Slashdot Mirror

In 2006 PETA found new homes for a grand total of 12 animals on a $31m budget. The rest were killed.
Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=288&issue=021

I don't know how the US stands *constitutionally* in this regard, but I'm going to speculate that if the installed powers wanted to curtail basic rights in a time of great distress (war, terrorist attacks, etc) they would have no trouble doing so, even if that amounted to bypass any kind of legislation or "constitutional promise". I believe the situation is similar in any democracy of the world...

The first amendment (in fact, the bill of rights) is notoriously difficult to work around in the US. There is not enough recent history of martial law being imposed (indeed, it can't be invoked except by Congress) but even when a "state of emergency" is declared, the bill of rights doesn't go away. New Orleans found that out after confiscating guns post-Katrina. Note that neither WW2 nor 9/11 affected the First Amendment in any way.

Now, reading about censorship in Portugal I do see that it's done a great job in ensuring freedom of speech. However, I wonder how it can reconcile that with imprisoning people for insulting national symbols (including other countries' symbols). Surely, this must be unconstitutional?

Guns don't need criminals to be defeated, 600 people every year manage to defeat themselves and get killed by gun accidents, according to the NRA.

"Taser is not serious enough? Or did you mean lethal?"

Tasers are easy to block or deflect and do nothing against someone with any sort of shield such as a chair. A blanket, rug, mat, sheet or umbrella can stop one. A Taser is also a lesser DETERRENT than a gun. Risking getting zapped is trivial next to risking death.

Note that most defensive use of firearms does not involve actually firing them.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=234
Lots of 'em at the bottom.

Um, what state do YOU live in?

Wisconsin.

Not every state has a "Retreat and defend" law..

I know. If you can point out where I claimed otherwise, I'll gladly apologize for my error.

In fact, the trend has been for states to move to a "Castle law" system, in which it is acceptable to use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend your person or property.

That is the trend, yes. That trend doesn't extend to Wisconsin or several other states. This will shock you, but many laws can vary quite considerably from state to state.

As far as it being illegal to "carry a deadly weapon", please name for me one place in which it is illegal to use a baseball bat or a machete (not to mention a shotgun or other firearm, which are all legal to keep and potentially use in ones home or business in most states in the US) to defend ones person.

All of those things, with the exception of the baseball bat and in most circumstances (and even that would illegal if brandished as a weapon) are illegal to *carry* in Wisconsin. Maybe they use the word differently in Kentucky, but in this context I've never heard to word to mean anything other having on your person in public. None of those things are illegal to have in your home in any state that I know of.

Um, what state do YOU live in? That certainly isn't the case here in KY.
Not every state has a "Retreat and defend" law.. In fact, the trend has been for states to move to a "Castle law" system, in which it is acceptable to use force (deadly or otherwise) to defend your person or property.

As far as it being illegal to "carry a deadly weapon", please name for me one place in which it is illegal to use a baseball bat or a machete (not to mention a shotgun or other firearm, which are all legal to keep and potentially use in ones home or business in most states in the US) to defend ones person.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=30&issue=015 Is this site ok? I know, I know, it's a gun rights propaganda site.

"In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11."

Trivial googling shows this to be inaccurate
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx? ID=127

"The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government...The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people...The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails."

it would matter not one hoot that you couldn't buy the guns there, you would get them ten miles away in the next county.

An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's state.

Here's a goodie:
Associated Press, 07/21/06
    State: TN
    Chris Cope said it was "like something in a serial killer movie," at a Memphis, Tenn., shopping center where he manages a financial services office. According to police, a store employee began stabbing co-workers after a work dispute. The attacker had already stabbed eight people and was chasing a ninth when Cope ran to his truck to retrieve his 9 mm pistol. "[The suspect] just kept saying, 'I'm insane. I wish I was never born,' and all that stuff," Cope said. But apparently the crazed man valued his life more than he let on. "When he turned around and saw my pistol, he threw the knife away, put his hands up and got on the ground," Cope said. "He saw my gun and that was pretty much it."
====

Find your own with this searchable archive:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

The better question is, "What part of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

[Last week], the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia's ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."

In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Then again, I wouldn't expect someone who refers to Marx (a man whose ideas are responsible for the deaths of about 200 million people in the 20th century) favorably would understand such nuance.

I've already tried Google big boy. Since you had no problem linking to a anti-gun site, then I have no problem linking a pro-gun one. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx? id=120

Guns are the cause of 0.65% of all accidental deaths on the country, and account for a 1% of accidental deaths involving children. In both categories (all and children only) they were beat out by bicycle and tricycle accidents (which account for 1% of all accidental deaths, and 2% of accidental death involving children). In this country you have roughly a 0.000003% chance of being accidentally killed by a firearm in any given year (accidental death rate is 0.25 per 100,000). Based on the fact that we have roughtly 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt), then the chance that any given person in the country will use a firearm defensively is 0.004%.

Even those accidental deaths that do occur could be greatly reduced by proper safety training rather than fear mongering. I knew at the age of 5 how a gun worked because my father had showed me, along with educating me as to what I could and couldn't do with one. I had my own shotgun at the age of 8 and while I couldn't handle it without supervision, if I wanted to go out and shoot targets or clay pigeons all I needed to do was ask. Take away the mystery, educate our youth, and you'll see even less gun deaths per year.

how many deaths per year are caused by passive marijuanna smoking[?]: 0

[how many accidental gun deaths?]: tricky question with varying answers. 1,500 is a number I see alot, however, the NRA claims that number is even lower.

Judging by the responses to my post, the pot-gun comparison left a few readers scratching their heads. Please, allow me to clarify. I was not attempting to compare the safety of guns v. marjunna. Although marijunna may contribute to driving deaths, no one in the history of recorded medicine has died directly from using it. On the other hand, guns *directly* kill *some* amount of innocent people every year.

My point was that outlawing or banning guns is not a "silver bullet" solution. Those who are still strongly pro-gun will most likely continue to buy and use them (just like marijuanna users). We might make stonger laws, we might move towards decriminalization, but some portion of the population will remain unaffected.

My logic: If I use a gun unsafely, and begin pointing it at various people in and around my home, I put innocent people at risk. If I smoke pot, then go for a drive, I put innocent people at risk. Both are currently illegal, both continue to happen on a daily basis (not by me, but by reckless, rude and foolish people around me).

My conclusion: laws cannot solve the gun issue.

My opinion: marijunna and guns both involve a degree of risk, but used properly, will not result innocent deaths. Foolish people will hurt, kill and maim innocents using both, regardless of the law.

You still haven't shown that even a single of those guns you claim were used for defensive purposes, actually performed a useful defensive function, either as a deterrent, threat, or weapon.

Admit it, you didn't even follow the links I provided, did you? The surveys asked people if they had used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect themselves or someone else, making each reported DGU a clear case of a firearms functioning as a deterrent or weapon.

Let me make it easier for you. The NRA' Institute for Legislative Action keeps a comprehensive "armed citizen" news archive. Here is a simiar compilation at keepandbeararms.com.

Random burglars will run when they are spotted, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Only real enemies will stay to mutilate you and your family.

Some petty crooks will run when spotted. But home invaders do not. Neither do rapists and stalkers (wouldn't life be easier if they did?).

(And besides, if someone plans to mutilate you and your family, a gun probably isn't going to stop them)

Being armed certainly increases the odds of successfully stopping such an attack.

Your first link doesn't work. Your supervision link doesn't support your argument. It is great that the NRA puts in place education programs. However, their position is that REQUIRING education is a limitation. Not a 40 hour program, not even a 5 minute "can you tell me which end of the gun goes bang" questionaire. Any licensing at all. So, that makes me as the question, what's the point of your link?

You need to chill on your constitutional rights arguments. They are very wonky. Not all rights are unabridged. The freedom of speech ends when causing bodily injury. And in the case I posed with a neighbor, they can't fire a gun (just like I can't play my radio too loud), they can't run an open gun range (they can possibly have a closed one), they can't beat their children with the butt of their gun, and certainly my rights are in conflict when a simple electrical fire can blow up my neighbors house and take mine with it.

So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? It's not hurting you. It is his "right to bear arms". These are things that the Supreme Court has already decided. I guess you must be smarter than a supreme court justice.

"NRA is against ANY control or supervision"

Here's just one example of their hardline attitude toward gun violence. And here's supervision at work.

"Do you not understand that arms != guns?"

When the Bill of Rights was put in place, most of the arms they were concerned about happened to be guns. The same is true now.

"Please expand on how "licensing guns" violates such constitutional protections"
The protection violated is the right to keep and bear arms. This is not a priviledge, like driving the cars on the roads, for which you need a license.

"I'd like to think I was safe from him having a dangerous 100,000 round ammo dump 30 ft from my house, but that would be regulation, and his rights apparently supercede mine."

Your rights aren't even at conflict. As long as he doesn't have a bunch of nuclear rockets that are irradiating over to your property, it's really none of your concern or problem. Just like you aren't violating his rights by having a tablecloth of a color he does not like. If you don't like guns, don't own them. Problem solved.

The ACLU is straightforward in what its position is.

The NRA is less clear, but their position is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns.

Regardless of whether the word militia refers to individuals in support of or outside regular army or even just Joe Q. Public, the 2nd amendment does not say "a militia" or "a regulated militia", but "a well regulated militia". The simple fact is, the NRA has no interest in any of these terms except for where it allows an individual to own a gun. From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": they are against registering guns, licensing guns, limiting what guns can be purchased (assult weapons ban), and mandatory training before you can use a gun.

My point is not to criticize or applaud the NRA, merely to point out that they are not about the 2nd amendment. They are about removing limits on gun ownership. They are perfectly happy USING the 2nd amendment, though

Oh, please. I'm either lying or ignorant? I've been to the UK (London and surrounding areas in particular) quite a few times, and there's cameras all over the damn place. Not to mention signs warning you that you're under surveillance. Hell, you even fingerprint schoolkids. Mind you, America is headed that way at the moment, but as long as some of us support certain groups that protect our essential liberties, "this too shall pass".

As for your off-the-cuff, asinine comment about guns, we don't let everyone have a gun. For example, most convicted, serious criminals don't carry guns unless they are keen on going back to the pen. Felons, that is. And pretty much anything short of causing someone (unwarranted) physical harm, serious monetary loss, or repeatedly doing something very stupid is not a felony. But let me tell you something - I would rather have the freedom to defend myself, along with the very real possibility that I might have to do so, than the illusion of safety that you Brits have. Guns are a great social equilizer (the overthrowing-the-government bit is just a particularly sweet perk for me). I don't mind holding my own and risking my own life when it's just me (matter of fact, I love a good bar brawl), but when it comes to the safety of my wife, pets, and family, I'd rather have the assurance that a loaded .45 brings to the table. Or, lemme guess, you don't have any violent crime in the UK, do you?

As for convincing one another, I don't have to convince you of anything, nor do I really even give a shit whether you carry a gun or not. I don't give a flying fuck whether anyone other than myself, my family, and my friends carries a gun, as long as they don't infringe on my right to carry one. I noticed you said you consider an unarmed populace a benefit. Good, I hope you enjoy the shit out of living in the UK. As long as you keep it over there, and don't expect me to give a rat's ass what kind of resolutions the bitch-ass U.N. passes, I think we can get along just fine.

Having said that, I didn't see the rest of the thread because I was reading through at a relatively high threshold. I just couldn't bite my tongue when I see blatantly false crap posted. And I gotta love your bit about having been through all the arguments over firearms. What a cheapshit way to try to get the last word - "nope!heard it all before! not listening! got my fingers in my ears...nyah-nyah!".

It's actually quite possible to purchase a firearms in NY. Unlike Chicago and DC. NYC: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx? ID=56 ILLINOIS & CHICAGO : http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=IL *SEE BOTTOM : Chicago requires the registration of ALL firearms.

It's actually quite possible to purchase a firearms in NY. Unlike Chicago and DC. NYC: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx? ID=56 ILLINOIS & CHICAGO : http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=IL *SEE BOTTOM : Chicago requires the registration of ALL firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Well, I found firm numbers on the number of deaths, where are the numbers or even a source for "People with guns that want to kill you ARE going to kill you most of the time, even if you also have a gun." As for "People driving drunk don't (99% of the time anyway) want to kill anyone", that is like saying "People who play Russian Roulete with a revolver don't (99% of the time anyway) want to kill themselves nor are they stupid".

"Heat of the moment crimes, such as one spouse murdering their cheating spouse when they find out about an affair, are unquestionably reduced when guns are hard to come by for the average citizen."

The number of Right To Carry Firearms (RTC) states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.States with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average with total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx? ID=18

Furthermore, the number of firearms in the United States and the number of gunowners are increasing, but the number of firearms related deaths is decreasing.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1. htm

"Data in this report regarding trends in firearm-related injury rates during 1993--1998 indicate that both mortality and morbidity from gunshot wounds declined substantially in the United States. However, firearm-related injury continues to be a public health concern accounting for approximately 31,000 deaths and 64,500 nonfatal injuries treated in hospital EDs in 1998."

Buying a gun. I will generalize it for you, it varies State to State, I am familiar with South Dakota and Oregon.

If you are buying a Long-Gun (Rifle, Carbine, Shotgun) an individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state with a Federal Background Check. Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a Federal Form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Some States have thier own background checks, limitations and waiting periods. Also, you can randomly have your purchase halted for a waiting period while the Feds check on you, or have it canceled.

If you want to know about the State or local laws, find a State and go to town.
http://www.nraila.org//gunlaws/Default.aspx

Now, I can transport Long-Guns on the airlines in a proper box or case with the proper forms filled out. Pistols are harder to move about, but it's still legally possible. Note, there are also various laws on carrying weapons on your person, the Right to Carry and the rights about transporting firearms in your vehicle from State to State.

The brutal truth about D.C., where the crime was committed, is that guns are easy to get. Possession is entirely illegal, which means that Ms. Cady probably didn't have one, as she lacked criminal intent. Had her husband, OTOH, been interested in "merely" killing her, getting a gun would have been relatively easy for him to do. He wanted something else.

The weak points in your argument are (a) you assume that because the law prohibits X, therefore people do not have X. In the case of weapons, this is entirely false. Even in Great Britain, which has moderately tight borders with regards to weapons and a total ban on handgun possession, criminals have guns and citizens don't. Also, (b) you assume that I'm talking about taking law enforcement into my own hands. Self-defense is more basic than law enforcement; it is a fundamental human right, even were the law to prohibit it. I do not and would never endorse vigilantes taking law enforcement into their own hands.

You mean "liberty" as in the right to travel freely, work where you want to, voice your opinion openly on public streets--that sort of thing?

Or do you mean it in a more defined sense, like freedom of the press, right to due process, right to bear arms--that sort of thing?

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of countries out there with similar, or worse restrictions than the U.S. But let's not kid ourselves and think ANY country is truly free, or above cracking down on the internet if it has the power.

-Eric

• Do you consider the New York Times credible?
• Newsmax discusses the New York Times article
• Another article
• An announcement on the NRA's website
• There's even a video with neo-con Bill O'Reilly praising cops that steal weapons from some elderly people.
• This one discusses the fact that the cops are busting into private residences in LA without warrants

There is more available, but the mainstream media has been giving little coverage to this important part of the story.

That is the pitfall of having a business that brokers a constitutional right.

Uh huh, so newspapers (which broker speech) have no right to refuse advertising they find offensive? Nice try.

You could possibly have a legal reason to refuse to sell someone a gun, but if it's not one of the clearly defined reasons, you're gonna get rocked in a court house.

Do you have any link to substantiate that? I don't think so. (That NRA page you keep linking absolutely doesn't qualify. As has been explained, it mentions laws PROHIBITING sale, not OBLIGATING it)

If you do, then please forward it to Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose organization is refused as a customer by Barret firearms.

That is the pitfall of having a business that brokers a constitutional right.

It's not the same, but it is very easy to argue that someone was trying to prevent you from exercising that right by refusing to sell you a firearm for reason X, where X = racism, sexism, agism, or some other bullshit excuse.

Here's an analogy. If I was crossing the street at a crosswalk, legally having the right of way, and someone ran me over - I would still be dead. It's true that I would be the one in the legal right, but the reality of the matter is that the law didn't protect me from shit.

It's the same with a gun shop. You could possibly have a legal reason to refuse to sell someone a gun, but if it's not one of the clearly defined reasons, you're gonna get rocked in a court house. He said/she said scenarios will most likely favor the party who says their rights were being refused them. Sad but true.

Actually, it's not.

Here are a list of reasons that you can refuse to sell a gun to someone in the US.

Of course, your local laws may have addendums to these statures.

The restriction of a constitutionally amended right is not easily defended by saying the purchaser spoke about potentially using it in a crime. It could easily be argued that the statement was a joke, or that the statement was never made, and the prosecution would have a field day. Most gun outlets can't afford to fight that fight.

Yes it is. Crime goes up, and so do accidental deaths. See handgun legislation and results in states (good example: MA).

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% In 1991, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than in 1981. - Dr. Gary Kleck, Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force.

And during those ten years, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders; gators 146, illegal shootings 88- the gators are winning! Florida Game Commission and the Florida Department of State, Firearms Licensing.

Guns are tools made to kill things. We hardly have any reasons to kill things any longer. Hence, we no longer need the tool.

Your post attests that this idea is dying out.

I logged out to post this, because I am an Anonymous Coward.

The Federal Aviation Administration does have a policy against traveling without ID. But it is not a secret law. It is not even a federal law. It is just a policy based on a memo by someone at the FAA. The 3 branches of government do not feel the need to correct the FAA, because so few people complain. CFRs are trumped-up administrative rules. Only USCs are laws, and there are no USCs requiring passengers to have photo IDs for domestic flights.

I know a little about governments and IDs.

The FAA policy reminds me of Florida Fish And Wildlife posting (everywhere) that it is illegal to carry a concealed gun in state parks. But the state attorney states that Fish And Wildlife has no statutory authority over guns and anyone with a conceal carry permit may carry in state parks.

I've had a similar problem with Walmart sporting goods managers telling me that it is against county law to sell ammo after 9 PM. It is not. It is just their store policy, but they want to use the excuse that it is a law.

The problem is not with the Federal government. The problem is with the general public. We need to have more people like John Gilmore. At a basic level, we're imposing this dictatorship on ourselves.

Perhaps we should start a petition to have the movie 1984 played on a TV network. Might wake up the sleeping public. Another step would be to have the Constitution and, at least, the first 10 Amendments printed on the back of our paper currency, not mystic, cryptic Masonic symbols.

But the US is hardly becoming a dictatorship. I consider this graphic as evidence of the health of our freedoms.
Got to love a government that trusts you to take a gun into a bank.
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+ states

The reason that I voted for Bush/Republicans in 2004 is because Bush agrees the Second Amendment protects our individual right to own and carry guns.
http://www.nraila.org/images/Ashcroft.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

I fail to see how an administration that supports the right to own weapons that can overthrow a government is the bogeyman of tyranny. For those that don't think that civilians with their "puny" guns could take down a hypothetical American dictatorship, consider that there are more than 240 million guns owned by 85 million civilians in the US.

The 2nd Amendment is the most liberal and radical law in history. http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/radical.htm

To really understand the tone of the 1st and 2nd, one should read the preamble to the 10 amendments. (Usually not taught in government schools, so most have never heard of it) "The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

The first phrase of the 2nd is a declarative. It was the style of writing legal documents in the late 1700's to include a preamble. The preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government charters. The phrase "well regulated" means well-trained and well-equipped, in proper working order. Ex: "a well regulated clock." "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."

Interestingly, the Militia Act of 1792 was law until 1903 (updated by 10 USC). The Militia Act of 1792 stated "That each and every free able-bodied white ma

Ok, AK47s, 20yrs and anarchy are bit over the top.

What I am trying to say ( as I did to someone else on ) is that the "CCW theory" and other nonsense gun theories are deliberate FUD. They select only the facts that support the message of nameless vested intrests .

I am 45 and I live, work and can still shoot as many ferral pigs as I want in Australia. We were fourtunate enough to wake up to the FUD in 1989 when common sense gun control was started in Australia. The restrictions were eased in over several years using a buy-back scheme and an amnesty. The laws came in to full effect in 1997, thats why I chose the 1998 fact link above. It was a mainly bi-partisan response at both state and federal levels to the massive and sustained public outrage over The Senseless Port Arthur Massacare .

I invite you to look at our governments stats and pretty graphs on the subject

"many will still commit the crimes"-Sadly yes.

Ok, AK47s, 20yrs and anarchy are bit over the top.

What I am trying to say ( as I did to someone else on ) is that the "CCW theory" and other nonsense gun theories are deliberate FUD. They select only the facts that support the message of nameless vested intrests .

I am 45 and I live, work and can still shoot as many ferral pigs as I want in Australia. We were fourtunate enough to wake up to the FUD in 1989 when common sense gun control was started in Australia. The restrictions were eased in over several years using a buy-back scheme and an amnesty. The laws came in to full effect in 1997, thats why I chose the 1998 fact link above. It was a mainly bi-partisan response at both state and federal levels to the massive and sustained public outrage over The Senseless Port Arthur Massacare .

I invite you to look at our governments stats and pretty graphs on the subject

"many will still commit the crimes"-Sadly yes.

Kerry gets an F from the, he sponsored and voted for many pieces of legislation that I consider illegal and on the road to totalitarianism. He voted yes on legislation to ban ALL CENTERFIRE.

Several bolt guns (centerfire) and pistols (centerfire). Don't you ever call yourself a real gun owner. You know nothing in the fight against the erosion of rights. The plan of attack by Totalitarians is to eat away at rights, registration here, pistol grip there, here there everywhere until everything is black powder, shotguns and bolts. Then they ALL get banned. I would be happy to let them have machine guns, EDs, and other things that are perceived by the public as menacing (however rarely they are used in crime doesn't seem to matter.)

Now that gun grabbing totalitarians are controlling Washington, I plant to get as much NFA/Class III gear as I can possibly amass. I would buy an M@-HB if I could, just to piss you off.

John Kerry gets an F in Civil rights because the NRA give him an F on his voting record. PERIOD. END.

John Kerry is not a sportsman or a gun lover. He is going duck hunting to gets idoits like you to actually believe he didn't vote against guns owners TIME and TIME again (whenever he actually bothered to show up and vote).

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America

John Kerry's Voting Record on Second Amendment and Hunting Issues

John Kerry on Gun Control

Just for balance, the National Rifle Association, based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, Senator Kerry was assigned a grade of F based on a scale of A+ to a low of F. Not to be outdone, Gun Owners of America grade him F- (yes, that's a "minus" sign!).

If you can't see Kerry's lame hunting trip as a ruse, you are a complete idiot.

I'm furious with Arnold banning .50BMG guns in California, let alone with the stuns Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy have pulled against gun owners. They are the 4 most ANTI GUN senators today. This FACT supported by GOA, NRA, Voting Records, JPFO, etc. FACTS DONT LIE.

You are a horribly uniformed voter and you will lead to totalitarianism in the USA. You could never be a Libertarian with your communist views on Gestapo like agencies like the Treasury, BATF, FBI and totalitarian LEOs crushing the American people with superior force.

Get this straight, buddy, the Federalist Papers put the framers intent in perspective. READ THEM before you bleat about what the framer's intent was. YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Think of it this way, when the US was born, the weapons what people owned were identical to what the military owned. As time passed, totalitarians and federalists made it so the government can easily crush the people.

You support totalitarianism and your position is indefensible. Maybe when you are being shoved into a crematorium by an Islamo-fascist alive you'll finally realize what an ass you are.

Join the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership!

Kerry gets an F from the, he sponsored and voted for many pieces of legislation that I consider illegal and on the road to totalitarianism. He voted yes on legislation to ban ALL CENTERFIRE.

Several bolt guns (centerfire) and pistols (centerfire). Don't you ever call yourself a real gun owner. You know nothing in the fight against the erosion of rights. The plan of attack by Totalitarians is to eat away at rights, registration here, pistol grip there, here there everywhere until everything is black powder, shotguns and bolts. Then they ALL get banned. I would be happy to let them have machine guns, EDs, and other things that are perceived by the public as menacing (however rarely they are used in crime doesn't seem to matter.)

Now that gun grabbing totalitarians are controlling Washington, I plant to get as much NFA/Class III gear as I can possibly amass. I would buy an M@-HB if I could, just to piss you off.

John Kerry gets an F in Civil rights because the NRA give him an F on his voting record. PERIOD. END.

John Kerry is not a sportsman or a gun lover. He is going duck hunting to gets idoits like you to actually believe he didn't vote against guns owners TIME and TIME again (whenever he actually bothered to show up and vote).

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America

John Kerry's Voting Record on Second Amendment and Hunting Issues

John Kerry on Gun Control

Just for balance, the National Rifle Association, based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, Senator Kerry was assigned a grade of F based on a scale of A+ to a low of F. Not to be outdone, Gun Owners of America grade him F- (yes, that's a "minus" sign!).

If you can't see Kerry's lame hunting trip as a ruse, you are a complete idiot.

I'm furious with Arnold banning .50BMG guns in California, let alone with the stuns Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy have pulled against gun owners. They are the 4 most ANTI GUN senators today. This FACT supported by GOA, NRA, Voting Records, JPFO, etc. FACTS DONT LIE.

You are a horribly uniformed voter and you will lead to totalitarianism in the USA. You could never be a Libertarian with your communist views on Gestapo like agencies like the Treasury, BATF, FBI and totalitarian LEOs crushing the American people with superior force.

Get this straight, buddy, the Federalist Papers put the framers intent in perspective. READ THEM before you bleat about what the framer's intent was. YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Think of it this way, when the US was born, the weapons what people owned were identical to what the military owned. As time passed, totalitarians and federalists made it so the government can easily crush the people.

You support totalitarianism and your position is indefensible. Maybe when you are being shoved into a crematorium by an Islamo-fascist alive you'll finally realize what an ass you are.

Join the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership!

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns

For the last time, stop the plagiarism! If you think somebody else made your case better than you could, then link to it. Don't pollute slashdot with copies of NRA propaganda.

And one more time: Bush said he supported that bill! Either Bush was lying about that, or he is just as anti-gun as Kerry.

And one more time: Kerry never voted for that bill.

There is something funny about that bill, though. Of course it's obviously too vague to be effectively implemented. But it also reflects a special fear politicians have: the assasin's rifle. 5 years ago there was an uproar about the availiblity of the Barret 50, which reminded all the Washington people that they're never really safe.

One specific quote:Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

That's false. Yes, the AR-15 is banned, as is the M1 Carbine, which is a different, shorter weapon than the actual M1 Garand rifle. I also can't find anything in the text about Springfields. It would be pretty crazy if it actually banned those, because a Springfield is no different than any deer-hunting rifle.

1) If we wanted to read NRA.org websites, we could visit NRA.org. Link to them if you think it supports your position, but don't copy & paste. Sheer volune is no way to make a credible argument. Some of your copying is actually illegal infringement.

2) Some of those "FACTS" are lies, and none of them contradict my statement: The only guns Kerry voted to ban are guns that President Bush says should be banned as well.

That list is a standard dishonest tactic: Make a strong claim, followed by a huge volume of true facts with at least a peripheral relationship to the claim. Then state that you've proved your position, even though you've done nothing of the sort, and hope that people too lazy to read the whole thing assume you said something sensible.

3) One could make a fairly plausible slippery slope argument: "Kerry's positions are closer to a total gun ban than his opponent, so he will move us closer to an environment where a gun ban might pass". But instead of saying something reasonable like that, you just spit out a tremendous volume of unsubstantiable lies.

It's behavior like that which caused President Bush to publically resign from the NRA. Although he supports gun ownership rights, the NRA goes off on viciously false tangents and pretends they were actually part of the same thing.

Perhaps mandatory training, or at least safety classes or something for gun owners? I don't see many NRA types willing to make that sort of compromise.

Why not? The NRA's desired primary function is weapons education and safety training. Their massive political machine is an unfortunate side-effect of the right to bear arms coming under repeated attack. Please see the following:

History of the NRA
NRA Support's Maryland Gun Safety Education Bill

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=GA

The part you don't understand, is the part of the 2nd Amendment you so conveniently left out:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This part, and the fact that most of those who are pro-gun tend to leave it out, is the crux of the 2nd amendment debate.

Not much debate when it comes down to state courts. The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the 2nd Amendment, leaving it to the states to decide. There is one US Constitution, but states also have state constitutions. Just like there are state protections for other rights also found in the US Constitution, so are there over 40 states with some form of 2nd Amendment protections. And in the states where the 2nd Amendment has been included or later added, and reviewed by state courts, or where the state has included a pre-emption provision, there is no debate among them. That's 37 states (or does Missouri make 38?) where, if you are not a criminal, and you are not disqualified by mental illness, the state MUST issue permits in states that have a permitting system, and in states where there is no permit, no state official may prevent its law-abiding citizenry from possessing firearms, including handguns.

It's poorly written, unclear and open to interpretation, unlike the first amendment.

The 1st Amendment has been open to interpretation. It has taken court cases to decide that you can't yell Fire! in a movie theatre, or that the 1st Amendment applies to government actions (against citizenry), not private individuals.

37 states have made clear that there is nothing about the 2nd Amendment being poorly written or being open to interpretation. Some have done it simply by adopting the 2nd Amendment into their state constitutions and accepting it, and others have adopted it, and then it has taken arrests and/or lawsuits, and the attacks by the governors/attorney generals against it, for it to reach the relevant state supreme courts. In 37 states, its over.

13 states left. Some are outright prohibitions, and some have written their laws to try and circumvent or delay a decision against them by handing out licenses on a limted basis. Eventually, every state will have "shall issue" rights, because as citizenry in each state get their rights more clearly defined, and become armed, they will take action to ensure they don't lose this right that took so long and was such a tough fight.

Florida was one of the first states to adopt such a law written so clearly. Gun prohibitionists such as yourself screamed that there would be blood flowing in the streets of Florida if the law passed. The head of the state police chiefs (or was it AG?) spoke in opposition to the law before it passed. After it passed, after some time to examine crime statistics and permit holder statistics, the head of the state police chiefs (or AG?) dropped his opposition.

What I wonder is if zealots such as yourself were to succeed at some point in banning guns,
would you ban swords next?

Florida: 798,732 issued, 146 (0.02%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees. (Dept. of State, 10/1/87-2/29/02)

Kentucky: 71,770 valid permits, 585 (0.8%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, 10/1/96-12/31/01)

Louisiana.: 15,319 issued, 67 (0.4%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, (11/1/96-2/28/02)

Oklahoma: 35,329 issued, 108 (0.30%) revoked for any reason. (SBI, 2/28/ 2002)

North Carolina: 47,046 issued, 242 (0.5%) revoked for any reason. (SBI, 12/1/95-9/29/01)

South Carolina: 33,492 issued, 164 (0.5%) revoked for any reason. (SLED, 8/96-5/26/02)

Texas: 223,5

The part you don't understand, is the part of the 2nd Amendment you so conveniently left out:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This part, and the fact that most of those who are pro-gun tend to leave it out, is the crux of the 2nd amendment debate.

Not much debate when it comes down to state courts. The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the 2nd Amendment, leaving it to the states to decide. There is one US Constitution, but states also have state constitutions. Just like there are state protections for other rights also found in the US Constitution, so are there over 40 states with some form of 2nd Amendment protections. And in the states where the 2nd Amendment has been included or later added, and reviewed by state courts, or where the state has included a pre-emption provision, there is no debate among them. That's 37 states (or does Missouri make 38?) where, if you are not a criminal, and you are not disqualified by mental illness, the state MUST issue permits in states that have a permitting system, and in states where there is no permit, no state official may prevent its law-abiding citizenry from possessing firearms, including handguns.

It's poorly written, unclear and open to interpretation, unlike the first amendment.

The 1st Amendment has been open to interpretation. It has taken court cases to decide that you can't yell Fire! in a movie theatre, or that the 1st Amendment applies to government actions (against citizenry), not private individuals.

37 states have made clear that there is nothing about the 2nd Amendment being poorly written or being open to interpretation. Some have done it simply by adopting the 2nd Amendment into their state constitutions and accepting it, and others have adopted it, and then it has taken arrests and/or lawsuits, and the attacks by the governors/attorney generals against it, for it to reach the relevant state supreme courts. In 37 states, its over.

13 states left. Some are outright prohibitions, and some have written their laws to try and circumvent or delay a decision against them by handing out licenses on a limted basis. Eventually, every state will have "shall issue" rights, because as citizenry in each state get their rights more clearly defined, and become armed, they will take action to ensure they don't lose this right that took so long and was such a tough fight.

Florida was one of the first states to adopt such a law written so clearly. Gun prohibitionists such as yourself screamed that there would be blood flowing in the streets of Florida if the law passed. The head of the state police chiefs (or was it AG?) spoke in opposition to the law before it passed. After it passed, after some time to examine crime statistics and permit holder statistics, the head of the state police chiefs (or AG?) dropped his opposition.

What I wonder is if zealots such as yourself were to succeed at some point in banning guns,
would you ban swords next?

Florida: 798,732 issued, 146 (0.02%) revoked due to firearm crimes by licensees. (Dept. of State, 10/1/87-2/29/02)

Kentucky: 71,770 valid permits, 585 (0.8%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, 10/1/96-12/31/01)

Louisiana.: 15,319 issued, 67 (0.4%) revoked for any reason. (State Police, (11/1/96-2/28/02)

Oklahoma: 35,329 issued, 108 (0.30%) revoked for any reason. (SBI, 2/28/ 2002)

North Carolina: 47,046 issued, 242 (0.5%) revoked for any reason. (SBI, 12/1/95-9/29/01)

South Carolina: 33,492 issued, 164 (0.5%) revoked for any reason. (SLED, 8/96-5/26/02)

Texas: 223,5

What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws - as the state constitutions of all but a few states already do, in state courts, for state laws - is make it clear that ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Just because you wet your panties when you see a gun, doesn't mean that every law-abiding citizen should be barred from owning one. Just listen to the opinions of law-abiding gun owners in Canada, Russia and, oh yes, USA. Also, listen to the people who were able to defend themselves with a gun from a criminal, who are are also from Canada, Russia and, of course, USA.

What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws - as the state constitutions of all but a few states already do, in state courts, for state laws - is make it clear that ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws' effectiveness concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. . . . Will allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns save lives? The answer is yes, it will." (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998) link

Uh, the framers wrote the constitution with a big ol' anti-federalist bug up thier collective ass. The constitution was designed to prevent the federal government from trampling all over the autonomy of individual states, not individuals. That's why the fourth amendment doesn't do much against states that decide people need a license to own a pistol. This has information for each state, and doesn't seem to be horribly biased. Most states have some sort of bill of rights built into thier charters/constitutions, so we don't notice that the constitution doesn't protect us from state laws. Of course, programs that get federal funding usually have to stick to federal law, further complicating things.