Hi All

This topic was going to come up sometime, so what do you think? I personally think that this is giving everyone around the World a very bad view of Americans, especially with the shootings that have recently happened at schools. It is scary thought that every Tom, Dick and Jane would be carrying a handgun.

Mr Mook Mook

Personally, I don't think anyone should have a gun, whether they be civilians, police or even soldiers.
It's the 21st century, we're not cave men any more. We shouldn't need weapons. We shouldn't have anything to fight over (eg, food, water, land)

But let's be realistic here

The recent Supreme Court decision doesn't say, 'any gun, anywhere, any time.' It just says you can own a handgun. There have been lots of times crimes have been prevented with the use of guns. There are enough illegal guns out there that I don't see this adding to the number of armed criminals substantially.

Like Marvin said, it would be nice if there were no guns at all, but there ARE guns. I personally agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, and believe that we have a right to bear arms. It seems clear to me that this was intended to be for our own personal protection.

There's a lot of disagreement about this. I have finally come to see both sides of the argument a little bit more clearly.

FYI, I don't own a gun.

No.

I'm in that cul-de-sac of the world called Australia, so my opinion might not count as much as an American. But if you take the opinions of the greater world outside the United States, an American's opinion doesn't count for much at all. So that's a bit of a paradox there. Thus, my opinion may or may not be worth an American's opinion... but enough of that.

Guns don't cause crimes, people cause crimes. Guns don't stop crimes, people stop crimes. Guns just make both situations a hell of a lot more life-threatening to all parties involved.

So now we have two problems: Guns are dangerous, and People are violent.

So let's stay on the topic of guns for now. Why keep guns? To protect yourself. From what? Other people with guns. So if they didn't have guns... would that mean you still need guns yourself? Probably not. So that means guns are a total yes or total no thing. All or nothing, seeing as if one person has a gun, everyone else will want a gun to "protect themselves" against them.

Ah, but what about the police, security, military, etc, surely they need guns for their line of work? Yes they do. So what is the worry here? That someone who has guns at work will bring them home and act violently with their weapon?

The problem there would not be the gun, but a combination of the security of where it is kept (eg: if kept at work when the person is not in uniform, that prevents home acts of violence) and the mental state of the person themselves.

Which brings us to to the topic of people who are violent. We see that guns are only a problem if the people are a problem. So people can keep their guns, so long as they are not causing any problems.

So, how to fix the people? We must look at why they would use guns for unnecessary violence. Reasons would include social dissatisfaction, mental health problems, and temporary insanity... amongst others.

Social dissatisfaction is caused by significant rifts in accessibility to community and resources. That is why religion is such a big thing, a community that does not require everyone to be equally resourceful. Resources would include access to health services, finances, basic human needs. So closing the gap between rich and poor would help that, making sure everyone has a home, basic health cover and a minimum liveable income would help sort that problem out. Hence there would be less people using guns for robbery (in fact less robbery in general).

Mental Health is a big one. Without proper health care for everyone (and Australia is apparently better than America on that one, but Australia still isn't good enough) people who are mentally unstable are free to mingle amongst the non-deranged community. So when a deranged person decides that everyone around them is the spawn of satan, he might go and commit grievous acts of violence against many around him. This does, however, help the argument against guns, seeing as a gun makes it far easier to kill many in a short amount of time (ie: before help arrives) than say, a knife, or baseball bat.

Temporary insanity cannot always be helped. Incredible jealousy by a spurned lover is an example. But a more common example would be the taking of hard drugs (such as ice, LSD, etc). This leads to problems like the mental health example, but the person may be non-deranged for most of the time with only brief episodes of insanity. Causes of drug-taking can be social dissatisfaction and lack of health services providing safer places for people to do these things (people will always take drugs, may as well admit it and make it safer for everyone in the way they do so), and another effect of drug taking is the depletion on finances, which causes addicts to steal (and use guns to aid in that).

But back to guns. While typing this up I have done a little research into American gun culture and found an interesting article saying that gun culture only really started up after the Civil War (Clicky). The loose implication of that is that Americans only really got into guns because of a combination of Marketing, Southerners wanting to have a do-over of the Civil War to get their slaves back, Northeners to prevent such an event from happening, racism, blacks protecting themselves from racism, and now marketing today being the most popular method of ensuring that people spend money on guns to look "Macho". Ok, that's a bit of a stretch of logic, but from an outside perspective it makes sense.

Even if you tried, you probably wouldn't ever get completely rid of guns in America, but you can help the people to stop killing each other. So I vote to help the people, instead of banning the guns.

That said, the sale of military grade weapons to civilians is just plain silly. There is no excuse for the sale of sub-machine guns, sniper rifles, and anything that would obliterate an entire limb. You're just asking for trouble there.

I'm in that cul-de-sac of the world called Australia, so my opinion might not count as much as an American. But if you take the opinions of the greater world outside the United States, an American's opinion doesn't count for much at all. So that's a bit of a paradox there. Thus, my opinion may or may not be worth an American's opinion... but enough of that.

Guns don't cause crimes, people cause crimes. Guns don't stop crimes, people stop crimes. Guns just make both situations a hell of a lot more life-threatening to all parties involved.

So now we have two problems: Guns are dangerous, and People are violent.

So let's stay on the topic of guns for now. Why keep guns? To protect yourself. From what? Other people with guns. So if they didn't have guns... would that mean you still need guns yourself? Probably not. So that means guns are a total yes or total no thing. All or nothing, seeing as if one person has a gun, everyone else will want a gun to "protect themselves" against them.

Ah, but what about the police, security, military, etc, surely they need guns for their line of work? Yes they do. So what is the worry here? That someone who has guns at work will bring them home and act violently with their weapon?

The problem there would not be the gun, but a combination of the security of where it is kept (eg: if kept at work when the person is not in uniform, that prevents home acts of violence) and the mental state of the person themselves.

Which brings us to to the topic of people who are violent. We see that guns are only a problem if the people are a problem. So people can keep their guns, so long as they are not causing any problems.

So, how to fix the people? We must look at why they would use guns for unnecessary violence. Reasons would include social dissatisfaction, mental health problems, and temporary insanity... amongst others.

Social dissatisfaction is caused by significant rifts in accessibility to community and resources. That is why religion is such a big thing, a community that does not require everyone to be equally resourceful. Resources would include access to health services, finances, basic human needs. So closing the gap between rich and poor would help that, making sure everyone has a home, basic health cover and a minimum liveable income would help sort that problem out. Hence there would be less people using guns for robbery (in fact less robbery in general).

Mental Health is a big one. Without proper health care for everyone (and Australia is apparently better than America on that one, but Australia still isn't good enough) people who are mentally unstable are free to mingle amongst the non-deranged community. So when a deranged person decides that everyone around them is the spawn of satan, he might go and commit grievous acts of violence against many around him. This does, however, help the argument against guns, seeing as a gun makes it far easier to kill many in a short amount of time (ie: before help arrives) than say, a knife, or baseball bat.

Temporary insanity cannot always be helped. Incredible jealousy by a spurned lover is an example. But a more common example would be the taking of hard drugs (such as ice, LSD, etc). This leads to problems like the mental health example, but the person may be non-deranged for most of the time with only brief episodes of insanity. Causes of drug-taking can be social dissatisfaction and lack of health services providing safer places for people to do these things (people will always take drugs, may as well admit it and make it safer for everyone in the way they do so), and another effect of drug taking is the depletion on finances, which causes addicts to steal (and use guns to aid in that).

But back to guns. While typing this up I have done a little research into American gun culture and found an interesting article saying that gun culture only really started up after the Civil War (Clicky). The loose implication of that is that Americans only really got into guns because of a combination of Marketing, Southerners wanting to have a do-over of the Civil War to get their slaves back, Northeners to prevent such an event from happening, racism, blacks protecting themselves from racism, and now marketing today being the most popular method of ensuring that people spend money on guns to look "Macho". Ok, that's a bit of a stretch of logic, but from an outside perspective it makes sense.

Even if you tried, you probably wouldn't ever get completely rid of guns in America, but you can help the people to stop killing each other. So I vote to help the people, instead of banning the guns.

That said, the sale of military grade weapons to civilians is just plain silly. There is no excuse for the sale of sub-machine guns, sniper rifles, and anything that would obliterate an entire limb. You're just asking for trouble there.

Anyway, just my 2 cents on this topic.

iPirate it seems you have repeated your self many times, so maybe you should go back and edit.

Hard and soft drugs
While Meth is as hard as you can go, LSD is very different in terms of physical effects and addiction.

As far as guns go, sure. If you want to own a handgun go for it. If there was a way to get rid of every single gun in the United States I would go for it. But thats impossible, so guns can be available if one would like them. Strict regulations are fine, but keep them available. Its in the constitution.


Before anyway pro gun person likens gun control to Hitler or Stalin's regime: seriously? Gun control implemented by elected officials for public safety is completely different.

Our laws say that you have the right to bear arms, and the government can't do anything about it. So tough {censored} for those who oppose liberty, and favor tyranny. You will get your way on a cold day in hell. Reguardless of what you say, what your ignorant filled opinion is, or your government's. You will never get them.

EDIT: The problem is the fools that think they can solve everyone else's problems. Hitler thought the same thing. That he could create some utopia of his. Yeah, it was his utopia of course. Foolish people with the mind of a 14 year old, and delusions of grandeur.

Crime doesn't have anything to do with guns. I could just as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a ball point pen as I could with my 9mm Luger in case you are wondering. My BAR saves money on food during deer season, and my .12 guage makes sure you don't break into my house, or {censored} with my property. The 4 SKSs, and 10k rounds of ammo, and 2 UZIs in my safe insure that you, or your government don't try to take the rest of my guns.

Reguardless of what your "opinion" is. The facts remain. The real world remains. You won't take them. End of story. The entire arguement is senseless, ignorant, pointless, and foolish. You can't stop people from dying any more than you can reach another galaxy. Man will ALWAYS foolishly murder his brother, reguardless of what his weapon of choice is.

When the Second Amendment was written there were nothing but muskets.

I have no problem with you owning a musket

I would love to see your dumbass try it.

EDIT: And to let you in a little secret. The people that wrote the 2nd amendment were also 1,000 times wiser than you. They are in the history books. You aren't, and never will be.

Here, in the south, If you want to disarm one man, you better call in an army.

That doesn't even make any sense as a reply, but comsidering you wrote it I guess it's no more nonsensical than anything else you've ever posted


That's right folks, the all knowing, all seeing JonTheSavage will look into his crystal ball and make his predictions. Next show is at 8:00


Better do it before noon time or you'll all miss "Paul Harvey" on the radio

The cat's already out of the bag in the US. What would you do? Kick in everyones door to force them to turn in their guns? What about criminals / criminal organizations? How would you capture their weapons when you can't do it now? What about the police? There's already a huge divide of power between the average citizen and their police... should this be widened? How do you plan on capturing all these weapons without an extremely well armed police force? Do you really trust your local police force that much?

That said, personally, I choose not to keep my guns in my home (lake home is the preferred location) since I'm subject to hypoglycemia and would rather not be responsible for making poor judgment while impaired.

iPirate, no one is going to read that wall o' text.

JonTheSavage & Maxintosh:

If you two don't get your act together, I will take the pleasure of suspending both your accounts for two weeks. Your extremely childish and stupid behaviour not only degrades the quality of discussion but makes yourself look bad too, and I'm sure, as well as me, everyone else here is getting fed up having to skip over your little flamewars that no one apart from you two seem to be bothered about.

If you have problems, take them up in a PM!!

In my opinion it shouldn't be allowed in an ideal world where the manufacturing of weapons would just stop so people could get on peacefully, however as this is not the case I believe it is a needed symbol of power and also a defense against some of the evil people who are out there.

I'm sure you are used to restriction of speech in the EU aren't you? Enjoy your cameras, and police state assholes. l8r.

This forum isn't a country, or a democracy for that matter. He can do whatever he wants.

Don't take it that way man, you contribute a lot here. Little flames directed to one or two people don't really contribute to the discussion and do make you look bad, take it as a helpful warning/reminder.

Yeah, there's no International Law of whatever here.



Please listen to erei33 and Sabr. Long story short, cool off a little.

Yeah Jon it seems that when anyone tries to disagree with you, you unleash a storm of comments about their intelligence, and less about their post.....

Take a deep breath and respond.

Kind of an odd idea, maybe ban people other than law enforcement from having guns outside of their house or "building." Maybe would keep people from using it other than self-defense.

Hello , I'm new to the forum----great forum, I was surprised to come across this topic on a computer related forum.
I'm gun owner and a stanch supporter of the second ammendment rights of all law abidding US citizen, I served in the US Military 25 years .

Our constitution in the USA affords it's citizens the right to keep and bare arms. In the USA gun ownership is not a privledge, It is a right, a right ingained in the fabric of our nation,a right engrained before and after the founding fathers wrote the document .

Of the constitutional amendments, amendment NUMBER 2 on the list,is even ahead of things like unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a speedy trial. While I suspect that the Founding fathers held all the rights and amendments as equal, the right to keep and bare arms is second, and not as an afterthought.



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.


There are 2 parts to the above, the Justification clause which basically explains why the Founding fathers feel the need to put in the action part, and the Action clause, which is the law part.

The first part is the Justification clause: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

Let’s look at this sentence backwards.

First they say STATE. This does not mean a single State like Maryland, or Delaware, but the country like the State of Israel It could also mean a state of being, but certainly was not intended to mean a single state like Maryland.

Second, Notice the use of SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, not the defense of a free state, or in times of war or other sayings, but the SECURITY. Security means protecting a state from enemies both Foreign and Domestic. Our founding fathers understood that security of the state was only possible if the citizens could keep a government in check. If a government is the only one who has arms, then they can and history has shown us that they will, end up controlling a people, and imposing their will upon a populace. Our Founders understood that only three things keep a government in check, elections where the government officials can be replaced, the threat of violence against the government, if those officials refuse to step down and actual violence against the gov.


An armed man is a free man, and a free man does not need goverment to watch his every move or provide cradle-to-grave care. An armed man can say No, That is why some of the first steps Hitler, Stalin, Lenin among other tyrants took was complete abolishion of firearms. And that is why the Soviet Union and Red China so easily conducted massive purges, and stamped out every hint of individualism and send a clear message, This is what happens when you don't toe the line.

Gun control effects only the law abidding citizen, the Criminals and thugs will get guns as easy as falling off a log backwards if they so desire through illegal means.

Even if the court did remove the right to bear arms, that wouldn't stop criminals from obtaining them. They're not just gonna say, "Oh darn, i wish i could shoot this guy, but the government won't allow me to have a gun. Oh my good golly gosh." NO, the only thing outlawing guns would do is removing ordinary citizens' ability to defend themselves against people that DON'T follow the law and DO have a gun.

I am so so on this issue, if someone wants to do harm to a person etc they will find a way to do it. Now Letting everyone have a gun would make this easier for them to do, at the same time having good citizens with guns would some what out weigh the good/bad people and make them think twice(hopefully).

In the united states there is a purpose for hunting... some animal populations are out of control and they need to be hunted ie deer. But for this you can use a rifle. A handgun is superfluous and not ideal for hunting. When the bill of rights was written handguns were much more primitive than they are today and could not be as easily concealed. Handguns serve only one purpose which is to kill other people. 18th century "handguns" were one shot and you are done ordeals and they were probably 3-4 times bigger then todays glock. They were so big that they were designed so you could hit someone with the non shooting end of the gun and do some damage. Try killing someone with one of these:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Wheellock_pistol_or_[/img]

The people writing the bill of rights probably didn't foresee pistols like the colt .45 and they didn't appear until almost a century later in the infamous wild west... At the time the bill of rights was written the United States supported slavery. Slavery was such a great thing in this country that we stole texas from Mexico to continue enslaving people... not everything in the past was good and these gun laws are outdated. Handguns hurt society by making murder very easy. Rifles do have a purpose.

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

What? Since when is a militia necessary to the security of a free state? Do you honestly think that in an age of guided missiles ,F-22s flying faster then sound and dropping cluster bombs that a bunch of rednecks with hand guns will stop the government from taking the rights away from civilians? Opposing gun registration and regulation in a country like the US where murder rates are incredibly hight is absurd and ignorant...

Furthermore, on the the insaner interpretation of what you said, do you honestly think that if the united states was under attack by a foreign force that civilians would be able to make a difference with their rinky dink rifles and handguns?

Well said

"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."

It IS illegal to kill except in self defense. That law exists, yet people get killed for other reasons. I live in Russia now, where NO one is allowed to own a handgun, except police and licensed security personnel, yet people get shot often. Gun laws are silly, if you are going to kill, you will kill. the fact that the gun is illegal is irrelevant. if it is criminal to have a gun, only criminals will have guns. Sad but true.

As to a militia being necessary the the security of a free state and the argument that in a day of F15s, tanks etc, it won't matter, let me tell you. As a trained US marine I will tell you that a single man, well trained with a rifle is MUCH more dangerous than a plane, tank or whatever. a militia, resisting tyranny may not prevail, but at least the tyrannous government will stop and think that the people may not simply lie down and take it. Militias don't work? tell that to some African, South American or even eastern European nations. Oh, it works.

Try not to live in a perfect world in your minds, because, our world is far from perfect. If one could take away ALL the guns, I mean 100% of them, then you are correct, no one would need one. But that isn't going to happen. In states that allow concealed carry, the bad guys think twice before taking someone on who might be armed. Wouldn't you? Statistics state that the gun owner is more likely to be harmed with his own gun that to use it for self defense. Is that a problem with the gun? Or maybe with the owner?

Rose colored glasses won't help anymore than being a vegetarian will save the animals from being eaten. The world is a hard place, there ARE bad people in it. They say that the meek will inherit the earth, yes, meek people who are called upon in tough times to no longer be meek, but to defend themselves and then live to inherit it.

By the way I don't have a gun.


'nuff said.

The united states has been the worlds most prosperous country since world war 2. All while being a relatively good democracy. This isn't a 3rd world country or and ex communist state. The government is stable and their are (although rapidly shrinking) safeguards to keep the government in check. Militias are an old rule... If this country was ever corrupt or overrun by invader,

Intercities do have major gang problems and the worst violence could be eliminated by getting rid of handguns.

As for you comment about people thinking twice where concealed weapons are allowed - Its not plausible to be ready to "draw" on every single person passing you when you walk down a street. If someone wants to kill you - it will probably happen. The average person cannot be expected to know how to pull a a concealed weapon on somebody in self defense.

I believe with government subsidies on returned handguns that many of them will disappear.

Yes I do think US Citizens should have guns, however since gun ownership is supposed to serve as a counter to abuses of governmental authority and the US government now has tanks, attack helicopters, bombers, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons whereas at the signing of the bill of rights only had cannon and muskets, I think the obvious solution to this problem is to extend the language of the second amendment to cover tanks, attack helicopters, bombers, aircraft carriers and also nuclear weapons.

I make it a point to bare my arms daily.

Which came first- - the gun violence or the gun control Act of 1968 ? We have gun control on the books, we don't need new laws, enforce the laws we have and put those who violate the law in jail, or stick them in the arm and exsicute them if they take another life with any weapon. high-powered guns' were neither less lethal nor less available in the 1960's (or earlier) than they are today. In fact, many of the commonly used rifle and pistol cartridges today are of a smaller caliber than popular cartridges of a generation or more ago. And in the years preceding the Gun Control Act of 1968, it was far easier to buy a gun than in the years in which the "at least 100 shooting sprees"

Before 1968, individuals were allowed to direct mail order firearms.Before 1968, individuals were allowed to acquire handguns outside their state of residence.Before 1968, individuals from different states were allowed to engage in the private sale of handguns.Before 1968, individuals under the age of 21 could purchase a handgun, and individuals under the age of 18 could buy a shotgun or rifle.Before 1968, lone psychopathic individuals were not committing mass murder in the fashion they are today.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, was passed in the wake of the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the University of Texas sniper. Its supporters said it was time for 'sensible' gun laws, and promised they were going to make everyone safer. Now that the Associated Press reports we're somewhere north of 100 mass shootings since then, does anyone feel safer?
Our reaction to past acts of violence has been to pass gun control laws, which have since been proven to increase the likelihood of the types of attacks we were promised those laws would prevent.On the other hand, laws protecting or reestablishing the right to bear arms for self defense have indeed made people safer. In the states with right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60%. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell even more - an average of 78% - as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack.I can hear anti-gun grabbers now - "but Virginia is a concealed carry state!" True, but Virginia Tech is not a concealed carry campus. By proactively rendering its students defenseless in the name of making everyone "feel safe" rather than pursuing measures that would actually improve safety, Virginia Tech ensured that there could be no deterrent effect, and no reduction in the number of victims.

After nearly four decades of history since 1968 has proven, the promises of the gun ban crowd were every bit as empty then as they are today.
The Militia Act of 1792, written by pretty much the same guys that wrote the 2nd Amendment, required ALL able males 17-45 be armed to minimum standards - at their own expense. Upgraded to 2008, that would entail you to buy your own M16, 8 full mags, and related gear. anyone between 17-42 is in the unorganized militia (USC chap 10, sect 311), and Miller v US did say that the 2nd referred to military pattern weapons (which is why the guy's sawed off, being a non-mil weapon, wasn't protected from NFA regulation). By all rules and regs, I can't see any constitutional reason why I shouldn't be able to purchase the exact same weapons that the military has, assuming I can find a buyer.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10 which details Militia Classes states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are —

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

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

The key is of course (2).

Then there is the federalist papers... where a few quotes that clear up any confusion.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers at 184-188

The Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize the Second Amendment routinely.
I'd have to say that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a natural right, no different than the claws born on a cat... Our Right to Arms is born on us.Since there is only one reason to deny arms to the people; domination of any or all sorts, I'd say that the one specifically mentioned reason for prohibiting those in power from infringing the right is a valid one - justifying its mention in the opening parenthetical phrase of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..." - and far from the only reason to protect the right. But there has never been a reason to come up with or to "create" the right - it's simply there as a birth right in the human species. It may have taken some time to "discover" or "recognize the existence" of the right, but it hasn't been created out of reason.

These words, of St. George Tucker (1752-1827), an early American lawyer, ring true for me....some on here may have read them before....

Quote:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.

The right of self defense is the first law of nature.

In most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Uquote

It was a desire for liberty that led to the birth of this great country.

My right to own firearms is part and parcel of that liberty.

And if necessary, my firearms are there to protect that liberty, from any foreign power or ideology that would try to take that liberty away from me.

Yamamoto when asked by his officers after pearl harbor would they be invading the main land? His response was, it would suicide, there is a gun under every tree in America.

The intent of the Second Amendment, was clear to our Founders. Indeed, in the most authoritative explication of our Constitution, The Federalist Papers, its principal author, James Madison, wrote in No. 46, "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any..."
Alexander Hamilton was equally unambiguous on the importance of arms to a republic, writing in Federalist No. 28, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense..."
Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison, wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Of self-government's "important principles," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "It is [the peoples'] right and duty to be at all times armed." Indeed, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

In other words, the right of the people to bear arms is the most essential of the rights enumerated in our Constitution, because it ensures the preservation of all other rights.
I consider it valuable time well spent-- reading --studying the thoughts of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, Washington. I find it fascinating Madison, whom I think of as the Father of the Constitution, Jay, and Hamilton used The Federalist Papers to gain popular support for the then-proposed Constitution. The Federalist Papers are the single greatest interpretive source of the Constitution of the United States, the best insight of what the Founding Fathers purpose was of the document that governs the United States of America. And one sees how the people at the time saw the revolutionary nature of the new constitution.

ROFL

A topic like this was around a long time ago, before I stopped poking my head around here, but my stand is still the same. To me, guns are just an extremely deadly tool available too easily to too many people. Age restrictions and background checks couldnt be strong enough. Its too easy to buy a gun and simply give it to someone who maybe hasnt passed a safety test or is mentally unstable or dangerous.

I hear too much about who modified their AK for full auto and who has an uncle who brought them back an Israeli made submachinegun and shoots it off for fun or who has 7 different handguns of different calibers. While there is a practical use for hunting (which I only support for the use of getting food), and maybe for self defense (if I ever bought a gun I'd probably just load it with blanks or something non-lethal and loud sounding just for the psychological effect it would have to a would be offender), most of the people I know who own guns own them as a way to boost their egos. Its as if owning a gun is compensation for thinking you have a small penis.

A gun is just too easy of a weapon to defend yourself with. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but your fists or a blunt object can do a decent job at what most people buy a gun for. Thats why I own golf clubs ;-)

Wear a good sunscreen

I always tell those that don't like guns to just state they don't have any on the outside of their house. That's why break-ins occur in UK when the home owner is present. It happens in the US also but if someone breaks in to my house odds are they are going to be told to leave at the barrel of a .45, 12 gauge or an AK. Depending on what room I'm in.
As far as using it outside the house it depends. Many of these mall shootings would end far sooner if someone was armed and trained to use it.

have you ever though that maybe these mall shootings would never occur in the first place if handguns were not so easy to acquire?

Yes. I thought of that.

But have you ever thought that if most people had guns it would be a very powerful deterrent for these mall shooters? As well as Carjackers, Thieves, Rapists, Robbers and assorted various nasty people?
The Police cannot be with EVERYONE all of the time.
As long as judges and juries release these violent criminals back on the street we will have an excess of violent crime.
It is up to you to defend yourself. At least until help arrives.
Pistols and Shotguns can be an effective deterrent to crime, as can Rifles to a lesser extent.

I wouldn't want to be around my friend Sharon if someone tried that..... they'd WISH she had her (very large) gun with her.
Actually, it's hard to say if, when and where she carries it. If you ever hear on the news that some *feisty* lady shot some hoodlums dead, that'd be her.

I used to work NEXT to a Rapist! I didn't even know until he got beat up by his intended victim and arrested. Yes, it made the TV news. Yes, it made me very scared. (he was like 6'6" and strong)

Keri

PS. What would I have our legal system do with violent repeat offenders besides release them?
Bring Back Public Hanging. (another effective deterrent to crime)

That's totally ridiculous Mall shooters/school shooters are not mentally stable people to begin with. Nothing would deter them. They are on a mission. All you're doing is making it easier for them to carry out their passionate crime. Adding more fuel to the fire is never the answer.

No, rather than send our failing justice system further backwards we should progress to one similiar to that of Norway or the Netherlands. Crime rates are a lot lower there, and they have less of their population in jail.

Nonsense.

It's ALREADY easy for anyone to obtain weapons. Even here in Chicago with nearly a total gun ban! Only long guns are permitted, and those are only allowed in the home. You are not permitted to "bear" arms in public. (in direct violation to our constitution)
ALL of the criminals that want one have as many as they want and carry them wherever they want, while law-abiding citizens have NONE.

If say 30% of the people in the mall or teachers in the school were armed, the mall shooter / school shooter would likely be shot down more quickly with less harm to innocents.

Could some mistakes happen? Of course. But I'm willing to trust LAW-ABIDING people to do the right thing, while the gun-banners treat us as incompetent children that are not to be trusted.

Even the most unstable idiot would be less inclined to attack a well-armed citizenry even if suicidal. As things stand now, they KNOW that their victims are unarmed and helpless.

Please don't give more rights to the Criminals amongst us than to Innocents.
Like it or not, that's EXACTLY what Gun Restrictions do.

Keri

Public Hanging for Mall Shooters too!

THANK YOU for proving our point

Now why would you make it easy for a mentally unstable person who is on a mission to 'prove' something, to get ahold of a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill, and in this case, kill innocent people? You've paved the road and pretty much done everything but load the gun for him......

On the other hand, in countries like Japan where it's VERY hard for a person to get a gun, there is only a handful of people killed with them every YEAR! Now they have crimianls in Japan too, and if you don't believe me just look up the Japanese mafia, they are called the yakuza, yet even they don't use guns to kill with in Japan. Imagine that The theory that people need guns to protect themselves is just that, a theory promoted by the NRA.


More propaganda. Take 5 minutes and talk with your local police association and they will tell you that they DON'T want what you mentioned above to ever happen. Why? Because non-law enforcement people are NOT train in how to handle such a situation. They are more likely to make the situation WORSE and shoot an innocent victim trying to run away from the real shooter, thinking that they were the real shooter. Sure, let's put more deadly weapons in the hands of untrained people, that's the ticket

"the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, AS A LAST RESORT, to protect themselves against tyranny in the government" - Thomas Jefferson

"The federal Government is our servant NOT our master" - Thomas Jefferson

"When government fears people there is liberty, When people fear government there is tyranny"- Thomas Jefferson

3 quotes by 1 founding father. I believe the first is still valid. though harder to pull off now.

Of course! Give more people guns to solve gun violence problems! It makes perfect sense!

anti-gun celebs and or politicians sure don't tend to mind when their bodyguards carry...




IL. state police advise for women defending against a sexual assault
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm

I kind of like the vomit idea. Your better half vomits on her attacker at contact range, gains distance, has room to draw and double tap.The ISP is absolutely absurd. There is a fundamental difference between scenario planning, learning to utilize other weapons in self defense, etc.... Then recommend the use of puking, false claims of STD's, and nail files. This is simply an article that is bashing firearm carry and use in a more subversive manner, nothing more.
The Seattle Police recently made some statements to the media about the inadvisability of tasers as they would be used against women by attackers who took them away.
My wife and three daughters including my 14 year old know how to shoot, how to be aware of thier surroundings, they are not of the "please sir don't rape me." variety.Its funny when I hear people complain that the 1911 in 45 kicks too much, when I see my daughter shooting A 1911 and telling me how " awesome" she thinks it is My oldest daughter first week on campus her roommate was raped, her second week on campus she signed her floor up for a self-defense class. Most of the girls had NO knowledge about how to take down an attacker or even not to yell Rape. After talking to me , we ended up with 50 girls at my p house so I could teach them what I taught my daughters ...how to use a weapon, how to take down an attacker, and how to keep themselves from bad situations.Their is an insitutionalization of women as victims, IMO, the government wants us all that way, just that the vast majority of women are physically weaker, and thus easier to convince of their own powerlessness. Ideally every citizen would be in that position, requiring bureaucrats and public servants to protect us and provide for every other conceivable need from cradle to grave in exchange for giving up our rights.

I don't think Keri is suggesting you give someone a gun and let them just go off thinking they are safe.It is the duty of every firearm owner to train well, and train often. It is also the duty of every firearm owner to know when to shoot, and when not to. The likely only a innocent bystander will get hit if a citizen is carrying a weapon at the sceen of a mall shooting etc, is one big a joke, based on that theory one should take a look at how many policemen miss their intended targets during a shootout...the numbers are high and quite often innocent bystanders have been hit by police shots....it goes with the territory and should not be used as an excuse against ccw. There are plenty of practiced shooters who can shoot a heck of a lot better than police

Yes, I believe people should only use deadly force as a last resort... Yes, I believe that people should also explore alternatives other than just a firearm.

But the fact is, people have the right to defend themselves in any way they see fit. Noone should ever be guided away from a tool that may one day save their life, or their family's.

It is fine to learn other ways of defending one's self, but I'm not in the east bit perceptive to let some beaurocrats who have the luxury of having a firearm, tell me, my family, or my friends, that they are not capable of defending themselves. The day we roll over and submit to that kind of socialist REMF thinking is the day we lose our freedom.

As to school shooting The sad fact is that LEO's have yet to stop a school shooting. The time it takes to respond is usually far too great. Fast courageous action by those on scene is the best bet (as it is in most cases.) You will not be able to do a detailed search. You will be able to do the best you can, as fast as you can, to locate the shooter and stop them.That being said, even if you are close, you are looking at 2-5 minute response time to being on scene, grabbing your rifle, and going.

I hear next they're going to try to cure cancer - by infecting more people

I'm baring my arms right now people, go ahead, try and stop me. Make my day punk.


You'll never take my arms away.



You might say I'm very attached to my arms.

Europe shows it's probably best not to allow firearms. It's just difficult to ABOLISH the right because all the criminals/psychos/whatever already have firearms and won't give them away - and if I knew there were many strange ppl w/ firearms out there, perhaps I'd want one as well. In Europe (at least most of it) honest people don't want any firearms because they know that if they're robbed or anything, the criminals won't have any guns as well, so it's not necessary really. And the thugs don't want them because a knife is gonna work as well and not get them in as much trouble

PS: /me just imagined 200 people pulling out a gun in a mall and shooting at someone in the exact middle of them... Erm... I don't know if there were less victims, although the thug would DEFINITELY not walk out there alive

i personally think the second amendment should stay, i like the idea that i can have a gun if i choose to.

I was born and raised in a rural area, and come from a fairly conservative background. I've been around guns my whole life and have no regrets. That said, I'm a full fledged geek and am all about forward thinking.

In an ideal world, it's true, there would be no use for, and would be no guns. I don't think anyone in their right mind would be opposed to that. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world and I doubt any of us live to see it.

Obviously it makes no sense to give everyone a gun and let them fend for themselves either. I am in full support of measures to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are unfit. As a law abiding citizen, in good mental condition, who has undergone safety training, however, I will proudly exercise my RIGHT to bear arms.

Perhaps it is my conservative background, but IMO less government is more. I'm a big boy. I've got friends and family. I'll take care of me and my own.

I think the single most important thing you can do is to educate people. You can try and take away all the guns, but chances are you'll fail. I said I'm a forward thinker, but I'm also a realist.
It's just like protecting kids from the internet. You can use filters, or try and regulate the content (which will be a sad day), but at the end of the day the best thing you can do is educate. Kids are kids. They'll find ways to get around things. If you take the time to educate them of what is out there, and how to responsibly use it you'll be much better off. They're going to find it some day, better they be prepared.
Guns are no different. You can hide them and try and protect people, but when they do have an encounter they won't be equipped to deal with the situation. Like I said, I grew up with guns and was taught to respect them. To this day I don't disengage the safety until the gun is raised to shooting position and as I bring it down the safety goes back on. Even with a BB gun.
I have a Mosin, SKS, 12ga, and .22 on a gun rack in my room. I regularly have my nieces and nephews in my room and there has never been a problem because they know that guns are not toys.

I sometimes find it odd that more "techy" people don't feel the same way.

I don't think protecting people from themselves is the proper solution. Teaching people responsibility is the only real way to solve problems, and that is far from being limited to the issue of firearms.

O, and is anyone else bothered by the fact that people who have never had the privilege of handling a firearm are the ones telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to own one? It's almost like old politicians who think the internet is a bunch of tubes being responsible for issues like net neutrality.

As far as guns go, I think Chris Rock has by far the best idea. Encourage gangsters to get rid of their guns with the Guns for Knives Exchange Program, and then put a 5,000 dollar tax on bullets. That ought to fix it!

But seriously, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individual people owning guns. What it's really talking about is the formation of non-governmental militias during wars. So if Canada attacks the state of Maine, the citizens of Maine have the right to form a militia in order to protect themselves. There's absolutely no right for anyone to own a gun during peacetime, let alone a semi-automatic killing machine.

Second of all, it is perfectly consititutional for the government to restrict what kinds of arms you can bear. If the government can prevent civilians from owning nuclear warheads or tanks, then it can also prevent citizens from owning Uzis or handguns.

Third of all, forgetting the Constitution for a second, it makes sense to ban guns. European countries have strong bans on handguns and their violent crime rate is about 1/1000 of what it is here. And it's not like Europe doesn't have slums and racial tensions. They do. Ever driven through the slums surrounding Paris?

Fourth, I know a lot of police officers and they tell me that if you have a gun, you're actually more likely to get shot in a dangerous situation, not less. If a guy pulls a gun on you and you draw your gun, he's not going to drop his weapon and run; most likely he's going to shoot you before you can shoot him.

The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia. The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. There is nothing in the sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
The phrase well regulated militia means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. But even beyond grammar the other writings of the men that penned the Second Amendment make it clear their thoughts on the thing. They left behind enough other writings on the topic to make their meaning very clear. There's plenty of documentation by the framers of the constitution that make it clear that it is an individual right. Not to mention the fact the bill of rights concerns inalienable and individual right. The second amendment is short and right to the point. It means what it says, and it means what the founding fathers said it means.


People really should read the constitution & The Federalist Papers.

Well said, 7TH SFG
and thank you for your service

It's refreshing to see someone who has actually done the reading instead of just saying "guns are bad so they shouldn't be allowed".

As you have said, the authors of the Constitution saw a need to protect this right of the people.
Given the wisdom to write a document that would guide a country for over two centuries, I doubt the framers lacked the foresight to realize that technology, and so firearms, would continue to advance. Perhaps not exactly how, but take into account the evolution of the bow into the simple musket, and it's not hard to imagine.

If you think that because we live in the 21st century we are beyond the original intent of the 2nd amendment then I hope for all our sakes you are right. Given the exceptionally bloody history of most European states, even into the 20th century, I find it particularly ironic that the people are so quick to put their faith in their governments.

I find the notion that citizens with firearms would not be effective against an organized government in the age of tanks and supersonic warplanes incredibly simplistic. Surely any successful rebellion in history felt despair, and rightfully so. By laying down in submission, however, you have already lost.
After all. In a scenario grave enough to warrant a revolution, you can't rationally believe that all military personnel will stand behind the old government.