fascist society, I'm very tempted to stock up ...

"If I had a rocket launcher, some son of a b*tch would die"

Warren Zevon, Send Lawyers Guns and MOney

[hank69]

So then every gang banging dope dealer, neo-nazi, skin head, white supremacists, bad aiming Dick Cheney type hunter will be able to bare arms until they actually kill somebody. Wow what a great Idea!!!! To bad we can't temper some of this gun ownership with common sense. But then common sense is a dead concept isn't it.

I'm slowly beginning to believe in armagedon. So many are trying to push us to that end.




So I take it your not a gun owner....that's your right.....Mine is to keep and bare arms.....and I'll keep it...

don't classify the game hunter with the gang bangers type.......

Get real......they ..will use cars, knives, bats or what ever.....to get what they want or need at the time......I'll have a fighting chance......

[p.J]

For my pennies worth, and remember UK is a little Island.. (albeit with a big ego!!)

A recent spate of fatal shootings in British cities has brought the issue of gun culture to the fore once again. Three youngsters, under the age of 17, were recently shot dead in south London in the space of less than two weeks and then a man in his mid-20s was gunned down in east London. Three men were shot in Manchester over the weekend. We’re told the violence is drug-related and our Prime Minister has attempted to reassure us that the wave of gun crime sweeping our cities is a “specific problem within a specific criminal culture”. While some people might take comfort in thinking that they are safe because they have no association with drug dealers and the criminal underworld, there can be no glossing over the alarming reality that we are all in danger. Granted, the recent shootings do appear to be premeditated attacks on targeted individuals, but there is no escaping the fact that gun-totting teenagers on the streets of our cities represent a very real threat to even the most law-abiding citizens.
What we have learnt (or perhaps just been reminded of) in the last three weeks, is that people who want guns in the UK can get their hands on them and, more worryingly, they don’t hesitate to use them. At the moment they appear to be using firearms to settle scores, but it won’t be long before we start to hear of more muggings and robberies involving guns.

Now, it is interesting, but like both New York City & Washington, D.C., which have the toughest gun laws in the country, only the law abiding don't have access to guns. Any criminal, in any country, can get a gun anytime he/she wants. In fact in many cases the criminal element have access to better weapons that the police forces do. There is always a criminal element, in any country, who will sell guns, of any type, to anyone who has the money to pay for them. The only answer, and a very difficult one, is to go after the source of weapons. But like drugs, as long as there is a market for guns, there will be someone there to fill the need, isn't the free market fucking great!!!

[PunkyBob]

Just because something is a government-given right does NOT mean it is right in and of itself. Just because something is law don't make it ethically or morally right. The LAST people I trust to tell me what's right or wrong is any government--especially this current one. As someone who was brought up with guns, I know the dangers. I've seen the results. Guns have ONE purpose: to kill something else. Something inside me says that a law allowing public ownership of these things is inherently wrong. And don't give me the "outlaws have guns" bit...if our country were really behind public welfare instead of promoting fear, our culture would reflect that through stiff penalties for gun handlers...and we would preach that violence is against public welfare...instead our entertainment is rife with violence and we are beseiged with messages telling us we need to protect ourselves and vanquish the bad guys...whether they exist or not.

[spare_change]

For my pennies worth, and remember UK is a little Island.. (albeit with a big ego!!)

A recent spate of fatal shootings in British cities has brought the issue of gun culture to the fore once again. Three youngsters, under the age of 17, were recently shot dead in south London in the space of less than two weeks and then a man in his mid-20s was gunned down in east London. Three men were shot in Manchester over the weekend. We’re told the violence is drug-related and our Prime Minister has attempted to reassure us that the wave of gun crime sweeping our cities is a “specific problem within a specific criminal culture”. While some people might take comfort in thinking that they are safe because they have no association with drug dealers and the criminal underworld, there can be no glossing over the alarming reality that we are all in danger. Granted, the recent shootings do appear to be premeditated attacks on targeted individuals, but there is no escaping the fact that gun-totting teenagers on the streets of our cities represent a very real threat to even the most law-abiding citizens.
What we have learnt (or perhaps just been reminded of) in the last three weeks, is that people who want guns in the UK can get their hands on them and, more worryingly, they don’t hesitate to use them. At the moment they appear to be using firearms to settle scores, but it won’t be long before we start to hear of more muggings and robberies involving guns.

Now, it is interesting, but like both New York City & Washington, D.C., which have the toughest gun laws in the country, only the law abiding don't have access to guns. Any criminal, in any country, can get a gun anytime he/she wants. In fact in many cases the criminal element have access to better weapons that the police forces do. There is always a criminal element, in any country, who will sell guns, of any type, to anyone who has the money to pay for them. The only answer, and a very difficult one, is to go after the source of weapons. But like drugs, as long as there is a market for guns, there will be someone there to fill the need, isn't the free market fucking great!!!


So, do you favor making it legal for the average citizen to have access to firearms?

[p.J]

So, do you favor making it legal for the average citizen to have access to firearms?

mmmmmm! Gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain Spare however, the ability to defend onself against a potential threat is part of the human evolutionary process is it not? But i keep asking myself the same question...if the government cant keep our streets and cities safe who can ?
Sadly it may be an issue of empowerment...ordinary people seem to be encouraged to feel helpless and inferior and I am not even sure why or if it has anything to do with our govt... the police however should be armed. By what other means does one stop an armed criminal? By using foul language? I've yet to understand the fear and mindset of pacifist, liberal, and "progressive" European countries. Good intentions do not deter criminal elements, only armed resistance or its mere omnipresence. Training is the key to personal responsibility in self-protection using firearms for both the police and citizenry. Your alternative is to become a victim. I like the odds better armed... so am I saying yes?

[mrdiscreet]

mmmmmm! Gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain Spare however, the ability to defend onself against a potential threat is part of the human evolutionary process is it not? But i keep asking myself the same question...if the government cant keep our streets and cities safe who can ?
Sadly it may be an issue of empowerment...ordinary people seem to be encouraged to feel helpless and inferior and I am not even sure why or if it has anything to do with our govt... the police however should be armed. By what other means does one stop an armed criminal? By using foul language? I've yet to understand the fear and mindset of pacifist, liberal, and "progressive" European countries. Good intentions do not deter criminal elements, only armed resistance or its mere omnipresence. Training is the key to personal responsibility in self-protection using firearms for both the police and citizenry. Your alternative is to become a victim. I like the odds better armed... so am I saying yes?

Tease!

[p.J]

Tease!

You love it...

[spare_change]

mmmmmm! Gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain Spare however, the ability to defend onself against a potential threat is part of the human evolutionary process is it not? But i keep asking myself the same question...if the government cant keep our streets and cities safe who can ?
Sadly it may be an issue of empowerment...ordinary people seem to be encouraged to feel helpless and inferior and I am not even sure why or if it has anything to do with our govt... the police however should be armed. By what other means does one stop an armed criminal? By using foul language? I've yet to understand the fear and mindset of pacifist, liberal, and "progressive" European countries. Good intentions do not deter criminal elements, only armed resistance or its mere omnipresence. Training is the key to personal responsibility in self-protection using firearms for both the police and citizenry. Your alternative is to become a victim. I like the odds better armed... so am I saying yes?

Personally, I love it when you say yes --- no matter what the subject may be.

A well structured, and carefully considered, response. It reflects the thought process we all go thru, though some may arrive at a different answer.

[p.J]

Personally, I love it when you say yes --- no matter what the subject may be.

A well structured, and carefully considered, response. It reflects the thought process we all go thru, though some may arrive at a different answer.

:) Thank you...

[mrdiscreet]

Has she said yes, or maybe?

[Cotties]

I hear guns are a good substitute for balls


bang bang...just warming my gun up

[spare_change]

Has she said yes, or maybe?


I think Jen is a "maybe" kind of girl -- even when she means yes, she just can't surrender. I think you have to work for it.

[p.J]

I think Jen is a "maybe" kind of girl -- even when she means yes, she just can't surrender. I think you have to work for it.

:kk

[mrdiscreet]

A fiercely independent one, for sure. Worth the workout.

[Annie]

I hear guns are a good substitute for balls


bang bang...just warming my gun up
Yeah right.



... I hear your gun spits out a white flag.

[Cotties]

only when I see women getting frustrated with me...which is nearly alwaysYeah right.



... I hear your gun spits out a white flag.

[Annie]

only when I see women getting frustrated with me...which is nearly always
My bad.... I'd always assumed that was your intent.


:sc or is it?

[mrdiscreet]

After much thought, I'm definitely in favor of bare arms

and bare legs

and bare ...

[cherokeered]

Personally....the constitution was written at a time when life was very different....today is much more complicated than yesterday and less so than tomorrow

The right to bear arms was written at a time when there were less people....no machine guns or bombs.....terrorism wasn't even a thought....and our borders were smaller....
We are an angry planet right now...no one area is safe...and perhaps the right to bear arms no longer applies in a world so violent as this one...perhaps guns should be rented for sports enthusiasts and returned....perhaps they should be tagged with information on the owner...and if reported stolen...might be easier to find
Perhaps a lot of things can be done...but different parts of the country, like different parts of the world...view guns and gun ownership differently...

[mrdiscreet]

Personally....the constitution was written at a time when life was very different....today is much more complicated than yesterday and less so than tomorrow

The right to bear arms was written at a time when there were less people....no machine guns or bombs.....terrorism wasn't even a thought....and our borders were smaller....
We are an angry planet right now...no one area is safe...and perhaps the right to bear arms no longer applies in a world so violent as this one...perhaps guns should be rented for sports enthusiasts and returned....perhaps they should be tagged with information on the owner...and if reported stolen...might be easier to find
Perhaps a lot of things can be done...but different parts of the country, like different parts of the world...view guns and gun ownership differently...


Is that a yes or a no or a maybe? You ladies are so coy!

[cherokeered]

Is that a yes or a no or a maybe? You ladies are so coy!

What...ya can't figure it out???

[Outta]

I think Jen is a "maybe" kind of girl -- even when she means yes, she just can't surrender. I think you have to work for it.
I'd prefer if Jen pistol-whipped me. Now THAT's gun control

[mrdiscreet]

What...ya can't figure it out???

Naw, never could, probably never will.

[oldandnaked]

I hear guns are a good substitute for balls


bang bang...just warming my gun up

For your sake, I hope you never get in a shootout.

[OICurready4me]

mmmmmm! Gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain Spare however, the ability to defend onself against a potential threat is part of the human evolutionary process is it not? But i keep asking myself the same question...if the government cant keep our streets and cities safe who can ?
Sadly it may be an issue of empowerment...ordinary people seem to be encouraged to feel helpless and inferior and I am not even sure why or if it has anything to do with our govt... the police however should be armed. By what other means does one stop an armed criminal? By using foul language? I've yet to understand the fear and mindset of pacifist, liberal, and "progressive" European countries. Good intentions do not deter criminal elements, only armed resistance or its mere omnipresence. Training is the key to personal responsibility in self-protection using firearms for both the police and citizenry. Your alternative is to become a victim. I like the odds better armed... so am I saying yes?


i would say you are saying YES pretty loudly! Now come over here and let me show you the special pistol I have that you can use. It has a good grip, shoots straight and as impressive as it looks, it is quite lethal too!

[p.a]

So I take it your not a gun owner....that's your right.....Mine is to keep and bare arms.....and I'll keep it...

don't classify the game hunter with the gang bangers type.......

Get real......they ..will use cars, knives, bats or what ever.....to get what they want or need at the time......I'll have a fighting chance......

Actually I am or use to be a gun owner. The reason why I'm not today I gave the reason for in another post about being hurt.
I choose not to own a gun because my character is such that I would use it for reasons not pertaining to hunting. I use to have anger issues and I almost killed a man over my first wife. I'm a lot more calm and reserved today but I can't be sure what emotions might crop up to test me.

I really have no problem with people wanting to own guns. I do have a problem with is the reasons most people give other than " hey it has always been a guy thing to have em since we were kids playing with our daisy air rifles, or that first .22 that dad got us to go hunting with ".

All this stuff about self defense and the bad guys got em so I need em sounds disingenuous to me. My dad always had guns and when asked he will tell you " just because I wont em ".

Gang bangers and ,bats knives? LOL not since the 60's. A least not those I have ever known. I'm from Chicago originally.

Did I compare gang bangers to hunters? Or did I say something like " Dick Cheney type Hunter "? Which I meant as sarcasm to spoof the VP.

I did go back to reread what I did say and it does read a bit left and for that I will apologize. But I do stand by it for the most part.

[p.J]

mmmmmm! :sc so many pistols to choose from, I wonder which one of you can shoot the furthest! :rolleyes:

[p.a]

mmmmmm! :sc so many pistols to choose from, I wonder which one of you can shoot the furthest! :rolleyes:

My pistol hasn't been used in so long, I'm affraid it might go ( PUFF ) instead of ( POW ):whee:

[mrdiscreet]

mmmmmm! :sc so many pistols to choose from, I wonder which one of you can shoot the furthest! :rolleyes:

I can shoot clar across the Atlantic ocean!

[OICurready4me]

I think that the whole constitutional brouhaha over guns is a bunch of crap. As long as someone is RESPONSIBLE, then guns aren't a problem. If you have pistols, rifles, sporting guns, you should keep them locked up, with triggers guards on them so that no one who isn't supposed to have access to them (kids) can't get themselves in trouble.


I have no trouble with punishing people greatly who use them to commit a crime. Hang their ass! But don't punish the people by not allowing the responsible people from using guns in the proper way.

[mrdiscreet]

I still want my rocket launcher ...

[p.a]

Personally....the constitution was written at a time when life was very different....today is much more complicated than yesterday and less so than tomorrow

The right to bear arms was written at a time when there were less people....no machine guns or bombs.....terrorism wasn't even a thought....and our borders were smaller....
We are an angry planet right now...no one area is safe...and perhaps the right to bear arms no longer applies in a world so violent as this one...perhaps guns should be rented for sports enthusiasts and returned....perhaps they should be tagged with information on the owner...and if reported stolen...might be easier to find
Perhaps a lot of things can be done...but different parts of the country, like different parts of the world...view guns and gun ownership differently...

Wish I had read this post earlier. Very profound and great ideas. I like it.

[Vicious305]

you want gun control? use both hands :D


Making guns illigal to own is not going to stop criminals from having them, it is illegal for felons to own firearms now, and they still have them!! so taking my guns away from me isnt gonna do a damn bit of good for anyone. Look, drugs are illegal, and you can buy them anywhere. if they make guns illegal its gonna be the same way. So better of keeping them legal to own, and registered, that way you can track them with the serial numbers. Guns with no serial numbers need to be destroyed. I am a gun owner for various reasons, first and foremost i am a gun guru, they fascinate me, second because i like going to the range and shooting for sport, and third because i want to have a fighting chance if i ever come into a confrontation with an armed criminal.

The constitution says we have the right to form a well regulated millitia. Therefore we have the right to own any small arms the the military has. If the military has a use for it, we can own it. for example, grenade launchers, grenades, fully automatic machine guns, mp5's, sawed off shotguns, distructive devices and all that good stuff, all you need is a class III license and pay taxes on whatever you buy, and also the weapon has to be made prior to a certain year, i forget which one, i believe it is 1986, a background check and your good to go. Alot of people dont know this, but it is true.

[Pebbles]

After much thought, I'm definitely in favor of bare arms

and bare legs

and bare ...

I like your thinking! Good idea. Fun...:D

[Cotties]

you and me...I have a solution...if we remove the guns it just can't happenFor your sake, I hope you never get in a shootout.

[tiger50]

I can shoot clar across the Atlantic ocean!

good, dont want ya shootin over the pacific...:lmao

[mrdiscreet]

Haven't felt inspired ...

Hey, there aren't any Aussie women on this site are there?

[Cotties]

there might be too many Allen Ginsberg impersonators for them;) ....that or not enough Aussie menHaven't felt inspired ...

Hey, there aren't any Aussie women on this site are there?

[mrdiscreet]

there might be too many Allen Ginsberg impersonators for them;) ....that or not enough Aussie men

Or maybe your avatr scares them off? Trying to makes sense of that one; feel like there is a joke I'm missing ...

[tiger50]

Haven't felt inspired ...

Hey, there aren't any Aussie women on this site are there?


they have no need to be here, we take care of em in house.....:D

[mrdiscreet]

they have no need to be here, we take care of em in house.....:D

Well said, I must admit.

Or maybe they take care of themsleves, since you are here? :sc

[tiger50]

Well said, I must admit.

Or maybe they take care of themsleves, since you are here? :sc

me mates ya wanker......lol..:D

[sargethree]

In my opinion guns are not the central issue. It is our RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" that we should be very concerned about. This is one of the very first rights given to the people at the beginning of our country. If we allow this right to be taken away from us, then we have allowed the door to be kicked in on taking away ANY and ALL of our rights. No matter what side of the gun control issue you are on, be sure you understand the REAL issue! If one of the original 10 Amendments can be taken away, then anything can be taken away.

[mrdiscreet]

In my opinion guns are not the central issue. It is our RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" that we should be very concerned about. This is one of the very first rights given to the people at the beginning of our country. If we allow this right to be taken away from us, then we have allowed the door to be kicked in on taking away ANY and ALL of our rights. No matter what side of the gun control issue you are on, be sure you understand the REAL issue! If one of the original 10 Amendments can be taken away, then anything can be taken away.

Well, the courts have long given the state the power to restrict gun ownership, limiting the right to organized state militias. That's how some cities restrict them now.

What's interesting is the Supreme Court may blow that open, and declare it a broad personal right. Karl Marx would be proud: a right wing court sowing the seeds for a popular overthrow of a fascist government.

I used to be in favor of gun control, but now the fascists are getting so close to control that I'm only half joking about wanting a rocket launcher.

Our founding fathers did truly believe we should remain armed, and feared oppression if we could not fight for ourselves. The point was obviously true at the time, and history does tend to repeat itself ...

[sargethree]

Brother, I'm with you 100%!!!!

[tom33]

i am a gun person, i own guns, i will buy my son a gun or 2 when i think he is old enough.

[fishon]

I also own guns, and am a responsible shooter. I have my guns locked in a cabinet and have trigger locks on them. I feel that responsible gun owners shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of irresponsible gun owners and the illegal guns which are spread throughout this country

[Shiane]

Is that a yes or a no or a maybe? You ladies are so coy!

So as to not be so coy, I will say it as clearly as I possibly can.

Do I have a gun, yes I damn sure do! I carry it with me just about everywhere I go. Would I use it to protect myself or my family, hell yes I would and I wouldn't think twice about it! Will I ever voluntarily give up my right to bear arms, Hell no, not without a fight! Trust me, you better have more ammo than I do!

Guns do not put malice in the hearts of men, malice in men is driven by the desire to obtain and secure all that in which they cannot get by honest and legal means.

[spare_change]

From an editorial by Paul Peterson ---

"... The result has been just what you might think — the law-abiding are legally deprived of handguns while the lawless show as much respect for this law as they do others.

To quote Cathy Lanier, Washington’s acting chief of police: “Last year, more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13 percent increase over 2005.” The bad guys seem to have no trouble finding a weapon in the nation’s capital, while the innocent are legally disarmed.

The numbers tell the tale: In the five years before this anti-gun ordinance was adopted in 1976, the murder rate in D.C. was dropping: from 37 for every 100,000 residents to 27. Five years later, the murder rate was back up to 35 per 100,000.

Over the course of the 30 years that this ordinance has been in effect, the annual murder rate has fallen below its 1976 level only once. No one can seriously contend that this law has cut down on crime. Quite the contrary.

“This comports with my own personal experience,” writes Mike Cox, who is now attorney general of Michigan. “In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor’s Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon.

“Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence (or lack of same), and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.”

Washington’s largely futile ban on handguns also has run afoul of constitutional scholars who see an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, not just a collective right to maintain a militia.

Now, with the Supreme Court’s having agreed to review this case, some see a chance to clear up — once and for all — any doubt about the Second Amendment’s reach, and establish beyond cavil the individual’s right to bear arms in this Republic."

[p.a]

Durham, NC -- Whenever a school shooting occurs, as in the Pennsylvania Amish country this week, or in Colorado and Wisconsin last month, or in Vermont and North Carolina the month before, we understandably seek answers -- to the wrong question.

The press and the public focus on motive -- what would possess a milk truck driver or drifter or teenager to kill -- when we should be asking, "Where do dangerous individuals get their guns?"

Amazingly, amid the rash of killings in our schools, Congress has been quietly working to make answering that question even more difficult.

Just last month, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from disclosing information from its effort to trace the hundreds of thousands of guns used in crime each year. The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is a political move to derail lawsuits filed by gun-control advocates against scofflaw gun dealers.

But the gag order would affect much more than the lawsuits, which are in legal limbo anyway. The bill would deprive gun-control advocates, scholars, state and local law enforcement officials, even members of Congress of vital information about the black market for guns operating in our midst.

A second NRA-backed bill, passed by the House to "modernize and reform" BATFE, would make gathering gun-trace data even more difficult. Under the bill, federally licensed gun dealers would no longer be required to keep their sales records organized according to regulatory protocol, but simply to maintain "custody." In practical terms, according to former BATFE officials who wrote Congress to oppose the bill, keeping records in disarray would make it impossible for firearms inspectors to ferret out law-breakers.

Complicated, highly technical bills about data and record keeping don’t inspire public passion or prompt marches on Washington. But the data that the government collects, and the laws that govern the data’s disposition, are vitally important to the success of citizens’ movements.

In my book on gun politics in America, I argue that one reason why pro-control groups have been unable to mobilize their grassroots sympathizers is because their opponents have blocked federal agencies from collecting and disseminating information that would help citizen advocates make their case.

To understand the political importance of authoritative government data, ask yourself this: Where would the anti-tobacco movement be today if cigarette companies had prevented the Surgeon General from documenting the health hazards of smoking? Where would the anti-drunk-driving movement be had beer companies stopped the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from counting alcohol-related deaths.

But unlike their counterparts in the anti-smoking and anti-drunk-driving movements, gun-control advocates have been on the losing end of a decades-long political battle over government data.

This year’s House bills are just the latest chapter in a history of assaults on BATFE and its efforts to quantify America’s illegal-gun problem. Another, and in some ways more interesting case, is that of U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

In the early 1970s, a handful of medical professionals began arguing that gun violence was a public health issue, and a decade later the CDC established a small program to study gun violence from this novel perspective. Perhaps because of its size (about 1/10th of 1 percent of the CDC budget), the NRA was slow to recognize the threat posed by the CDC and its research. But when the public health approach started gaining traction in Washington, the NRA took a number of steps to stop the CDC’s violence program in its tracks, eventually lobbying Congress to eliminate the program entirely. To stave off elimination, the CDC stopped funding outside researchers, but that was not enough. In 1996, Congress stripped the gun-violence program of its funds and stipulated that no injury-prevention dollars could be used to "advocate or promote gun control," a provision that remains in place.

The NRA and its congressional allies understood all along what gun-control groups were slow to realize: Letting good data fall into your opponents’ hands is a bad idea. Getting Congress to prevent citizens groups from knowing the truth about illegal firearms markets may be the gun lobby’s idea of smart politics, but it is terrible policy.

Where do killers get their guns? We may never know.

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/goss_oped.html

[p.a]

People keep saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well that's true however my question is since all the law abiding citizens get there guns legally, where do the criminals get there guns from? So I goggled for answers and came up with this. Criminals get there guns from a number of places such as legal gun shops same as law abiding citizens, gun shows same as law abiding citizens, and ironically from law abiding citizens who sell there guns to people they assume are law abiding citizens. You can confirm this yourself .There are tons of qualified as well as unqualified testimony that pretty much peg the same message.

As I have stated before I was a gun owner who chose not to own a gun because of the nature of my personal issues. Unfortunately the same laws that protect legal law abiding citizens also protect law breakers and potential law breakers.

[p.a]

I have a question. If only legal law abiding citizens should own guns, how do we figure out who's legal and law abiding? How do we determine who's likely to commit a crime and who's not? What group of people should we separate from the constitution?

[Pebbles]

In my opinion guns are not the central issue. It is our RIGHT to "keep and bear arms" that we should be very concerned about. This is one of the very first rights given to the people at the beginning of our country. If we allow this right to be taken away from us, then we have allowed the door to be kicked in on taking away ANY and ALL of our rights. No matter what side of the gun control issue you are on, be sure you understand the REAL issue! If one of the original 10 Amendments can be taken away, then anything can be taken away.

Good post and so true!!

[Cotties]

every good citizen should have the right to ground to air missiles...you never know when a concerned citizen living near an air port needs to bring a passenger plane down to prove a pointI still want my rocket launcher ...

[Cotties]

I really should stay out of this conversation but I have always been around guns and find the American constitution interesting.


So you believe there should be no such law restricting any form of gun control?

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

You don't see how this applies to organised militia's? If you are not part of an organized militia how does this apply to the common man today?

Someone mentioned gun control and who should it apply to

I found this







"The U.S. Militia Act of 1792, Chapter XXXIII, Section 1," which states (http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/Stat1-271.gif):"Be it enacted by the Senate and the 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 the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five year (except as in herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or the commanding officer."





So if what was written all those years ago is without flaw..why should the people now be able to pick and choose what bits they like and discard the rest?

So after every good white farmer turned 18 he would be enrolled in the local militia. Be informed he must be armed as danger was lurking.



"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 powder and ball."

Where does it mention the right to carry automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets?

Perhaps gun control in a must. It's just that some control in healthy..absolutely no control is chaos

if I'm miles off with understanding any of my quotes please fell free to fill me in



Well, the courts have long given the state the power to restrict gun ownership, limiting the right to organized state militias. That's how some cities restrict them now.




What's interesting is the Supreme Court may blow that open, and declare it a broad personal right. Karl Marx would be proud: a right wing court sowing the seeds for a popular overthrow of a fascist government.

I used to be in favor of gun control, but now the fascists are getting so close to control that I'm only half joking about wanting a rocket launcher.

Our founding fathers did truly believe we should remain armed, and feared oppression if we could not fight for ourselves. The point was obviously true at the time, and history does tend to repeat itself ...

[mrdiscreet]

Hey, does the sun now set on the British empire?

Is that the new Aussie flag?

[Shiane]

Durham, NC -- Whenever a school shooting occurs, as in the Pennsylvania Amish country this week, or in Colorado and Wisconsin last month, or in Vermont and North Carolina the month before, we understandably seek answers -- to the wrong question.

The press and the public focus on motive -- what would possess a milk truck driver or drifter or teenager to kill -- when we should be asking, "Where do dangerous individuals get their guns?"

Amazingly, amid the rash of killings in our schools, Congress has been quietly working to make answering that question even more difficult.

Just last month, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would bar the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) from disclosing information from its effort to trace the hundreds of thousands of guns used in crime each year. The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is a political move to derail lawsuits filed by gun-control advocates against scofflaw gun dealers.

But the gag order would affect much more than the lawsuits, which are in legal limbo anyway. The bill would deprive gun-control advocates, scholars, state and local law enforcement officials, even members of Congress of vital information about the black market for guns operating in our midst.

A second NRA-backed bill, passed by the House to "modernize and reform" BATFE, would make gathering gun-trace data even more difficult. Under the bill, federally licensed gun dealers would no longer be required to keep their sales records organized according to regulatory protocol, but simply to maintain "custody." In practical terms, according to former BATFE officials who wrote Congress to oppose the bill, keeping records in disarray would make it impossible for firearms inspectors to ferret out law-breakers.

Complicated, highly technical bills about data and record keeping don’t inspire public passion or prompt marches on Washington. But the data that the government collects, and the laws that govern the data’s disposition, are vitally important to the success of citizens’ movements.

In my book on gun politics in America, I argue that one reason why pro-control groups have been unable to mobilize their grassroots sympathizers is because their opponents have blocked federal agencies from collecting and disseminating information that would help citizen advocates make their case.

To understand the political importance of authoritative government data, ask yourself this: Where would the anti-tobacco movement be today if cigarette companies had prevented the Surgeon General from documenting the health hazards of smoking? Where would the anti-drunk-driving movement be had beer companies stopped the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from counting alcohol-related deaths.

But unlike their counterparts in the anti-smoking and anti-drunk-driving movements, gun-control advocates have been on the losing end of a decades-long political battle over government data.

This year’s House bills are just the latest chapter in a history of assaults on BATFE and its efforts to quantify America’s illegal-gun problem. Another, and in some ways more interesting case, is that of U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

In the early 1970s, a handful of medical professionals began arguing that gun violence was a public health issue, and a decade later the CDC established a small program to study gun violence from this novel perspective. Perhaps because of its size (about 1/10th of 1 percent of the CDC budget), the NRA was slow to recognize the threat posed by the CDC and its research. But when the public health approach started gaining traction in Washington, the NRA took a number of steps to stop the CDC’s violence program in its tracks, eventually lobbying Congress to eliminate the program entirely. To stave off elimination, the CDC stopped funding outside researchers, but that was not enough. In 1996, Congress stripped the gun-violence program of its funds and stipulated that no injury-prevention dollars could be used to "advocate or promote gun control," a provision that remains in place.

The NRA and its congressional allies understood all along what gun-control groups were slow to realize: Letting good data fall into your opponents’ hands is a bad idea. Getting Congress to prevent citizens groups from knowing the truth about illegal firearms markets may be the gun lobby’s idea of smart politics, but it is terrible policy.

Where do killers get their guns? We may never know.

http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/goss_oped.html

The Tobacco industry has been hit hard by new laws in dang near every state. You can't smoke here, you can't smoke there. Hell in a city nearby it is illegal to smoke in your OWN PRIVATE vehicle, if you have a child under a certain age. Now tobacco isn't an illegal drug, you can get it anywhere. But, you can't use it anywhere. I'm not asking for your personal view on smoking, I know it is bad for your health and for those around you. What I am getting at is how little by little we are losing our freedoms.

Alcohol companies make and sell legal products. Around here there are still dry counties, you can't even buy a legal product in some counties, of course this goes back to prohibition. In many states you can't buy beer on Sundays. LOL sorry but I find this so amusing. Is this to ensure that our good christian citizens dont show up for church service with hooch on their breath? I was at a grocery store late on saturday night, and I picked up a bottle of wine along with my other 2 baskets full of groceries. When I went to check out, the lady went to scan it and said I'm sorry but you can't buy alcohol after 2am on a Saturday night. Hells bells why not! Is it not a legal product? Am I not over the age of 21? Once again this is just another rediculous law. Does it curb drinking, well no. I just buy my alcohol before 2am or I buy it the day before.

So my question is do you really have to wonder why the NRA fights so hard against gun laws? I'm glad they do, atleast I know my NRA membership money is goes to good use! The instant someone "thinks" that a product is bad for the public, concerned groups start lobbying against a product and for new laws to restrict or remove that product from the public. You have to ask yourself why are law abiding citizens afraid of gun laws. Why are we afraid of our goverment? Having the right to bear arms is our safety net. Atleast if we are armed we stand a fighting chance against an overpowering government or a home invasion.

Do you really wonder why gun control advocates are on the losing end? I would bet you the local Baptist preacher has a gun in his house, either for home protection, for hunting or maybe he is a gun collector. I would also bet you he isn't interested in giving up that right either. Granted not everyone drinks and smokes, but even the bible thumpers have guns. That is why gun control advocates are at the losing end! Regular law abiding people have guns and we aren't interested in giving up that right!

We feel threatened by our government! We have seen peoples right be taken away when it comes to legal products, so why should we think guns are any different? Why don't regular law abiding people want their guns registered, why don't we want the government to know who we sell or trade them to. Well it isn't hard to figure out! We know that once the goverment starts regulating who and what we do with our guns it is only a matter of time before more and more restrictions are placed upon them. We fear the goverment and those nut jobs who want every single gun taken away, and not just from the criminal but from us! You know the old saying, give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Yes, law abiding citizens would like every single gun out of the hands of criminals, but at what cost? I'm not willing to take that chance! I'm not willing to trust the government, and for good reason! I can weigh the good with the bad, and well as long as I have a gun i figure i can handle the bad on my own. If you don't believe me, try to sell drugs to my kids, try to break into my house. I won't trust the government to decide who is law abiding. They have a good habit of making laws that don't make sense, laws that don't work, and laws that seem to eat away at my freedoms.

Naw, Thanks but no thanks, I'll keep my guns! I'll take my chances! It's the only chance I stand to keep the freedom that our Nation's Founding Fathers gave me!

[Cotties]

perhaps one day..it's the flag that represents the birth of Australian democracy dated back to 1854...better known as the Eureka stockade..or Eureka rebellion against the British troops..we never had police back in the 1800's..


Our most famous song is Waltzing Matilda..about a squatter who was camping by a pong under a tree, he was caught stealing by Redcoat troopers and chose to drown himself rather than let any authority reprimand him
Hey, does the sun now set on the British empire?

Is that the new Aussie flag?

[p.a]

The Tobacco industry has been hit hard by new laws in dang near every state. You can't smoke here, you can't smoke there. Hell in a city nearby it is illegal to smoke in your OWN PRIVATE vehicle, if you have a child under a certain age. Now tobacco isn't an illegal drug, you can get it anywhere. But, you can't use it anywhere. I'm not asking for your personal view on smoking, I know it is bad for your health and for those around you. What I am getting at is how little by little we are losing our freedoms.

Alcohol companies make and sell legal products. Around here there are still dry counties, you can't even buy a legal product in some counties, of course this goes back to prohibition. In many states you can't buy beer on Sundays. LOL sorry but I find this so amusing. Is this to ensure that our good christian citizens dont show up for church service with hooch on their breath? I was at a grocery store late on saturday night, and I picked up a bottle of wine along with my other 2 baskets full of groceries. When I went to check out, the lady went to scan it and said I'm sorry but you can't buy alcohol after 2am on a Saturday night. Hells bells why not! Is it not a legal product? Am I not over the age of 21? Once again this is just another rediculous law. Does it curb drinking, well no. I just buy my alcohol before 2am or I buy it the day before.

So my question is do you really have to wonder why the NRA fights so hard against gun laws? I'm glad they do, atleast I know my NRA membership money is goes to good use! The instant someone "thinks" that a product is bad for the public, concerned groups start lobbying against a product and for new laws to restrict or remove that product from the public. You have to ask yourself why are law abiding citizens afraid of gun laws. Why are we afraid of our goverment? Having the right to bear arms is our safety net. Atleast if we are armed we stand a fighting chance against an overpowering government or a home invasion.

Do you really wonder why gun control advocates are on the losing end? I would bet you the local Baptist preacher has a gun in his house, either for home protection, for hunting or maybe he is a gun collector. I would also bet you he isn't interested in giving up that right either. Granted not everyone drinks and smokes, but even the bible thumpers have guns. That is why gun control advocates are at the losing end! Regular law abiding people have guns and we aren't interested in giving up that right!

We feel threatened by our government! We have seen peoples right be taken away when it comes to legal products, so why should we think guns are any different? Why don't regular law abiding people want their guns registered, why don't we want the government to know who we sell or trade them to. Well it isn't hard to figure out! We know that once the goverment starts regulating who and what we do with our guns it is only a matter of time before more and more restrictions are placed upon them. We fear the goverment and those nut jobs who want every single gun taken away, and not just from the criminal but from us! You know the old saying, give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Yes, law abiding citizens would like every single gun out of the hands of criminals, but at what cost? I'm not willing to take that chance! I'm not willing to trust the government, and for good reason! I can weigh the good with the bad, and well as long as I have a gun i figure i can handle the bad on my own. If you don't believe me, try to sell drugs to my kids, try to break into my house. I won't trust the government to decide who is law abiding. They have a good habit of making laws that don't make sense, laws that don't work, and laws that seem to eat away at my freedoms.

Naw, Thanks but no thanks, I'll keep my guns! I'll take my chances! It's the only chance I stand to keep the freedom that our Nation's Founding Fathers gave me!

OK, you've read the article I just post so what do you suggest should be done about criminals with guns? Or are you proposing that legal gun owners and illegal gun owners coexist? If someone where to try to sell drugs to your kids you will do what? If someone broke in to your house and you shoot them, under certain circumstances you could become the criminal and the house breaker the victim. Vigilantism is also illegal in most states in this country.

Here's a what if: I and my family are the only non-white family in the neighborhood. I work weird hours ( 12AM to 830AM ). We've only lived here a bit over a year now. What if some neighbors kid were missing or better yet, a rash of home break ends? What if one of my NRA card carrying legal law abiding neighbors had an agenda or a frustration against people like me?
Without some kind of gun control law I am forced to trust in the virtue and humanity of people I've only known for a little over a year. Or do I choose to own a gun for the protection of my family against the aforementioned, setting up an even more explosive situation.

I'm not judging anyones right to bare arms or to want to protect there families. I'm just pointing out the risk and fears that those of us who choose not to own guns face from both legal and illegal owners of guns. Where is our right to be safe?

[Shiane]

I really should stay out of this conversation but I have always been around guns and find the American constitution interesting.


So you believe there should be no such law restricting any form of gun control?

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

You don't see how this applies to organised militia's? If you are not part of an organized militia how does this apply to the common man?


Because there are two classes of Militia, organized and unorganized.

US CODE:
Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311




311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service.

[Shiane]

OK, you've read the article I just post so what do you suggest should be done about criminals with guns?
Well darlin I have the answers! But, you better grab a seat if you are the least bit squimmish because it isn't pretty! It is tough, and it black and white and there are no appeals, second chances, no 3 strikes and you're out!

We aren't tough enough on crime. We tolerate it, we slap criminals on the wrist and let them go. We have people who prey on society. They kill, they mame, they rape, they steal, they destroy by distributing illegal drugs. We sit by locking our doors hoping that no one will invade our homes. We spend millions and millions of dollars teaching our kids to just say no! We watch millions of prisioners get treated better than many of our own citizens. Years ago people were equally punished for their crimes. If the killed someone, they were hung. Now what do we do? We put them in prison for life or on death row for years and years and years. Giving them appeal after appeal. It is nonsense! If you kill someone, well you get the same in return! In foreign countries, if you get caught stealing, you get your hand cut off. Well, yeah I'm caloused but hey it sounds like a damn good plan to me! If you get caught selling drugs, you are put to death. Tough, you betcha! Drugs kill our children, our families, they destroy everything they touch. If drug dealers were put to death, finding them on every street corner would be a thing of the past. If you raped a woman, you would have your dick removed with a chopping axe and left to bleed and cry in the middle of the street. If you molested a child, Bingo, you guessed it, you are put to death. No ifs and or buts about it! Anyone who would prey on an innocent child is worse than any murderer in my opinion.

Or are you proposing that legal gun owners and illegal gun owners coexist? Oh no, I'm not suggesting it, I living it! I'm living it because that is the only choice I have! I don't see the justice system changing so guess what I'm damn sure not gonna give up my guns for a system that has done nothing but fail miserably!

If someone where to try to sell drugs to your kids you will do what?
If the bastards were put to death, I wouldn't have to worry about it now would I!

If someone broke in to your house and you shoot them, under certain circumstances you could become the criminal and the house breaker the victim. Vigilantism is also illegal in most states in this country.
Well THANK GOD i don't live in most states! I live in OKLAFREAKINHOMA who had the good sense to instate the MAKE MY DAY law.

The Make My Day law is represented in several states of the United States guaranteeing "absolute safety" for citizens within their own homes and property. Its origins are from Oklahoma, though it has been adopted in other states such as Colorado. Under the law, citizens cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force against suspected threats to themselves in their houses and on their property - for example (and primarily), intruders. The origins of the law can be traced to a case of a break-in, involving Dr Frank Sommer from Oklahoma. After Sommer shot and killed an intruder, the law was passed within weeks. Advocates claim that the success of the law clearly demonstrates the use of self defense as a deterrent.

I do live in Oklahoma and I see people die each and everyday in my job. Guess what big deal people die, they have been doing it for thousands of years, we ain't gonna fix that either! I have no sympathy for ciminals. A dead criminal is one too few in my opinion! I wouldn't lose one second of sleep about blowing his ass to kindom come! So go ahead, MAKE MY DAY, I live in Oklahoma Thank God!

Here's a what if: I and my family are the only non-white family in the neighborhood. I work weird hours ( 12AM to 830AM ). We've only lived here a bit over a year now. What if some neighbors kid were missing or better yet, a rash of home break ends? What if one of my NRA card carrying legal law abiding neighbors had an agenda or a frustration against people like me?
That goes back to you better know who your neighbors are. I know who mine are, hell I have keys to their houses! And, for the record, every NRA member is not a gun weilding lunatic! If you were part of a neighborhood watch, your neighbors would be watchin your house to make sure your family was safe until you returned home! If that NRA neighbor of yours noticed someone breaking into your house raping your wife and molesting your children and he blasted the fucker out of this world. I don't think you would be bitching about him and his NRA card.

Without some kind of gun control law I am forced to trust in the virtue and humanity of people I've only known for a little over a year. Why not? You trust humanity everytime venture out of your house, we don't have any other choice. You trust everyday that someone doesn't like your car so much that they hold a gun to your head and they take your car along with your wife and kids. Leaving you standing there helpless and hoping the police can catch them. Do you think gun control is gonna stop this guy? Well if you do, you have more faith in our laws than I do. We have laws against crime, but we still have an astonishing high crime rate. Laws don't stop crime, strictly enforcing them does!

Or do I choose to own a gun for the protection of my family against the aforementioned, setting up an even more explosive situation.
That is your choice! Either you own a gun or you don't! No one is forcing you to own one. But, it is my choice to own one or two or twenty! If I have choice when it comes to protecting all that is mine, you can bet your seet ass a gun will be my first choice.


I'm not judging anyones right to bare arms or to want to protect there families. I'm just pointing out the risk and fears that those of us who choose not to own guns face from both legal and illegal owners of guns. Where is our right to be safe?

You and I have the right to be safe, we all do! The laws are supposed to protect us but open any newpaper across the country and you will see that the laws aren't working. Innocent people everyday are the victims of crime. The problem is we can't rely on the police to protect us, they can't protect everyone. You have to take some steps to protect yourself. Do whatever it takes to protect your family. We have the right to bear arms, that is my choice. That is a right I am not willing to give up for you or anyone else.

[p.a]

You and I have the right to be safe, we all do! The laws are supposed to protect us but open any newpaper across the country and you will see that the laws aren't working. Innocent people everyday are the victims of crime. The problem is we can't rely on the police to protect us, they can't protect everyone. You have to take some steps to protect yourself. Do whatever it takes to protect your family. We have the right to bear arms, that is my choice. That is a right I am not willing to give up for you or anyone else.

Thank you for that heart felt reply and no I'm not squeamish because I've heard all this before. Straight from the NRA handbook. Now don't get mad because I'm in a different place than you on this issue. And I never said that all NRA members are lunatics, thats taking what I said out of context. And what you propose as punishment for drug dealers and rapist is what we claim to frown upon when they do that in other countries and call themselves Muslim extremist. I agree that laws for criminals you mention are insufficient. And I also agree that getting to know your neighbors would be a plus. However I seriously doubt that I will ever know them well enough to have keys to there homes. Where I grew up we had no locks on doors. And were you live must be a wonderful place that you know your neighbors well enough to have keys to there house but it makes me wonder why you feel the need to own a gun in a neighborhood such as yours given the reasons you've stated for having one.

I was not aware of the Oklahoma law. I like it. I do watch the local news and most of it is domestic violence. Now again, one more time I will state that I do not take issue with people who own guns. That is your right by law and I understand that. My original post was about how guns get to people who are not law abiding. If we have no law governing the ownership and use of firearms we would have and vigilantism, anarchy and communities would turn into armed camps. I see both sides of the argument. So where is the middle?
And no I don't trust people when I go out which is why I look around before I step one way or another. I heck I can't even trust people to quote me correctly. I think we agree on most things but have different ideas of how they should be implemented. Your a gun owner and thats fine. I choose not to be a gun owner for reasons I gave in another post and that is also fine. Oh and one other thing. My wife being raped is kind of humorous. As Mr. T would put it " I pity the fool ". My wife grew up in Cabrini Green during the 50's and 60's. Anyone from Chicago would know what that means.

Anyways you made some good points and I hope you understood some of mine. I hope I have not made you angry. Such was not my intentions. :wa:

[Shiane]

Thank you for that heart felt reply and no I'm not squeamish because I've heard all this before. Straight from the NRA handbook. Now don't get mad because I'm in a different place than you on this issue. And I never said that all NRA members are lunatics, thats taking what I said out of context. And what you propose as punishment for drug dealers and rapist is what we claim to frown upon when they do that in other countries and call themselves Muslim extremist. I agree that laws for criminals you mention are insufficient. And I also agree that getting to know your neighbors would be a plus. However I seriously doubt that I will ever know them well enough to have keys to there homes. Where I grew up we had no locks on doors. And were you live must be a wonderful place that you know your neighbors well enough to have keys to there house but it makes me wonder why you feel the need to own a gun in a neighborhood such as yours given the reasons you've stated for having one.

I was not aware of the Oklahoma law. I like it. I do watch the local news and most of it is domestic violence. Now again, one more time I will state that I do not take issue with people who own guns. That is your right by law and I understand that. My original post was about how guns get to people who are not law abiding. If we have no law governing the ownership and use of firearms we would have and vigilantism, anarchy and communities would turn into armed camps. I see both sides of the argument. So where is the middle?
And no I don't trust people when I go out which is why I look around before I step one way or another. I heck I can't even trust people to quote me correctly. I think we agree on most things but have different ideas of how they should be implemented. Your a gun owner and thats fine. I choose not to be a gun owner for reasons I gave in another post and that is also fine. Oh and one other thing. My wife being raped is kind of humorous. As Mr. T would put it " I pity the fool ". My wife grew up in Cabrini Green during the 50's and 60's. Anyone from Chicago would know what that means.

Anyways you made some good points and I hope you understood some of mine. I hope I have not made you angry. Such was not my intentions. :wa:
Angry? NO! Passionate YES! :kk

I have guns not because of my neighbors, I have guns despite them. I work out of town 3 days a week, I carry a gun with me. The area I work is in a pretty crappy area. The city itself has a large criminal element. Many nights I don't lock my doors, but statistics tell me that even inmy quiet neck of the woods i'm not completely safe. The last place I lived, my next door neighbor was a drug dealer, her daughter and mine were friends, I moved! The police didn't do anything about it, I saw it everyday.

There are laws about ownership. I know, I buy them from legitimate dealers. It is against the law for a felon to have a gun, they still have them. We have laws and the only ones abiding by the laws are people like me. The criminals aren't, thats the problem. As for my ideas on the severity on punishing crimes, well i'm not a muslim extremist. I won't shoot you for not believing the way I do, however if you break into my house I will. I won't kill you for believing in another God other than mine, however a muslim extremist would... Not really a fair or accurate comparison, but whatever.

I'm not talking about the laws of a few, I'm talking about enforcing laws that you and I and everyone else in the USA live by. I'm just saying that if we get really tough on criminals, and really harshly punish them it will deter crime atleast for some. As for the others, well I haven't changed my mind, good riddance as far as i'm concerned. As for your wife, good for her, it was a worse case scenario.

Where is the middle.... Well hun, I think we're both right smack-dab in the middle of it. I think a better question is, how the hell do we get out of the mess we're in!:whee:

[spare_change]

I really should stay out of this conversation but I have always been around guns and find the American constitution interesting.


So you believe there should be no such law restricting any form of gun control?
[Roman]states[/font][/url]:"Be it enacted by the Senate and the 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 the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five year (except as in herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or the commanding officer."




I presume, by your comment, you're aren't aware of the Selective Service Act that implements this very requirement. Each male, upon reaching the age of 18, is required to register with the Selective Service, in case there is a need to call up citizen soldiers. These citizens are put on standby, but are still eligible to be enlisted. I think I heard that the upper age was lowered to 35, but I'm not sure that is true. So, effectively, between the ages of 18 and 35, you are enlisted in a "well organized militia".

[Cotties]

So that selective service act is still active to this very day?I presume, by your comment, you're aren't aware of the Selective Service Act that implements this very requirement. Each male, upon reaching the age of 18, is required to register with the Selective Service, in case there is a need to call up citizen soldiers. These citizens are put on standby, but are still eligible to be enlisted. I think I heard that the upper age was lowered to 35, but I'm not sure that is true. So, effectively, between the ages of 18 and 35, you are enlisted in a "well organized militia".

[spare_change]

So that selective service act is still active to this very day?

Yeppers -- every male, age 18, must register.

[Cotties]

I'm also curious what Shiane, yourself and any other pro gun advocates think of automatic assault rifles and armour piercing bulletsYeppers -- every male, age 18, must register.

[spare_change]

I'm also curious what Shiane, yourself and any other pro gun advocates think of automatic assault rifles and armour piercing bullets


I think you have to understand why a person is a gun advocate --- like Shiane, I consider my guns to be my last defense against criminals, the government, and Democrats (ok -- I'll give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt --- maybe).

I am a hunter, but maintain my guns mainly for the security they afford me. Would I use them if somebody entered my house? To quote a famous lady from Oklahoma, you bet your sweet ass I would.

I don't have an automatic assault rifle nor armor piercing bullets. Other that something to show off at the shooting range (I think it's compensation for a small dick!), I can't imagine why anybody would have one.

However, I do firmly believe in the "slippery slope" theory -- if I let you restrict any of my guns, it sets a precedent that soon will allow you to restrict ALL my guns. If I let you take away my right to bear arms, it sets a precedent to take away my right to free speech, or vote, or whatever.

[sargethree]

Angry? NO! Passionate YES! :kk

I have guns not because of my neighbors, I have guns despite them. I work out of town 3 days a week, I carry a gun with me. The area I work is in a pretty crappy area. The city itself has a large criminal element. Many nights I don't lock my doors, but statistics tell me that even inmy quiet neck of the woods i'm not completely safe. The last place I lived, my next door neighbor was a drug dealer, her daughter and mine were friends, I moved! The police didn't do anything about it, I saw it everyday.

There are laws about ownership. I know, I buy them from legitimate dealers. It is against the law for a felon to have a gun, they still have them. We have laws and the only ones abiding by the laws are people like me. The criminals aren't, thats the problem. As for my ideas on the severity on punishing crimes, well i'm not a muslim extremist. I won't shoot you for not believing the way I do, however if you break into my house I will. I won't kill you for believing in another God other than mine, however a muslim extremist would... Not really a fair or accurate comparison, but whatever.

I'm not talking about the laws of a few, I'm talking about enforcing laws that you and I and everyone else in the USA live by. I'm just saying that if we get really tough on criminals, and really harshly punish them it will deter crime atleast for some. As for the others, well I haven't changed my mind, good riddance as far as i'm concerned. As for your wife, good for her, it was a worse case scenario.

Where is the middle.... Well hun, I think we're both right smack-dab in the middle of it. I think a better question is, how the hell do we get out of the mess we're in!:whee:


Here's what would be funny if it wasn't so serious, frustrating, and sad. So many people want new laws for this and new laws for that. Why are they, for the most part, wanting new laws? Because of criminals, i.e. lawbreakers. Criminals are not concerned about laws or they wouldn't BE criminals. Putting ink on paper isn't going to change their behavior one bit. Laws only affect those of us who choose to obey them. FEAR of the law is the only thing criminals will respect. If laws were enforced, if punishment fit the crime, then we would see results.

Unfortunately, criminals do not have that fear. The justice system is manipulated every day in their favor. I saw this every day firsthand for over 13 years. I finally had to give up that line of work because I was so frustrated and aggravated every day over what I saw that I became concerned about my health. I have talked to a lot of really bad people and believe me, they don't worry about "THE LAW" except for how their attorney can twist it to their advantage. It's disgusting.

Here's my position: We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the ones we have on the books already. Enforce the laws, punishment fits crime. Get the courts out of the prisons and let the citizens decide how they should be run. Give the criminals something to FEAR! It's the only way.

Shiane is right. People like her are the ones that do not become victims. The police cannot be everywhere at once, nor do I want them to be. Do what you must to protect yourself and your family. If you choose not to own a firearm, that's fine. It's your choice and I respect that. But find another way to protect yourself. Don't expect the police and the law to do it for you 24/7. They/it can't. It's not possible.

[Cotties]

thanks for explaining yourselfI think you have to understand why a person is a gun advocate --- like Shiane, I consider my guns to be my last defense against criminals, the government, and Democrats (ok -- I'll give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt --- maybe).

I am a hunter, but maintain my guns mainly for the security they afford me. Would I use them if somebody entered my house? To quote a famous lady from Oklahoma, you bet your sweet ass I would.

I don't have an automatic assault rifle nor armor piercing bullets. Other that something to show off at the shooting range (I think it's compensation for a small dick!), I can't imagine why anybody would have one.

However, I do firmly believe in the "slippery slope" theory -- if I let you restrict any of my guns, it sets a precedent that soon will allow you to restrict ALL my guns. If I let you take away my right to bear arms, it sets a precedent to take away my right to free speech, or vote, or whatever.

[surfnchat]

6 weeks ago I sent in my 3 Cap'n Crunch box tops and a SASE and I still haven't got my 20 megaton thermonuclear warhead in the mail yet... Damn holiday mail rush. :D

[Iwantutowantme]

I'm also curious what Shiane, yourself and any other pro gun advocates think of automatic assault rifles and armour piercing bullets


I think they have their place. I would like to have a couple in my arsenal. Not to protect myself from foreign terroists or burgulars but for 'we the people' to have them as an aide for protecting us from a possible dictatorship (or worse) here in the US. http://www.ntime.org/attachments/nov2003/concentration_camps_in_america_for_americans.pdf

[Iwantutowantme]

correction to post #83... http://www.ntime.org/attachments/nov2003/concentration_camps_in_america_for_americans.pdf