Maybe we will finally find out what it means, or at least what this Bush-appointed court thinks it means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?hp

Maybe we will finally find out what it means, or at least what this Bush-appointed court thinks it means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?hp

It is about time we hear from the Supreme Court, (although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it's original intent) hopefully they will interpret it as broadly as they do the other amendments, especially the 1st.

In the last case they heard, it was held that a sawed off shotgun didn't apply, I think because it wasn't a weapon that would be used in war, so maybe if the Justices rule on it the way it was meant when it was written, it will eliminate some of the other gun laws.

A few nights ago, I saw an interview with one of the plaintiff's attorneys, trying to get the DC law overturned.

I was kind of surprised to hear him say something like "of course limits can be placed on the type of weapon permitted" and went on to site machine guns and chemical and biological weapons (or at least I think those were the ones he mentioned, but I wouldn't swear to it).

But anyway, my first thought was of you Bret, along with a couple of others why have repeatedly stated that there can be NO, NONE, limits of any kind, ever.

I said to myself "oh shit, Bret will think this weakness is a first step down the slippery slope."

A few nights ago, I saw an interview with one of the plaintiff's attorneys, trying to get the DC law overturned.

I was kind of surprised to hear him say something like "of course limits can be placed on the type of weapon permitted" and went on to site machine guns and chemical and biological weapons (or at least I think those were the ones he mentioned, but I wouldn't swear to it).

But anyway, my first thought was of you Brett, along with a couple of others why have repeatedly stated that there can be NO, NONE, limits of any kind, ever.

I said to myself "oh shit, Brett will think this weakness is a first step down the slippery slope."

Bill,

Please show me where I said limits can not be placed on weapons owned by individuals, also show me where I said it was OK for individuals to own chemical or biological weapons.

If they read the 2nd amendment correctly, it will do away with the GCA of 1968 and the 1986 ban on the importation and manufacture of machine guns, and they will become more readily available.

This also may be the groundwork for fending off future infringements upon the 2nd amendment, but with the supreme court and that screwed up ruling in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London, you never know what they are going to do.

Bill,

Please show me where I said limits can not be placed on weapons owned by individuals, also show me where I said it was OK for individuals to own chemical or biological weapons.



Bret, you have repeatedly said NO LIMITS. When I tried to back you into a corner by asking about nukes, you said nukes were OK.

Last time you asked me to prove it, I referred you to threads where you said nukes couldn't be limited. I'm not going to bother to go find old threads again, but if you have changed your tune and admit that there can be limits placed, then I'm glad to hear it.

Bret, you have repeatedly said NO LIMITS. When I tried to back you into a corner by asking about nukes, you said nukes were OK.

Last time you asked me to prove it, I referred you to threads where you said nukes couldn't be limited. I'm not going to bother to go find old threads again, but if you have changed your tune and admit that there can be limits placed, then I'm glad to hear it.

Please post the threads, last time I asked you to, you couldn't either.

I said if the 2nd amendment was read like the 1st, there would be virtually no limits on what an individual could own.

This will be very interesting to see what supreme court would rule on this
I am not against owning a gun or riffle for hunting purpose but I do beileve we need some kind of restriction on other weapons that you dont needed for personal protection. Also I am for intense background check before you can put your hand on any weapon

This will be very interesting to see what supreme court would rule on this
I am not against owning a gun or riffle for hunting purpose but I do beileve we need some kind of restriction on other weapons that you dont needed for personal protection. Also I am for intense background check before you can put your hand on any weapon

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, here it is, please tell me where t is permissible for an intense background check to exercise any of the other rights.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed


BTW, Militia is not the National Guard as the National Guard was not around when the Bill of Rights was written.

s the National Guard was not around when the Bill of Rights was written.

And arms meant muskets, not 50 cal sniper rifles that could take out the President from over a mile away, not nukes, not machine guns, not chemical or biological weapons, not F-18s or the armament that hangs under them.

I think the founding fathers could conceptualize a National Guard, even if it wasn't called by that exact name, a lot easier than they could conceptualize modern weapons that 2d Amendment extremists are trying to say are included.

And arms meant muskets, not 50 cal sniper rifles that could take out the President from over a mile away, not nukes, not machine guns, not chemical or biological weapons, not F-18s or the armament that hangs under them.

I think the founding fathers could conceptualize a National Guard, even if it wasn't called by that exact name, a lot easier than they could conceptualize modern weapons that 2d Amendment extremists are trying to say are included.

Bill,

The founding fathers could have never imagined radio or TV, yet it is covered by the 1st amendment.

somehow the right to privacy (which amendment is that?) is where they came up with abortion rights (rove v. wade).

The founding fathers fully expected the citizens of the united states to have the same types of weapons the government would have, so why would they restrict a .50 caliber rifle?

Militia when the Bill of Rights was written, meant every able bodied free man 18 years of age or older.

Owning a rifle capable of killing someone and killing someone with it is 2 entirely different things.

Owning a rifle capable of killing someone and killing someone with it is 2 entirely different things.

Same with nukes, right?

"Sir, what do you have in that suitcase?"

"Officer, its a small nuke, and I know it is capable of killing a lot of people, but I'm not planning to do that. I just like to carry it with me walking in Central Park to improve my fitness."

BgBILL
you know if the laws do not need interpetation or changes than there is no need for Supreme court and legislative branch, so lets get rid of them all. all we have to do right a law and we are done for eternaty.
But I dont think this would work; we need supreme court so every now and then when the public interest changes they may read the existing law different then before or you need a lagislative branch as the times are changing you need to pass new law which are practicle for the current events and needs

The founding fathers could have never imagined radio or TV, yet it is covered by the 1st amendment...
Damn. I never thought about that.

Same with nukes, right?

"Sir, what do you have in that suitcase?"

"Officer, its a small nuke, and I know it is capable of killing a lot of people, but I'm not planning to do that. I just like to carry it with me walking in Central Park to improve my fitness."

Bill,

Please tell me where the right to privacy is in the Bill Of Rights and how that equates to allowing a woman to do what she wants to with her body in regards to killing her unborn child, but at the same time she can not do drugs or be a prostitute.

BgBILL
you know if the laws do not need interpetation or changes than there is no need for Supreme court and legislative branch, so lets get rid of them all. all we have to do right a law and we are done for eternaty.
But I dont think this would work; we need supreme court so every now and then when the public interest changes they may read the existing law different then before or you need a lagislative branch as the times are changing you need to pass new law which are practicle for the current events and needs

The constitution and the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government and excessive control by the government, the founding fathers would be appalled at what has happened to our rights and freedoms in such a short period of time.

Bill,

Please tell me where the right to privacy is in the Bill Of Rights and how that equates to allowing a woman to do what she wants to with her body in regards to killing her unborn child, but at the same time she can not do drugs or be a prostitute.

Bg Bill this may sound way out there for you
But in old Grecee prostutuion was very highly respected line of work;)
so what I am trying to say time changes everything; what is so unthinkble today it may be allright tomorrow. This goes for laws and morality. If you dont believe me all you have to do look at the history you will see how much human being changed.

The constitution and the Bill of Rights was written to protect the people from the government and excessive control by the government, the founding fathers would be appalled at what has happened to our rights and freedoms in such a short period of time.

I am for freedom and Bill of rights
but I could not have some nuts running around with ak-47.

Bill,

The founding fathers could have never imagined radio or TV, yet it is covered by the 1st amendment.



And that is why a court has to INTERPRET the meaning of the 1st Amendment in terms of today's technology, just as they have to INTERPRET the meaning of the 2d Amendment in terms of today's technology.

Sometimes you may not like a court's interpretation, but the fact remains that it has to be done.

The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."

For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.

Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.

Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.

While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.

Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.

By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.

In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.

Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.

Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."

The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.

John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.

The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "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." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the

Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.

For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.

European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.

By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?

Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.

The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.

From The Wall Street Journal Europe

Bill,

Please tell me where the right to privacy is in the Bill Of Rights and how that equates to allowing a woman to do what she wants to with her body in regards to killing her unborn child, but at the same time she can not do drugs or be a prostitute.

This case being considered by the Court is about the 2d Amendment. Why do you want to expand the discussion to the entire Bill of Rights?

But as long as you asked, I'm for legalizing drugs and prostitution. We just need to get those damn Republicans out of our private lives and bedrooms. Its the Religious Reich thats the problem, not the far left.

Slingator
very impressive respond it makes you think
then again Afganistan and Iraq you could buy all kind the weapons from street vendors. Look at them how they live and if they have any secutiry in their lives. I sure dont want to live like that

Point is, guns have very little to do w/ the problem. The founding fathers were some smart Mofos, IMHO the second has nothing to do w/ sporting use of arms, firearms are a tools that prevent more violence (ei Genocide) than they inevitably cause. Bill I'm not against gun law's Im just against incrementalism and slowly getting away from what the Jefferson and his pals had in mind when they founded this great nation. More laws isn't the solution, better enforcement, education, and investment in future generations might actually work if given the chance and people actually get involved and take responsability instead of blaming goverment and inanimate objects for human flaws. Common sense can't be legislated no matter how much Granola you eat

The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Hal
The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates.

That is certainly true. Hell, even Michael Moore's film pointed out that Canada has more guns per capita than we do, but was much less violent. He even narrowed it down to comparing the Canadian city right across from Detroit (whatever it is), which had the same demographics including blacks and poverty, but a much lower crime rate.

But the sad fact is that we don't have training in civic virtue. We are unlike the Swiss in so many ways, and have a violent tradition. So we have to make laws that reflect our reality, not the Swiss reality.

Does it not stand to reason that since the guns already exist and are already in the hands of criminals who would never turn them over or abide by any law and our forefathers saw personal freedom and protection as paramount, that more laws would be similar to prohibition? Useless waste of taxpayer dollars. Wouldn't it make more sense to carry out a campaign of education and civic virtue?. Who would you prefer we act like the Swiss or 1938 Germany. The term Assault Weapon is a misnomer, a kin to the boogie man's butchers knife, the thought of it is much worse than the reality. People love to hear about how more laws would have made a diffrence in certain cases, yet we rarely see stories that happen with frequency about armed responsible citizens averting disaster.
anyhow I'm tired of arguing, I just do it to humor Bill.

This case being considered by the Court is about the 2d Amendment. Why do you want to expand the discussion to the entire Bill of Rights?

But as long as you asked, I'm for legalizing drugs and prostitution. We just need to get those damn Republicans out of our private lives and bedrooms. Its the Religious Reich thats the problem, not the far left.

Because people want to read the 2nd amendment one way and the rest of the Bill Of Rights another way.

The Bill of Rights is not about ensuring the Government has the right to keep and bear arms, it is about the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

That is certainly true. Hell, even Michael Moore's film pointed out that Canada has more guns per capita than we do, but was much less violent. He even narrowed it down to comparing the Canadian city right across from Detroit (whatever it is), which had the same demographics including blacks and poverty, but a much lower crime rate.

But the sad fact is that we don't have training in civic virtue. We are unlike the Swiss in so many ways, and have a violent tradition. So we have to make laws that reflect our reality, not the Swiss reality.

If gun laws and prohibition of owning guns works so well, why does Washington D.C. have such a high crime rate, including gun crime and murder?

We currently have in excess of 20,000 gun laws in this country. Anything & everything that you could conceivably do with a gun that's wrong is already against the law.

Working our real well, isn't it?

If gun laws and prohibition of owning guns works so well, why does Washington D.C. have such a high crime rate, including gun crime and murder?

I was listening same thing on lou dobbs tonight, they were saying thirty years ago crime rate was lower before DC passed gun law.
I just have honest question. Does anybody knows how much a hand gun coast thirty years ago and how much is today and how is this translate in to affordibility of hand guns?

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html



Does this mean anything, looks like countries that have banned guns have an increase in violent crimes:2gunsfiring_v1::2gunsfiring_v1:

Maybe the bad guys who will not give up the guns know there honest victims cannot defend themselves.

I was listening same thing on lou dobbs tonight, they were saying thirty years ago crime rate was lower before DC passed gun law.
I just have honest question. Does anybody knows how much a hand gun coast thirty years ago and how much is today and how is this translate in to affordibility of hand guns?



Out on a limb here but I guessing most bad guys who are willing to kill and take what they want probably are not actually buying stolen guns.

If gun laws and prohibition of owning guns works so well, why does Washington D.C. have such a high crime rate, including gun crime and murder?


You will not get an answer to that Bret, it just flys in the face of there logic.

Kaan, you can buy a piece of shit pretty cheap, but that's long been true. A decent handgun now generally starts at $400 or so & goes up fast.

I was listening same thing on lou dobbs tonight, they were saying thirty years ago crime rate was lower before DC passed gun law.
I just have honest question. Does anybody knows how much a hand gun coast thirty years ago and how much is today and how is this translate in to affordibility of hand guns?

20 years ago you could buy a Brand New Smith and Wesson Model 19, .357 Magnum for $246, today the same gun is probably $450.

You can buy a highpoint 9mm or 40 S&W for about $150.

I don't think the price of a gun has anything to do with crime rates, as criminals are not walking into gun stores or gun shows and buying guns.

Sunday I bought a S&W Model 41, "A" series .22 Caliber Target pistol at a gun show, it was in 98% condition with box, tools and papers, it was $625, but i could have bought cheaper guns had I so desired, but this particular gun is hard to come by in this condition with the original box and papers, i will give this to my son one day.

I bought my SW 18 years ago and paid 700 dollars for it, then I have two weeks before I could get the my hands on the gun. What I hear lately you could buy a hand gun for 150 dollars, I was just wondering if this helps the more easy to get them? could this be the part of the problem?

Bret, you have repeatedly said NO LIMITS. When I tried to back you into a corner by asking about nukes, you said nukes were OK.

Last time you asked me to prove it, I referred you to threads where you said nukes couldn't be limited. I'm not going to bother to go find old threads again, but if you have changed your tune and admit that there can be limits placed, then I'm glad to hear it.

Bill,

I am still waiting for you to show the posts where I said Nukes were OK for private citizens to own.

You are doing the same shit here that tony pulls, make baseless accusations that you can not back up.

You need to either show where I said that nukes were OK, or admit that you were wrong in the above statement.

I bought my SW 18 years ago and paid 700 dollars for it, then I have two weeks before I could get the my hands on the gun. What I hear lately you could buy a hand gun for 150 dollars, I was just wondering if this helps the more easy to get them? could this be the part of the problem?

Where did you buy this gun at?

$700 is a very high price for that gun especially 18 years ago.

You can get the same gun today for $475 at Gunsamerica.com

Los Angeles, California
9mm SW

Research has repeatedly shown that the majority of guns used in crimes were stolen. Retail prices is largely irrelevant to a criminal who wants one.

Los Angeles, California
9mm SW

The Smith and Wesson Model 18 is a .22 Caliber revolver, they quit making them in 1985, it is not a 9 MM.

It seems to me you were taken advantage of, did you buy this gun at a reputable gun store, or from some guy on the street?

I dunno if he means a SW 18, or that he bought a SW 9mm 18 years ago.

The Smith and Wesson Model 18 is a .22 Caliber revolver, they quit making them in 1985, it is not a 9 MM.

It seems to me you were taken advantage of, did you buy this gun at a reputable gun store, or from some guy on the street?

Bill remember I am for gun control I do not buy a gun from street;)

it is a smith&wesson 9 mm automatic

Bill remeber I am for gun control I do not buy a gun from street;)

it is a smith&wesson 9 mm automatic


It is not an automatic, it would be semi automatic.

Smith and Wesson did not make a model 18, 9 MM semi automatic.

The Smith and Wesson Model 18, is a blue steel revolver in .22 caliber.

You may have a Model 39 or Model 59, 9 MM.

How many rounds does the magazine hold?

On the left side of the gun, above the Trigger Guard it will have the model # stamped into it.

If they rule on the constitutionality of it I'm comfortable with it. I do not trust them to do so. There have simply been too many cases in recent years that utterly ignored the BOR. McCain-Fiengold, for example. They have admitted to using foreign law in making rulings.

Hold on to your nuts. You might not get what you asked for.

Bill you make me work hard I have to go upstairs twice
magazine holds 14 rounds
model#5906

BTW Kaan, I think it's safe to say we will be unable to dive this weekend. Sorry, bud. Try for later.

BTW Kaan, I think it's safe to say we will be unable to dive this weekend. Sorry, bud. Try for later.

Let me know when you guys want to go out, I am getting rusty

Bill you make me work hard I have to go upstairs twice
magazine holds 14 rounds
model#5906


I knew it wasn't a Model 18.

The Model 5906 is a Smith and Wesson 3rd Generation Semi Automatic 9mm Pistol, it is made out of Stainless Steel, it has what is called a double stack magazine.

$700 18 years ago was a very stiff price, way above retail.

It was also in CA. It would not surprise me to learn that even that far back prices were higher there.

Slingador, thanks for posting that European WSJ article. Unfortunately, I don't think our mainstream media would print such a compelling, thoughtful article. The sad thing is that it's also an indictment of our society. Regardless, I do not agree with the prevailing attitude of gun control advocates that we need government to protect us from ourselves.

Bill, on a separate note, you keep taking cheap shots at Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with religion. I have yet to see how Christians have accomplished anything during GWB's term to regulate what anyone does with their private lives or in the bedroom. On the other hand, I've seen people on the liberal side of the political spectrum try to regulate my private life, such as how I raise my kids, what I can teach my kids, etc. Although I abhor these measures, I don't see a need to constantly cast aspersions at people who don't believe what I believe in. I also realize that not all liberals agree with what some of their "brethren" say or do. You really appear to have an axe to grind, particularly with Christians. You keep generalizing the whole group of them because of a minority of rotten eggs, but you are indignant when anyone else does the same with you and all other people with liberal beliefs. I just don't get it. It's so completely unnecessary, especially with where you are in life and with what you've accomplished.:(

Slingador, thanks for posting that European WSJ article. Unfortunately, I don't think our mainstream media would print such a compelling, thoughtful article. The sad thing is that it's also an indictment of our society. Regardless, I do not agree with the prevailing attitude of gun control advocates that we need government to protect us from ourselves.

Bill, on a separate note, you keep taking cheap shots at Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with religion. I have yet to see how Christians have accomplished anything during GWB's term to regulate what anyone does with their private lives or in the bedroom. On the other hand, I've seen people on the liberal side of the political spectrum try to regulate my private life, such as how I raise my kids, what I can teach my kids, etc. Although I abhor these measures, I don't see a need to constantly cast aspersions at people who don't believe what I believe in. I also realize that not all liberals agree with what some of their "brethren" say or do. You really appear to have an axe to grind, particularly with Christians. You keep generalizing the whole group of them because of a minority of rotten eggs, but you are indignant when anyone else does the same with you and all other people with liberal beliefs. I just don't get it. It's so completely unnecessary, especially with where you are in life and with what you've accomplished.:(


Well said.

If gun laws and prohibition of owning guns works so well, why does Washington D.C. have such a high crime rate, including gun crime and murder?

Two reasons I can think of.

One is that there are a hell of a lot of poor people living there, and poor people tend to rip of others violently, as opposed to the ways that people like Ken lay rip people off.

The second reason is that DC is a pretty small place, surrounded by places where guns are easy to get. DC gas stations can't get away with substantially higher prices than Virginia gas stations for the same sort of reasons.

Bill,

I am still waiting for you to show the posts where I said Nukes were OK for private citizens to own.

You are doing the same shit here that tony pulls, make baseless accusations that you can not back up.

You need to either show where I said that nukes were OK, or admit that you were wrong in the above statement.

Bret,

I'm not going to scan countless threads to prove it. The important thing is that you know you said it, I know you said it, and countless other people on Spearboard know you said it. I showed you the thread last time you called me on it and you still deny it. Showing it to you again probably wouldn't make you own up either.

Actually, the most important thing is that you seem to have reformed and admit that the right to bear arms actually may be infringed. That is real progress, and now we can get down to discussing how much.

The writing of the founders are clear that the citizen should possess the same arms as the uniformed soldier.

One way to look at that is this:

We do not issue nukes to individual soldiers. We do issue handguns, select fire rifles, grenades, etc.

It seems to me that it is appropriate to consider weapons issued to and weilded by an individual soldier to be protected under the 2nd amendments. Crew served weapons, dunno. Historically, there *used* to be no limits on those. I recall privateers in the late 1800's being armed with cannon, Gatling guns being freely traded, etc. To be fair, cannon right now are perfectly legal to own, even to build. Though grenades & other explosives are controlled as destructive devices under the same federal law that deals with taxing machine guns & silencers.

In AZ, private possession of explosives is limited to those under 4 ounces, as best I recall.

Slingador, thanks for posting that European WSJ article. Unfortunately, I don't think our mainstream media would print such a compelling, thoughtful article.

I subscribe to the WSJ, and I bet they published that same editorial in the US edition. If not, they sure publish similar stuff.

Bill, on a separate note, you keep taking cheap shots at Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with religion. I have yet to see how Christians have accomplished anything during GWB's term to regulate what anyone does with their private lives or in the bedroom. On the other hand, I've seen people on the liberal side of the political spectrum try to regulate my private life, such as how I raise my kids, what I can teach my kids, etc.

Howard, if Christians haven't accomplished much during Bush's term, its not for lack of trying. I read frequently how they are disappointed because he just used them for a voting block without pushing their agenda hard enough.

I find it incredible that you would complain about liberal efforts to regulate how you raise your kids and how your kid are taught. Christians are constantly trying to get my grandchildren taught evolution rather than science, and I find that very disturbing. Christians want my grandchildren to recite Christian prayers in school, even if they don't want to or are not Christian. Christians want Christian symbols in courthouses and schools. They sure as hell aren't trying to distribute prayer rugs and point the way to Mecca.

The Vista school district provided a very current and scary example. The Christian right took over the board and tried to get creationism taught as science. They canceled a Federal free breakfast program for very poor students because they thought kids should eat with their parents. Of course anyone with a lick of sense knew that this just meant they wouldn't eat breakfast, but family values trump reality. Numerous teachers, principals and administrators resigned, and the public came to its senses and threw them out when they saw what was happening to the quality of education, but meanwhile some kids suffered because Christians tried to impose their beliefs on others in the pubic school system.

You are welcome to teach your kids creationism at home and promote whatever religion you wish to them, but our Constitution draws the line at imposing it on me or my grandchildren.

And getting back to the single point of my previous post- do you deny that its Christians who want to keep drugs and prostitution illegal? That's all I said in that post. Do you want to legalize drugs and prostitution?

Bill, on a separate note, you keep taking cheap shots at Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with religion.---- You really appear to have an axe to grind, particularly with Christians. You keep generalizing the whole group of them because of a minority of rotten eggs, but you are indignant when anyone else does the same with you and all other people with liberal beliefs. I just don't get it. It's so completely unnecessary, especially with where you are in life and with what you've accomplished.:(

Howard, I know you haven't replied to my previous post, and maybe you don't want to, but I want to address your allegation that I have a beef with Christians.

I've been married to a devout Christian for 45 years. I guess I should admit that she is Catholic, and I know a lot of fundamentalists don't consider Catholics to be Christians, but I don't know if that is your position. Anyway, I think they have as much right to the title as any of the breakaway sects.

But she is the sort of Christian that doesn't try to make her faith mandatory. She doesn't think her faith should be imposed on kids in public schools. She had a long career as a public school teacher, but she did her best to separate her faith from her teaching.

I do recall one time she did see fit to interject her faith, however briefly. She had agreed to accept an intern from UCI School of Education. This kid was a member of a fundamentalist protestant Chinese church in Irvine. She was sitting in the back grading papers and listening him teach a history lesson that touched in some way on the role of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages. Some kid asked the intern if Catholics were Christian, and the intern replied that he didn't think so, but would look it up. She did step in and tell the class that Catholics were Christian. I hope you wouldn't have disagreed.

Another reason I don't have too much beef with her Christianity is that she, and her church, think works count. She thinks that the way she treats other humans actually matters, rather than just depending on her faith in Jesus Christ as her personal savior as the only thing required. I may not be a believer, but at least the way she interprets her faith may help ease the only life that I, as well as others, may ever have.

And of course I also like the fact that her church doesn't think evolution is incompatible with religion. She thinks its pretty neat that God could come up with such an elegant system. They may have jailed Galileo, but they have generally accepted science now.

And of course its not bad that her faith allows for a bit of the sauce now and then. I like that.

Do I think Catholicism is perfect? Of course not. The way that the church hierarchy has shielded pedophiles is evil. The way it discourages condoms in countries where AIDS is epidemic is reprehensible.

And of course in South Orange County, many Catholics are more Republican than Catholic. My wife is on her parish Social Justice Committee and has been spending countless hours on a fund raiser for a Habitat for Humanity project in San Juan. The Parish Priest told her committee right up front that they would have a hell of time, because so many people would not want to contribute to something that would benefit Mexicans. It didn't matter that the program only builds houses for American citizens- all those Mexicans are illegal. The only thing that saved the effort is that 50% of the houses built will go to disabled Iraq veterans, and even then it was a struggle. She was sitting out front of the church selling tickets to people coming out of Mass, and a guy on the committee with her asked a guy coming out if he would like to support Habitat. The reply was that he wouldn't support that damn program started by Jimmy Carter.

Damn, I guess I've rambled. That's what happens after wine with dinner. But I think my point is that I don't have a general beef with Christians. I just have a beef with Christians that want to take over the government and make the country a theocracy like Iran and impose their particular brand of Christianity on others, and with Christians that don't act in the way that I would hope their religion would dictate.

There are lots of secular ***********************************s too. They just don't try to tell me that their way is the right way because God told them.

Bill, I just saw your responses. I really can't comment on your second post because you really kind of "ran with the ball", and you mention a number of interesting topics that really warrant very different lines of discussion. Those are best discussed face-to-face, rather than wasting an inordinate amount of time typing messages over the internet. Regarding to your first post and the matter at hand, it comes down to our very different perspectives. To be honest, I can't comment on the Vista school district, since I'm only familiar with my own in Orange County. However, I can't think of a single Christian parent or school board member that has tried to "force" creationism, mandatory prayers, Christian imagery, or anything you've mentioned, upon these schools. I'm not sure what a free breakfast program has anything to do with what I was talking about, although I wouldn't be surprised if these school board members had other salient concerns about this issue that overshadowed any perceived religious concerns.

Looking at the bigger picture, if this is the best that your "right-wing Christians" can do, then they're really not much of the threat you portray them to be. What concerns me about the more extreme elements of the left-wing and Democrats is that they try to impose their will at a much broader level, i.e., the state and federal governments. You want an example in California, look no further than the current bill SB 777. It's another blatant attempt by some liberals to expose young children in public schools to homosexuality, transgender and bisexual lifestyles. Note that I don't generalize things by saying all liberals and Democrats because some of them don't agree with this kind of tactic. I haven't seen Christians working at this level to force their beliefs on children, but it always seems to be members of the left wing using our public schools to force their beliefs down everyone's throats. What I can't stand is how they keep attacking at the level of children. Anyways Bill, I don't want to argue. I was merely bringing up an observation, one that I thought was unfair. As always, it comes down to you and I having different opinions and beliefs on a variety of issues, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Bret,

I'm not going to scan countless threads to prove it. The important thing is that you know you said it, I know you said it, and countless other people on Spearboard know you said it. I showed you the thread last time you called me on it and you still deny it. Showing it to you again probably wouldn't make you own up either.



We're still on this?
OK, let me help out. Bret - yes, you did say it. But it was exactly in the context as you described in a previous post in this thread.

I said if the 2nd amendment was read like the 1st, there would be virtually no limits on what an individual could own.

Geez, Bill - Bret certainly loves things that go boom, but you make it sound like he literally wants nukes on sale at BassPro, and that's not true.

nukes on sale at BassPro

Well that could certainly redefine Black Friday...

Bret,

I'm not going to scan countless threads to prove it. The important thing is that you know you said it, I know you said it, and countless other people on Spearboard know you said it. I showed you the thread last time you called me on it and you still deny it. Showing it to you again probably wouldn't make you own up either.

Actually, the most important thing is that you seem to have reformed and admit that the right to bear arms actually may be infringed. That is real progress, and now we can get down to discussing how much.

Bill,

You are full of shit, I never said that private citizens should be able to own nukes.

I know you have been trying to get me to say that they should or should not be be allowed, as that way you can say I am a nut job for saying private citizens should be able to own nukes, or if I say they shouldn't be able to, then you will say I agree there should be limts on the 2nd amendment.

I'm not so sure the ruling will have that much of an impact, no matter which way they come down. From what I've read they have redefined the question to one that specifically deals with your right to have a gun inside your home. If they rule in a very narrow, defined way, it will have little effect outside those boundaries.

Bill,

You are full of shit, I never said that private citizens should be able to own nukes.

I know you have been trying to get me to say that they should or should not be be allowed, as that way you can say I am a nut job for saying private citizens should be able to own nukes, or if I say they shouldn't be able to, then you will say I agree there should be limts on the 2nd amendment.

That's exactly what I was trying to do Bret, so here is your chance to make it clear. We don't have to go find old threads from Spearboard, we can resolve your position now.

Are you a nut job that thinks private citizens should be allowed to have nukes?

Or do you admit that there can be limits on the 2d Amendment?

Its one or the other.

PS: I'm pulling for you. I want to believe that you aren't a nut job.

PS: I'm pulling for you. I want to believe that you aren't a nut job.

Don't get your hopes up. :D

Don't get your hopes up. :D

:rofl: :rofl:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010898

Second Amendment Showdown
The Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

BY MIKE COX
Friday, November 23, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right "to keep and bear arms" of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right--that all Americans enjoy--or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.

The amendment 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 right of the people" to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose--that of ensuring an efficient or "well regulated" militia--it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia--that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.

To analyze what "the right of the people" means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right.

The Fourth Amendment says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." The "people" here does not refer to a collectivity, either.

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Here, "the people" are separate from "the states"; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a "state" militia when it uses the term "the people."

Consider the grammar. The Second Amendment is about the right to "keep and bear arms." Before the conjunction "and" there is a right to "keep," meaning to possess. This word would be superfluous if the Second Amendment were only about bearing arms as part of the state militia. Reading these words to restrict the right to possess arms strains common rules of composition.

Colonial history and politics are also instructive. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to provide a political compromise between the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government as an inherent danger to individual rights. In June 1789, then-Rep. Madison introduced 12 amendments, a "bill of rights," to the Constitution to convince the remaining two of the original 13 colonies to ratify the document.

Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights. As a result, Madison proposed a bill of rights that reflected, as Stanford University historian Jack Rakove notes, his belief that the "greatest dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted national government." Accordingly, Mr. Rakove writes that "Madison justified all of these proposals (Bill of Rights) in terms of the protection they would extend to individual and minority rights."

One of the earliest scholars of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Justice Joseph Story, confirmed this focus on individuals in his famous "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms," Story wrote, "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of republics, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers . . ."

It is also important to consider the social context at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers lived in an era where there were arms in virtually every household. Most of America was rural or, even more accurately, frontier. The idea that in the 1780s the common man, living in the remote woods of the Allegheny Mountains of western Pennsylvania and Virginia, would depend on the indulgence of his individual state or colony--not to mention the new federal government--to possess and use arms in order to defend himself is ludicrous. From the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington to the irregulars at Yorktown, members of the militias marched into battle with privately-owned weapons.

Lastly, consider the empirical arguments. The three D.C. ordinances at issue are of the broadest possible nature. According to the statute, a person is not legally able to own a handgun in D.C. at all and may have a long-gun--even in one's home--only if it is kept unloaded and disassembled (or bound with a trigger lock). The statute was passed in 1976. What have been the results?

Illegal guns continue to be widely available in the district; criminals have easy access to guns while law-abiding citizens do not. Cathy L. Lanier, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, was quoted as follows: "Last year [2006], more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13% increase over 2005." Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

This comports with my own personal experience. In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit 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.

Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation's capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Cox is the attorney general of Michigan.

If this finally is passed and the 2nd is upheld wouldn't this allow NY city residents to have firearms and any other citizen anywhere in the US could own a firearm?

If this finally is passed and the 2nd is upheld wouldn't this allow NY city residents to have firearms and any other citizen anywhere in the US could own a firearm?

In general, I would say that the answer is yes.

However (seems like there is always a "however" when dealing with the law) I've seen a couple of pundits being interviewed on TV and saying that its not entirely clear that the 2d Amendment has been "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment. I'm way over my head here, but I think that what that meant was that while the court might find that the right to bear arms was an individual right in Federal courts, its not clear that states and their subdivisions were bound the second amendment.

I Googled the 14th Amendment and got more stuff than you may want to read, but here is one paragraph from Wikepedia that may be pertinent.

While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of Incorporation has thus been used to ensure, through the unwieldy and unexpected means of the Due Process Clause instead of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the application of nearly all of the rights explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment not only empowered the federal courts to intervene in this area to enforce the guarantee of due process and the equal protection of the laws, but to import the substantive rights of free speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishment and other limitations on governmental power. At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials. Thus, the Court has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.


But I'm quoting law without a license here, so I'll gladly defer to anyone who claims to know anything about "incorporation."

Nothing's ever as simple as it seems.Always thought the 2nd Amendment was pretty clear and then you just had to add the incorp. clause.Now I've gotta study the 14th Amendment.

I wonder what Jon Gutmacher's opinion is on this.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/

I wonder what Jon Gutmacher's opinion is on this.

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/

He's one of my heroes.
Devoting that much time to compile such a detailed book to protect the CCW community is impressive. But to read his book and see how well organized and thought out it was and to have helped innocent people avoid prison when they protected themselves legally is even more important and awe inspiring.

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

I see the first part as a reasoning for the 2nd amendments inclusion whereas it is the the second half that ensures our rights, previous sup crt rulings have read too much into the well regulated militia part.

the right of the people to defend their homes from intruders and to hunt for sport or food was taken for granted by the founding fathers. No government in their time would impose restrictions on such basic rights as that, not even the English took away these rights from the colonists.

Rather the second amendment was added to insure that the government would be responsive to the citizens, and that the citizens would ALWAYS have the power to overthrow their government if it became opressive.

"the right of the people" is used in many places in the BOR. It always means exactly that, the people.

I simply have no comprehension as to what sort of mental gymnastics are required to translate "the right of the people" to somehow mean "the right of the state"

Apparently it doesn't even give these people headaches, from what I can tell.

"the right of the people" is used in many places in the BOR. It always means exactly that, the people.

I simply have no comprehension as to what sort of mental gymnastics are required to translate "the right of the people" to somehow mean "the right of the state"

Apparently it doesn't even give these people headaches, from what I can tell.

up until a couple decades ago the BOR only protected us from federal laws, recent cases have used parts of the 14th and 5th amendments to reverse that but there are several supreme court rulings from 1800-1960 that are completely contrary to the BOR because it was states making the law.

Bill,

You are full of shit, I never said that private citizens should be able to own nukes.

I know you have been trying to get me to say that they should or should not be be allowed, as that way you can say I am a nut job for saying private citizens should be able to own nukes, or if I say they shouldn't be able to, then you will say I agree there should be limits on the 2nd amendment.


Bret,

I'm not going to scan countless threads to prove it. The important thing is that you know you said it, I know you said it, and countless other people on Spearboard know you said it. I showed you the thread last time you called me on it and you still deny it. Showing it to you again probably wouldn't make you own up either.

Actually, the most important thing is that you seem to have reformed and admit that the right to bear arms actually may be infringed. That is real progress, and now we can get down to discussing how much.


That's exactly what I was trying to do Bret, so here is your chance to make it clear. We don't have to go find old threads from Spearboard, we can resolve your position now.

Are you a nut job that thinks private citizens should be allowed to have nukes?

Or do you admit that there can be limits on the 2d Amendment?

Its one or the other.

PS: I'm pulling for you. I want to believe that you aren't a nut job.

So are you now admitting you lied about what I said?

BTW here is the thread where you asked about nukes being legal and my response to your question.

http://www.spearboard.com/showpost.php?p=462624&postcount=83

It seems to me when a person lies in a debate about an issue, they lose their credibility.

So are you now admitting you lied about what I said?

BTW here is the thread where you asked about nukes being legal and my response to your question.

http://www.spearboard.com/showpost.php?p=462624&postcount=83

It seems to me when a person lies in a debate about an issue, they lose their credibility.

Good for you Brett. You found a thread, and I don't even know what the hell you meant. I think there were others where you were more explicit, but I'm not going to try to find them.

Why hunt old threads when we can settle it now?

Are you a nut job who thinks nukes should be legal?

Or are you admitting that there can be limits placed on the right to bear arms, and now we can just argue what the proper limits are?

Which is it?

Good for you Brett. You found a thread, and I don't even know what the hell you meant. I think there were others where you were more explicit, but I'm not going to try to find them.

Why hunt old threads when we can settle it now?

Are you a nut job who thinks nukes should be legal?

Or are you admitting that there can be limits placed on the right to bear arms, and now we can just argue what the proper limits are?

Which is it?

Bill,

You said I previously said it was OK for individuals to own Nukes, I said I never did, and pulled up the post you were talking about to prove what I said.

You basically me a liar, I proved you are the one who is lying.

Do you think it OK to lie in a debate?

Bill,

You said I previously said it was OK for individuals to own Nukes, I said I never did, and pulled up the post you were talking about to prove what I said.

You basically me a liar, I proved you are the one who is lying.

Do you think it OK to lie in a debate?

You pulled up A THREAD, not every thread.

But just so we can get to the heart of this thing, lets stipulate that you did not previously say that individuals should be able to own nukes.

Are you a nutjob, or do you accept limits on the right to bear arms?

Why don't you answer the simple question?

If you think there should be no limits, say so. If you agree that there can be limits, then we can move on to discussing what those limits should be.

You pulled up A THREAD, not every thread.

But just so we can get to the heart of this thing, lets stipulate that you did not previously say that individuals should be able to own nukes.

Are you a nutjob, or do you accept limits on the right to bear arms?

Why don't you answer the simple question?

If you think there should be no limits, say so. If you agree that there can be limits, then we can move on to discussing what those limits should be.

Bill,

Do a search, you will not find a post where I said it was OK for an individual to own nukes.

What I said was
"If the Second Amendment was interpreted the same way as the others, nuclear weapons and 500 lb bombs would probably be legal."

I am not going to let you pigeon hole me into one area, like I said before I know what you are trying to do and refuse to fall for it.

Do you think the founding fathers would agree that it is OK to burn the flag?
1st amendment.

Do you think the founding fathers would agree that it is OK to have federally funded artwork where the crucifix is submerged in urine?
1st Amendment.

Do you think the founding fathers would agree that it is OK to give 11 year old girls oral contraceptives, without their parents knowledge?
Right to privacy, 1st amendment.

Do you think the founding fathers would agree that it is OK for a doctor to partially remove a baby from the mothers womb, stick a pair of scissors into it's head, and scramble its brains, suck them out with a vacuum cleaner and then throw the baby away, or sell it for research?
Right to privacy, 1st amendment.

Bill,


I am not going to let you pigeon hole me into one area, like I said before I know what you are trying to do and refuse to fall for it.



That's right, I'm trying to pin you down. You are a big promoter of the right to bear arms, but apparently you want to waffle when put to the test. I'm thinking that you really do believe that there can be limits on the right to bear arms, but don't want to admit it.

Regarding all that other stuff you mentioned- the case before the Supreme Court is about the 2d Amendment, not the 1st. Why do you keep trying to change the subject.

That's right, I'm trying to pin you down. You are a big promoter of the right to bear arms, but apparently you want to waffle when put to the test. I'm thinking that you really do believe that there can be limits on the right to bear arms, but don't want to admit it.

Regarding all that other stuff you mentioned- the case before the Supreme Court is about the 2d Amendment, not the 1st. Why do you keep trying to change the subject.

What part of the 2nd amendment don't you understand?

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.

Like I have said before if the 2nd amendment was read and interpreted the way the rest of the BOR is read, nukes would be legal, however nuclear weapons will never be able to be owned or possessed by any individual in the United States or other country so your point is moot and means nothing.

The reason I bring up the rest of the BOR's is because in all the rest of it, the rights are individual rights, the founding fathers were not concerned about States having rights as much as they were concerned about the state infringing upon the peoples rights.

Why are you so concerned about law abiding citizens own guns?

I have quite a few guns and I have never committed a crime with them, I have never killed anyone, robbed them, or stolen their money, why do you have a problem with me owning guns?

BTW too make you feel better, my next acquisition is going to be a http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_82.aspx and a couple of these, http://www.gem-tech.com/center_fire.html.

I unlike criminals will follow all applicable laws in the purchase and use of these firearms and accessories.

Why are you so concerned about law abiding citizens own guns?

I have quite a few guns and I have never committed a crime with them, I have never killed anyone, robbed them, or stolen their money, why do you have a problem with me owning guns?



Who said I have a problem with law abiding citizens owning guns? Who said I have a problem with you owning guns? I own guns myself.

Its a question of where the line should be drawn. I have a problem with you owning a nuke. And as much as I don't like Bush, I have a problem with people owning 50 cal sniper rifles that can kill him from over a mile away and make it impossible for the Secret Service to protect him.

I know its hard to be unemotional on religion, and I realize that guns equate to religion for people like you, but its too bad you can't have a reasoned discussion of what the 2d Amendment really means, and whether that right to bear arms is absolute.

I read a quote from one of the plaintiff's lead attorneys, and even he said that it was obvious that there could be reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, even though it was an individual right. I suppose you will think he is not adequately representing your side.

I started the thread because I thought gun advocates might like to know that the court was finally going to decide the question. However they decide, it will be a good thing to have it settled, if in fact it is.

I am for freedom and Bill of rights
but I could not have some nuts running around with ak-47.

If you are for freedom and the Bill of Rights, why do you want to infringe on someones right to own a particular firearm?

That is like saying you agree with the 1st amendment as long as someone doesn't say what you don't like.

Why do you have an issue with someone owning an AK47?

Tell me what the difference is between a semi automatic AK47 and a Remington Model 7400 is.

Here is an article about the 7400, BTW the 270 or 30-06 is a more powerful round that the 7.62 x 39.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/rem_7400_carbine.htm

Who said I have a problem with law abiding citizens owning guns? Who said I have a problem with you owning guns? I own guns myself.

Its a question of where the line should be drawn. I have a problem with you owning a nuke. And as much as I don't like Bush, I have a problem with people owning 50 cal sniper rifles that can kill him from over a mile away and make it impossible for the Secret Service to protect him.

I know its hard to be unemotional on religion, and I realize that guns equate to religion for people like you, but its too bad you can't have a reasoned discussion of what the 2d Amendment really means, and whether that right to bear arms is absolute.

I read a quote from one of the plaintiff's lead attorneys, and even he said that it was obvious that there could be reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, even though it was an individual right. I suppose you will think he is not adequately representing your side.

I started the thread because I thought gun advocates might like to know that the court was finally going to decide the question. However they decide, it will be a good thing to have it settled, if in fact it is.

Bill,

Do you really think a 50 caliber rifle is a threat to the President?

Do you have any idea how much skill it takes to hit a target from a mile away?

Do you think it is acceptable to remove every thing from society that can harm the President?

Do you think I should be able to buy a 50 caliber rifle?

Do you think I should be able to own silencers?

Do you think I should be able to own machine guns?

The plaintiffs attorney's opinion does not matter on whether or not he thinks there should be limits on the 2nd amendment, he is not the one who wrote the BOR and is not the one who decides on whether people should be able to own machine guns.

Bill,

Do you really think a 50 caliber rifle is a threat to the President?
Yes.

Do you have any idea how much skill it takes to hit a target from a mile away?

I think so, although I have no experience with it. But I'm not sure that its pertinent to know how hard it is. A guy with that rifle could park on the perimeter road at an airport and shoot at the 747 my son is flying. I don't think that there is any reasonable use for a 50 cal that justifies the risk. And sorry, but "just because I want one" doesn't cut it with me.

Do you think it is acceptable to remove every thing from society that can harm the President?

No. We need to balance the risk with benefits of legitimate uses. A VW Beetle could conceivably harm the President if it managed to penetrate the motorcade, but the risks of that are very small, and VW Beetles have a lot of legitimate uses.

Do you think I should be able to buy a 50 caliber rifle?
No.

Do you think I should be able to own silencers?
No.

Do you think I should be able to own machine guns?
No.

The plaintiffs attorney's opinion does not matter on whether or not he thinks there should be limits on the 2nd amendment, he is not the one who wrote the BOR and is not the one who decides on whether people should be able to own machine guns.

Yep. No one can know what the people who wrote it meant, but its the court that decides how it applies today. However, plaintiff's attorneys do get to frame the arguments and presumably influence the decision of the court. Otherwise, the court could have just decided to rule on the meaning of the 2d Amendment without a case even being brought to it.

If you are worried about your sons 747 being shot, you should get rid of all firearms, as it would be very easy for anyone to park under the flight path of almost all airoports and shoot at them and even hit them with even a .22 caliber rimfire.

What do you think would happen to a 747 if it was hit by a .50 caliber rifle?

I think there is more risk to airlines from Pilots flying while intoxicated than .50caliber rifles, how many pilots have flown or attempted to fly while drunk and how many planes have been shot with a .50 caliber rifle?

I don't know how many pilots have flown drunk, but some have been arrested, I have never heard of a case in the United States or anywhere else of a plane being shot at or hit with a .50 caliber rifle.

Apparently we have a bigger problem in regards to airline safety with drunk pilots than with .50 caliber rifles.

The 2nd amendment is what gives me the right to own .50 caliber rifles.

Why do you have a problem with silencers?

Why do you have a problem with machine guns?

I can legally own .50 caliber rifles, machine guns and silencers, pen guns, short barreled rifles, sawed Off shotguns, etc., I am not the type of guy to worry about, it is the criminal, the guys that don't follow the laws.

BTW if you want to kill a lot of people quickly, there are better ways than shooting them, remember the Happy Land dance Club in New York?

87 people were killed when it was torched with less than a couple of dollars worth of gasoline, whats next, you want to ban flammable liquids?

what purpose some one would need a silencer?
I can come up with one could some one help me please?

Hunting, for one. It may surprise you to learn that in England, with incredible gun controls, silencers are readily available & affordable. They are used quite a lot by hunters to keep the noise of gunfire suppressed so that people in the area are not disturbed. They would also be very nice to use at shooting ranges, which often have residential developments surrounding them now.

what purpose some one would need a silencer?
I can come up with one could some one help me please?

One of the main reasons I am going to get one is, because I shoot my AR15 on my property, it is a loud rifle and it would be nice to not disturb the neighbors with the noise.

They don't care about the noise, but it would still be nice to quiet it down some.

Silencers are not like on TV where you barely hear a sound.

They still make quite a bit of noise, and since the bullet is traveling supersonic, it will still have the sonic crack down range.

What reason can you come up with for owning a silencer?

One of the main reasons I am going to get one is, because I shoot my AR15 on my property, it is a loud rifle and it would be nice to not disturb the neighbors with the noise.

They don't care about the noise, but it would still be nice to quiet it down some.

Silencers are not like on TV where you barely hear a sound.

They still make quite a bit of noise, and since the bullet is traveling supersonic, it will still have the sonic crack down range.

What reason can you come up with for owning a silencer?

I dont know.
as far as I know silencer used mostly in illegal activities; maybe I am watching too much tv shows.

Hunting, for one. It may surprise you to learn that in England, with incredible gun controls, silencers are readily available & affordable. They are used quite a lot by hunters to keep the noise of gunfire suppressed so that people in the area are not disturbed. They would also be very nice to use at shooting ranges, which often have residential developments surrounding them now.

Maybe this is true
but I am willing to sacrificed my hunting success in return for public safety

I dont know.
as far as I know silencer used mostly in illegal activities; maybe I am watching too much tv shows.


Do you know of any crimes committed with a silencer?

Have you ever seen a silencer except for on TV?

One of my favorites is when they screw a silencer on a revolver and it hardly makes any sound at all, the way a revolver is made, makes a silencer practically useless because of the cylinder gap.

I don't know of any crimes committed with a legal or an illegal silencer.

Do you know of any crimes committed with a silencer?

Have you ever seen a silencer except for on TV?

One of my favorites is when they screw a silencer on a revolver and it hardly makes any sound at all, the way a revolver is made, makes a silencer practically useless because of the cylinder gap.

I don't know of any crimes committed with a legal or an illegal silencer.

NO!
NO!
But it would not make me loosen hair if they are banned!
since you all ready know my position on gun control. owning a hand gun yes.
background check before you got the gun yes.
owning a riffle for sporting activities yes, but you must be checked before you got your hands on.

anything other than those, in my wiew it is not neccecery unless you want to overtrow a goverment which I have no such a intention. Therefore it is not a urgent thing in my agenda.
You know I have lot more other stuff I have to deal with it. Such as Social Security, health care, education etc. etc.
owning a machine gun or bazooka its not my priority.

NO!
NO!
But it would not make me loosen hair if they are banned!
since you all ready know my position on gun control. owning a hand gun yes.
background check before you got the gun yes.
owning a riffle for sporting activities yes, but you must be checked before you got your hands on.

anything other than those, in my wiew it is not neccecery unless you want to overtrow a goverment which I have no such a intention. Therefore it is not a urgent thing in my agenda.
You know I have lot more other stuff I have to deal with it. Such as Social Security, health care, education etc. etc.
owning a machine gun or bazooka its not my priority.

I don't see the rationale for you saying it wouldn't bother you if silencers are banned, you admitted you have never seen one other than on TV and you know of no crimes being committed with one.

Do you know of any crimes being committed with a legally owned machine gun?

I have heard of 1 case, of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime.

Bazooka's are not really relevant as they have not been made in several years (World War II era) and I know of no crimes ever being committed with one.

I don't see the rationale for you saying it wouldn't bother you if silencers are banned, you admitted you have never seen one other than on TV and you know of no crimes being committed with one.

Do you know of any crimes being committed with a legally owned machine gun?

I have heard of 1 case, of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime.

Bazooka's are not really relevant as they have not been made in several years (World War II era) and I know of no crimes ever being committed with one.

Bill my point is
I am for hand gun for self defence on my house and my property
I am for riffle for sporting activities
all this on one condition which is; Background check must be done before!

any other weaponds in my mind it is not good idea period.
whether some crime being commited or not. You maybe absolutly right by saying no crime has being commited by those weapons, is that mean never will be?
I just want odds being favor of the public, thats all
you remember shooting with two bank robbers in Holywood six seven years ago? or what happing in Colombine Colorado?

Bill my point is
I am for hand gun for self defence on my house and my property
I am for riffle for sporting activities
all this on one condition which is; Background check must be done before!

any other weaponds in my mind it is not good idea period.
whether some crime being commited or not. You maybe absolutly right by saying no crime has being commited by those weapons, is that mean never will be?
I just want odds being favor of the public, thats all
you remember shooting with two bank robbers in Holywood six seven years ago? or what happing in Colombine Colorado?

The Hollywood bank robbery and Columbine are great examples of why laws do not work.

It is illegal to rob banks, it is illegal to own an unregistered and unlicensed machine gun, it is illegal to shoot at people and the police, yet the bank robbers did all of the above.

What new law would have stopped them?

It is illegal for 16 year olds to have guns, take them to school and kill their classmates and their teachers.

What new law would have stopped them?

Owning handguns and rifles is a right, sporting purposes are not one of the requirements for exercising that right.

Do you want to outlaw all things that may be used in a crime, even if they have not already been used?

You are a man capable of rape, should you be castrated, just because you have the means to commit and crime?

Their use of silencers in hunting has nothing to do with the success of the hunt. It is done solely out of consideration for people around them. I used to know a guy in England who made his living by killing deer & selling the meat as well as guiding other hunters. He killed a few hundred deer a year. It truly puzzled him why we, the land of the free, could have ready availability of guns for all legitimate uses but silencers were taxed & regulated to the point where most of us won't bother jumping through the hoops to get one & all game laws ban their use for hunting in any case, limiting their practical use to law abiding sportsmen.

The Hollywood bank robbery and Columbine are great examples of why laws do not work.

It is illegal to rob banks, it is illegal to own an unregistered and unlicensed machine gun, it is illegal to shoot at people and the police, yet the bank robbers did all of the above.

What new law would have stopped them?

It is illegal for 16 year olds to have guns, take them to school and kill their classmates and their teachers.

What new law would have stopped them?

Owning handguns and rifles is a right, sporting purposes are not one of the requirements for exercising that right.

Do you want to outlaw all things that may be used in a crime, even if they have not already been used?

You are a man capable of rape, should you be castrated, just because you have the means to commit and crime?

Bill your manhood is not a item you could purchesed. we born with it and it is not a weapon and there is many other ways to violate woman so your suggestion would not take care of the problem.
and again yes you could not stoped the crimes if you banned them, but it would be much less crimes, than if those weapons are sold in flea markets.
All I am saying is we allready have way too many crimes, if less people would die by banning some weapons. By allmeans lets do it.

But it doesn't work that way. Places where guns have been banned & severely restricted in this country have the worst gun crime rates of all.

We can't keep illegal drugs out. the goblins will get guns, whether you & I can or not.

England banned all handguns & all full auto weapons. Since doing so their gun crime rates have sky rocketed & officers in cities now face a serious risk of facing a gun, and worse, if they do, that gun will be a full auto.

That place is an island & they can't keep them out.

Criminals do not, by definition, obey the law.

Bill your manhood is not a item you could purchesed. we born with it and it is not a weapon and there is many other ways to violate woman so your suggestion would not take care of the problem.
and again yes you could not stoped the crimes if you banned them, but it would be much less crimes, than if those weapons are sold in flea markets.
All I am saying is we allready have way too many crimes, if less people would die by banning some weapons. By allmeans lets do it.

There are already over 70,000,000 or more, most likely many many more guns in the United States.

How is outlawing guns going to help slow down crime?

Criminals do not follow laws, so outlawing guns will only affect law abiding people.

If reducing gun ownership is the answer to gun crimes, why does washington D.C., Chicago, new York, Philadelphia, St. Louis and other cities that practically ban private ownership of guns have so much gun crime?

But it doesn't work that way. Places where guns have been banned & severely restricted in this country have the worst gun crime rates of all.

We can't keep illegal drugs out. the goblins will get guns, whether you & I can or not.

England banned all handguns & all full auto weapons. Since doing so their gun crime rates have sky rocketed & officers in cities now face a serious risk of facing a gun, and worse, if they do, that gun will be a full auto.

That place is an island & they can't keep them out.

Criminals do not, by definition, obey the law.

That maybe true, Just the other night I hear in Lou Dobbs DC crime rates did increased after such ordinance passed.However this dont justified more guns in my mind, what this tell me, we need to enforced our laws better if the guy in charge cant do it, so elect the one will make it happened. if he dont move on to next guy sooner or later they will get it and make our safety priority. you guys are saying criminal have all this illigal weapons, then police should be out and getting them. But police needs to know thats their job! and they are expected to do the job! First of all police should not enforced traffic laws
police should fight crime not a stop sign violators.But allmost all the cities looks a traffic tickets as a revenue for the city and expect each police to generate quota, cops thinks I wright three tickets today so my job is done. that is exactly what is happining today.Responding the real crime? no no its too dengourus so lets show up after the crime has being done and wright a police report for insurance purpose

I can legally own .50 caliber rifles, machine guns and silencers, pen guns, short barreled rifles, sawed Off shotguns, etc., I am not the type of guy to worry about, it is the criminal, the guys that don't follow the laws.



But you are the kind of guy I worry about. When you said in that other thread that the old man "had to shoot" those burglars who were on the way out of a neighbor's house with property and posed no threat to him, I realized that you have a very different idea about what compels someone to kill another human being.

If you truly believe that he had to shoot them, then you worry me. You have too little regard for life. I don't like thieves, and I didn't like it when I was burglarized. I just didn't want to kill the guy. I wasn't home, so he was no threat to me. If I had been home, it would have been a different story, but I'm not going to try to dream up an excuse or imagine a scenario which gives me the right to kill.

But you are the kind of guy I worry about. When you said in that other thread that the old man "had to shoot" those burglars who were on the way out of a neighbor's house with property and posed no threat to him, I realized that you have a very different idea about what compels someone to kill another human being.

If you truly believe that he had to shoot them, then you worry me. You have too little regard for life. I don't like thieves, and I didn't like it when I was burglarized. I just didn't want to kill the guy. I wasn't home, so he was no threat to me. If I had been home, it would have been a different story, but I'm not going to try to dream up an excuse or imagine a scenario which gives me the right to kill.

Bill,

Horn said he was in fear of his life, that is why he shot them, he didn't shoot them because they stole property, he shot them because when they were confronted, they didn't follow his orders.

The burglars chose to break into the house, they also chose not to follow the orders of an armed man, and they went towards him, so they paid the ultimate price.

I think it would have been best if Horn stayed inside, but he didn't, it would have been best if the burglars did not break the law, but they didn't, it would have been best if they followed his orders to freeze, but they didn't, Horn and the 2 burglars were the only ones there, so we are just speculating on whether or not he had to shoot them.

It is a shame the way the events unfolded, but that is the way the ball bounces sometime.

I am pretty certain you are not the type of guy who goes around breaking into peoples house or committing other crimes, so you shouldn't have any problem with a guy like Horn or any other law abiding citizen that owns guns.

WWTND?

http://64.82.96.51/nugent.jpg

Kaan,

In our police force's quest to remove illegal guns from criminal's hands, our liberties will surely be trampled on.

You are asking for someone else to protect you. In order to do so, that entity must have access to anyone's privacy at any time.

Careful what you wish for.

Protect yourself and remain free.

Bill my point is
I am for hand gun for self defence on my house and my property
I am for riffle for sporting activities
all this on one condition which is; Background check must be done before!

any other weaponds in my mind it is not good idea period.
whether some crime being commited or not. You maybe absolutly right by saying no crime has being commited by those weapons, is that mean never will be?
I just want odds being favor of the public, thats all
you remember shooting with two bank robbers in Holywood six seven years ago? or what happing in Colombine Colorado?

I think you must have missed the intent of the second amendment. It was never designed as a gaurantee to have rifles for hunting or guns for self dense in your OWN home. It was put in place to make the government think twice before offending the citizens, knowing that a well armed populace would be a major component in keeping the government responsive to its citizens.

oh and heres some quotes by several respected individuals on gun control...

* James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

* Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

* Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

* George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

* George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth. A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

* Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ... 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."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

Bill,

Horn said he was in fear of his life, that is why he shot them, he didn't shoot them because they stole property, he shot them because when they were confronted, they didn't follow his orders.

You keep avoiding the fact that it was his choice to go outside and give those orders.

I am pretty certain you are not the type of guy who goes around breaking into peoples house or committing other crimes, so you shouldn't have any problem with a guy like Horn or any other law abiding citizen that owns guns.

Here is a post from the other board which gives just one example of why I don't like trigger-happy people deciding to take the law into their own hands.

Man, I think back of all those times I delivered newspaper (this is small town NC) and I would have to go collect money. Did that until I was 17.

We would send people a bill for their monthly papers ($4/month) but some wouldn't pay until you go and collect.

One of my customers was a paraplegic and she always asked that I come around the back to knock on the patio door since she was also hard of hearing. She would pay me my $4, talked to me about whatever, showed me her kids letters and pictures and asked me to read for her, and I would be on my way.

Now picture this--a 17-year-old asian kid lurking around, going into people's backyard and peering into window.

Neighbor got excited. Ka-boom.

Horn used poor judgement in this recent case, and someone like him might have killed this guy if he had lived next to the old lady. That's the sort of thing that happens when people start taking the law into their own hands.

And BTW, I know you think all immigrants who are not Caucasian are illegal, but this one is a citizen.

Kaan,

In our police force's quest to remove illegal guns from criminal's hands, our liberties will surely be trampled on.

You are asking for someone else to protect you. In order to do so, that entity must have access to anyone's privacy at any time.

Careful what you wish for.

Protect yourself and remain free.
WE all have to give up some of our privacy, if it is mean safer invorement for us and our kids. You think this is a bad idea, but I did not see any of you guys going out in the street six years ago when patriot act passed! most of the citizen in this country was silent even tough they all know patriot act did ripped some of our privacy why?
becouse every body think it was neccesery to obtain bit more security in our lives. did it work? thats a another story we need to disscuss

I think you must have missed the intent of the second amendment. It was never designed as a gaurantee to have rifles for hunting or guns for self dense in your OWN home. It was put in place to make the government think twice before offending the citizens, knowing that a well armed populace would be a major component in keeping the government responsive to its citizens.

oh and heres some quotes by several respected individuals on gun control...

* James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

* Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

* Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

* George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

* George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth. A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

* Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ... 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."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

No i did not missed the intend of 2nd amendtment
Times are changing, our needs and priority change with time as well, thats why we have supreme court to decide what it is being said in 2nd amendtment and how is applying to todays world.
I know you will say it`s not so!
but if there is no need to interpet the laws, then there is no need for three branch of goverment since laws are allready being in the book, we still have them so as times goes by, we still need legislative branch to right new laws based on recent needs and changes and we still need a supreme court so they could look at the laws in the book and make decision on them what they mean in the todays world.
you know if we go by people has a right to owned a weapons the goverment has, then you`ll have some one wanna buy nucleer weapons, chimical weapons and biolagical weapons, I f you truely belived on 2nd amendment as is reading then you should not have problem for some one to have those weapons too, if you dont think thats a good idea then you are for gun control too. which one are you?

To answer your question Kaan...
I think wmds in the hands of RESPONSIBLE citizens would be the ultimate protection against tyranny.
Did you read the quote by Washington? If we take away the people's right to protect themselves from tyranny then the government no longer has anything to fear and its actions will grow more and more intolerable with time. Every dictatorship in the world has been controlled by a strong leader who had total control over the military and weapons of the country, and upon assuming power they made it their goal to take away any means of resistance.

While i agree with you that times have changed, the fears of the founding fathers were applicable to society several mellinia before 1782 and will be applicable forever. The and the limitations they placed on the government in the constitution and the protections of our liberty found in the bill of rights will always be relevant.

Knives, swords, guns, even cannon may be used without killing the user. IMO it's pretty hard to make the case that such is true for a nuke, chem or bio agent.

They just aren't much use when it comes to personal defense. Read the founders comments on this stuff, it's pretty clear what they meant. "The sword & musket, all the terrible implements of the soldier"

Not very many people will even consider WMD's in the category of "keeping & bearing arms" by an individual. You're not talking apples & apples with such an argument.

I can have a gun, 12 guns, 1000 guns that I personally own. Not one other person is in the slightest danger from any of those guns, unless they do something sufficient to warrant my decision to choose to use one. Large explosives, chem or bio agents, far different risk potential.

Besides, if it ever gets nasty enough to truly have need of such, they can be obtained. Of course, in that event it's marvelously helpful to have personal weapons to aid in such an acquisition. I have the same attitude regarding full auto guns. While I do think they should remain legal & protected under the 2nd, I don't have any & am not bothered by the lack. If things fall apart enough to need one, I can get one. Not without planning & strategy, and some risk, but it can be done.

For now I'm reasonably content with my small collection, even if it does give Sarah Brady a case of twitching awefulls.

First of all police should not enforced traffic laws
police should fight crime not a stop sign violators.

Really?

Dollars to donuts that more people are killed by people running stop lights/signs than by guns and far more are killed by the the traffic violators than legally registered supressors/machine guns. I am far more concerned that I will be involved in an accident at an intersection than I will be involved in a shootout at the stop light.


It's funny to see people who have no experience w/ something argue so vehemently against my rights to own that thing.

WE all have to give up some of our privacy, if it is mean safer invorement for us and our kids. You think this is a bad idea, but I did not see any of you guys going out in the street six years ago when patriot act passed! most of the citizen in this country was silent even tough they all know patriot act did ripped some of our privacy why?
becouse every body think it was neccesery to obtain bit more security in our lives. did it work? thats a another story we need to disscuss

No, we don't have to give up our freedom. The patriot act was a bad idea in my opinion. If it wasn't for our foriegn policy we would never be in this situation. I don't need the government to protect me from the islamic radicals.

No, we don't have to give up our freedom. The patriot act was a bad idea in my opinion. If it wasn't for our foriegn policy we would never be in this situation. I don't need the government to p