I agree to licensing for handguns and concealed carry, but only reluctantly. No other firearm is really dangerous though, judging by the crime stats. Shotguns are a distant second in terms of criminal's weapons, followed by semi-auto carbines with machineguns dead last.
So licensing for concealed carry, sure.. Licensing for ownership, no way in hell.
Why the hell don't we need a militia anymore? Did it become unneccessary for me to defend myself and my country all of the sudden?
Militias are definately still needed, IMO they need to be stronger than ever before, now that we have a standing army.
"What, Sir, is the USE of a Militia? It is to PREVENT the establishment of a standing army, the BANE of Liberty!"
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, 1 Annals of Congress at 750 (17 Aug., 1789)
Since we now have a standing army, and it does not look like we will get rid of it anytime soon, it is my opinion that the militia should be even stronger to resist the power of the armed forces...
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright FORCE. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
I haven't heard anything about him 'rubbing it in'. Maybe you could give me a link to substantiate?
Also, I haven't heard shit about 'bullet fingerprinting' How the hell are the proposing to do this? Probably even less likely to work than ballistic fingerprinting. Aside from that, I have a couple thousand rounds of surplus 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 in my garage, can they fingerprint that? It'd be a damn shame if they can't because there's probably a few billion rounds of that stuff in the U.S. today, hehehe..
I guess it doesn't really matter either way, considering that semiautomatic carbines ('assault weapons') like I own are used in like less than 1 % of all gun crimes. Too bad I can't legally have a bayonet lug though, I really would enjoy shanking some antigunners, after I run out of ammo..
There should be no compromise, because you can't compromise on your rights, or you'll soon have none left. IMO the NRA has done too damn much compromising, although on some issues it has helped us avoid an even worse law being passes. IE. the 'AWB'.
You have to stand up for your rights sometimes. Our rights to privacy and free speech are already crumbling, would you have us compromise our last resort rights so that we have no recourse when our backs are finally against the wall? I still have a great deal of faith in the self-correcting nature of the american system, but if it should fail, I don't plan on being unprepared..
Bullshit, no real self-respecting terrorist (at least the arab type) is going to use an AR type weapon. Why the hell would they support america when they want to destroy us. Not to mention that they are several times more expensive and a WHOLE lot less available than AKs. AKs are also much easier to maintain than AR types. If you want to find the real source for the weapons of terrorism, look at the former soviet union.
Also, he wasn't a fucking sniper, he shot from less than 50 yards. Many people I know could do that with a pistol. The weapon he picked isn't even used by real snipers, not powerful or accurate enough. The weapon he used was for shooting groundhogs, not for sniping.. Anyone who says otherwise if full of shit..
Not really, the right to peaceably assemble only needs petmits under certain situations, like if you're marching down the street, or in front of a government building. You don't need a permit to assemble anywhere on private property, or anywhere on public property where you won't cause a disturbance, ie. parks, etc..
The basic idea of these permits is to keep people from protesting outside government buildings every day and keeping 'work' from being done.
I don't wholly agree with these rules either, but you can hardly say that it is a wholesale licensing of rights.
You'd be really amazed what a single person with a rifle can do. Look up Gunnery Sgt. Hathcock, who was a marine corps sniper during the Vietnam War, he was able to hold off an entire VC platoon with a BOLT-ACTION rifle! He ended the war with well over 100 confirmed kills.
Granted, he was highly trained, but imagined what a million people trained 1/10th as much as him could do..
And don't go mentioning nukes and cruise missiles. If a government is trying to subjugate a people, it more than likely isn't going to bomb them. Even if they used bombing raids and missiles, an armed citizenry could still be a major thorn in their side, and when you add that to the military defectors (which would hopefully be a large number), it would be possible for the citizens to beat a heavily armed government.
Just think back to what the VC did to us during the vietnam war. Granted, they suffered very heavy losses, but they did 'win'...
IMO, arms in the second amendment covers all small arms, anything the average infantryman would be issued. Everything up to and including.50 caliber machineguns. I actually think that assault rifles are probably the most important arm covered, as they are what the government is currently using to arm it's soldiers with.
Some situations wouldn't be right though, as you said. For example, walking around town with a loaded AK. That doesn'tmean you shouldn't have one, just that you shouldn't be walking around threatening people with it.
If you meant assault rifle then I propose that they are exactly the kind of things that the founding fathers would have wanted to protect. They are the standard military infantryman's weapon today, after all.
I agree that people should be held responsible when they allow (intentionally or not) their weapons to be used improperly. Many gun rights organizations (including the NRA) include gun safety and education as one of their primary goals as well, so you can hardly say that they neglect responsibility.
PS, do us all a favor, and never use that BS 'assault weapon' term again. If you are referring to a fully auto or select fire carbine, you can call in an assault rifle, if it is only semi-auto, then it is a carbine, nothing more...
Plus, there is the whole thing about what the various countries consider 'murder'. In the US, if you have a body and suspicio, it's classified murder. In the UK and many other countries, it doesn't show up in the stats until there has been a conviction, or at least an indictment.
The limit to the second amendment is the 'arms'. Arms refer to any weapon that is of the type normally issued to soldiers in the normal army. Which includes everything up to machineguns. As for the meaning of the second, it's not as complicated as some people make out.
The first clause(not really even a clause, but a participle) is a justification/description clause, the second is where the important part is, and that's not complicated at all. Obviously certain people don't have the right, just as certain people don't have the right to vote, but we should be very careful about picking which groups get their rights taken away, or we may end up taking everyone's rights away sooner or later.
Way more than 80 years old, more than double that.
Of course, it was only perfected about 110 or so years ago, but you have to remember the peacemaker and its kin were cartridge guns, and I'm sure they weren't the first...
This makes no sense though, unless you think freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet and TV and movies as well..
The right to keep and bear arms protect the right to bear the same arms carried by the soldiers in the regular army, IMO. Which would include everything up to machine guns and possibly hand grenades.
I would hate to see thinking like that happening in the courts, we'd have no rights left after a few years. After all, the founding fathers could never have imagined that people could secretly and anonymously communicate all over the globe instantly, so the first amendment doesn't cover it.
The problem with licensing is threefold really. As happens in many places (with class 3 and CCW licenses), you can't get a license without going and basically bribing a law enforcement officer to sign off for you. I guess you cover this in your 'open to all' requirement.
Secondly, the licenses could be used to track down gun owners at a later date if their guns were outlawed.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we have a RIGHT to own guns, and you can't license a right. The second amendment doesn't say 'the well-regulated militia has a right to bear arms', it says the PEOPLE.
here's a good analysis of the second: http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/Schulman .html
Just a few things, the consitution and bill of rights do not grant rights. The constitution grants powers to the government, and the bill of rights tells what the government CAN'T do. The rights are pre-existing, the bill of rights just makes sure everyone is damn sure of them.
Some restrictions on rights are reasonable, to prevent people from infringing others rights, and some aren't. It's up to the courts to decide that..
As for the bit about the 'well-regulated militia' that is a justification clause, not a limitation clause. It doesn't say IF you are a member you have this right. The right is said to belong to the PEOPLE, not the militia. Aside from that, the 'militia' is defined as every citizen capable of acting for the common defense.
If it is not "Everyone should have a right to guns as they see fit.", then how do you see it?
The people that want strict gun control could never get an amendment passed and they know it. An amendment would require the ratification of 2/3rds the states, and very few states are in favor of gun control. That is after the 2/3rds vote in the house and senate too, which isn't happening with the current republican control. California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are probably the main four. Gun control is just not popular in most states, especially the more rural ones.
I can't wait till 2004 and that crappy AWB sunsets (god I hope so) and we can get cheap 30 round mags again, and flash supressors, and bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. w00t w00t!
No one in their right mind says that people should be able to have tanks.
IMO, all weapons up to and including M60 or M2 type machine guns should be legal for possession. Basically any weapon that is often issued to infantrymen in the US Army. Tanks and missles and nukes are not considered 'arms' in my mind.
Also, I know you won't enjoy this though probably, but gatling guns are legal, as they should be. Have you ever heard of a convenience store robbery with a gatling gun?
There are actually some pretty damn cool gatling gun kits you can buy and build, including variants that use recievers from AK style weapons to 10/22 types. Check theis out: http://www.bmikarts.com/Pages/Gatling%20Guns/Gatli ng%20Gun.htm
I agree, except don't use the term 'assault weapon'. It's a bullshit term made up by the gun control people. The legal definition of an assault weapon is 'any weapon used in an assault'. So a pen or a baseball bat are assault weapons.
You can correctly use 'assault rifle' as a description for a small carbine that fires an intermediate cartridge with select fire or automatic modes of fire. If it is just semiautomatic, then it is a carbine, not an assault rifle. IMO there is only one 'assault rifle' (the SturmGewher 44) and many assault rifle like guns(AK and AR type weapons).
We register cars because it's not a right to own a car.
As for a small determined citizenry not being able to stand up against the government, that's just bullshit. The government is not going to nuke a bunch of the people it is trying to control. Well, maybe as a last resort. You'd be amazed what a few people can do with a few rifles. Look up the Warsaw Ghetto uprising sometime and see. They didn't even have good weapons and still managed to be a rather large thorn in the side of the Nazis. Imagine if all of the Jews were as well armed as Americans are today...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree to licensing for handguns and concealed carry, but only reluctantly. No other firearm is really dangerous though, judging by the crime stats. Shotguns are a distant second in terms of criminal's weapons, followed by semi-auto carbines with machineguns dead last.
So licensing for concealed carry, sure.. Licensing for ownership, no way in hell.
Why the hell don't we need a militia anymore? Did it become unneccessary for me to defend myself and my country all of the sudden?
Militias are definately still needed, IMO they need to be stronger than ever before, now that we have a standing army.
"What, Sir, is the USE of a Militia? It is to PREVENT the establishment of a standing army, the BANE of Liberty!"
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, 1 Annals of Congress at 750 (17 Aug., 1789)
Since we now have a standing army, and it does not look like we will get rid of it anytime soon, it is my opinion that the militia should be even stronger to resist the power of the armed forces...
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright FORCE. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry
I haven't heard anything about him 'rubbing it in'. Maybe you could give me a link to substantiate?
Also, I haven't heard shit about 'bullet fingerprinting' How the hell are the proposing to do this? Probably even less likely to work than ballistic fingerprinting. Aside from that, I have a couple thousand rounds of surplus 7.62x39 and 5.56x45 in my garage, can they fingerprint that? It'd be a damn shame if they can't because there's probably a few billion rounds of that stuff in the U.S. today, hehehe..
I guess it doesn't really matter either way, considering that semiautomatic carbines ('assault weapons') like I own are used in like less than 1 % of all gun crimes. Too bad I can't legally have a bayonet lug though, I really would enjoy shanking some antigunners, after I run out of ammo..
j/k, heheh..
There should be no compromise, because you can't compromise on your rights, or you'll soon have none left. IMO the NRA has done too damn much compromising, although on some issues it has helped us avoid an even worse law being passes. IE. the 'AWB'.
You have to stand up for your rights sometimes. Our rights to privacy and free speech are already crumbling, would you have us compromise our last resort rights so that we have no recourse when our backs are finally against the wall? I still have a great deal of faith in the self-correcting nature of the american system, but if it should fail, I don't plan on being unprepared..
I got three words for you:
Molon Labe motherfucker!
heheh, much better than "From My Cold Dead Hands!", rolls off the tongue alot easier, notto mention that it has a much more interesting history.
MOLON LABE!
Bullshit, no real self-respecting terrorist (at least the arab type) is going to use an AR type weapon. Why the hell would they support america when they want to destroy us. Not to mention that they are several times more expensive and a WHOLE lot less available than AKs. AKs are also much easier to maintain than AR types. If you want to find the real source for the weapons of terrorism, look at the former soviet union.
Also, he wasn't a fucking sniper, he shot from less than 50 yards. Many people I know could do that with a pistol. The weapon he picked isn't even used by real snipers, not powerful or accurate enough. The weapon he used was for shooting groundhogs, not for sniping.. Anyone who says otherwise if full of shit..
Not really, the right to peaceably assemble only needs petmits under certain situations, like if you're marching down the street, or in front of a government building. You don't need a permit to assemble anywhere on private property, or anywhere on public property where you won't cause a disturbance, ie. parks, etc..
The basic idea of these permits is to keep people from protesting outside government buildings every day and keeping 'work' from being done.
I don't wholly agree with these rules either, but you can hardly say that it is a wholesale licensing of rights.
You'd be really amazed what a single person with a rifle can do. Look up Gunnery Sgt. Hathcock, who was a marine corps sniper during the Vietnam War, he was able to hold off an entire VC platoon with a BOLT-ACTION rifle! He ended the war with well over 100 confirmed kills.
Granted, he was highly trained, but imagined what a million people trained 1/10th as much as him could do..
And don't go mentioning nukes and cruise missiles. If a government is trying to subjugate a people, it more than likely isn't going to bomb them. Even if they used bombing raids and missiles, an armed citizenry could still be a major thorn in their side, and when you add that to the military defectors (which would hopefully be a large number), it would be possible for the citizens to beat a heavily armed government.
Just think back to what the VC did to us during the vietnam war. Granted, they suffered very heavy losses, but they did 'win'...
IMO, arms in the second amendment covers all small arms, anything the average infantryman would be issued. Everything up to and including .50 caliber machineguns. I actually think that assault rifles are probably the most important arm covered, as they are what the government is currently using to arm it's soldiers with.
Some situations wouldn't be right though, as you said. For example, walking around town with a loaded AK. That doesn'tmean you shouldn't have one, just that you shouldn't be walking around threatening people with it.
What is an 'assault weapon?
A pen or a pencil can be an 'assault weapon'...
If you meant assault rifle then I propose that they are exactly the kind of things that the founding fathers would have wanted to protect. They are the standard military infantryman's weapon today, after all.
I agree that people should be held responsible when they allow (intentionally or not) their weapons to be used improperly. Many gun rights organizations (including the NRA) include gun safety and education as one of their primary goals as well, so you can hardly say that they neglect responsibility.
PS, do us all a favor, and never use that BS 'assault weapon' term again. If you are referring to a fully auto or select fire carbine, you can call in an assault rifle, if it is only semi-auto, then it is a carbine, nothing more...
Plus, there is the whole thing about what the various countries consider 'murder'. In the US, if you have a body and suspicio, it's classified murder. In the UK and many other countries, it doesn't show up in the stats until there has been a conviction, or at least an indictment.
The limit to the second amendment is the 'arms'. Arms refer to any weapon that is of the type normally issued to soldiers in the normal army. Which includes everything up to machineguns. As for the meaning of the second, it's not as complicated as some people make out.
The first clause(not really even a clause, but a participle) is a justification/description clause, the second is where the important part is, and that's not complicated at all. Obviously certain people don't have the right, just as certain people don't have the right to vote, but we should be very careful about picking which groups get their rights taken away, or we may end up taking everyone's rights away sooner or later.
Way more than 80 years old, more than double that.
Of course, it was only perfected about 110 or so years ago, but you have to remember the peacemaker and its kin were cartridge guns, and I'm sure they weren't the first...
This makes no sense though, unless you think freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet and TV and movies as well..
The right to keep and bear arms protect the right to bear the same arms carried by the soldiers in the regular army, IMO. Which would include everything up to machine guns and possibly hand grenades.
I would hate to see thinking like that happening in the courts, we'd have no rights left after a few years. After all, the founding fathers could never have imagined that people could secretly and anonymously communicate all over the globe instantly, so the first amendment doesn't cover it.
The part about a militia is a justification clause, not a limitation clause.
u lman.html
Her's a nice analysis of the amendment,,
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/Sch
The problem with licensing is threefold really. As happens in many places
n .html
(with class 3 and CCW licenses), you can't get a license without going and basically bribing a law enforcement officer to sign off for you. I guess you cover this in your 'open to all' requirement.
Secondly, the licenses could be used to track down gun owners at a later date if their guns were outlawed.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we have a RIGHT to own guns, and you can't license a right. The second amendment doesn't say 'the well-regulated militia has a right to bear arms', it says the PEOPLE.
here's a good analysis of the second:
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/Schulma
Just a few things, the consitution and bill of rights do not grant rights. The constitution grants powers to the government, and the bill of rights tells what the government CAN'T do. The rights are pre-existing, the bill of rights just makes sure everyone is damn sure of them.
Some restrictions on rights are reasonable, to prevent people from infringing others rights, and some aren't. It's up to the courts to decide that..
As for the bit about the 'well-regulated militia' that is a justification clause, not a limitation clause. It doesn't say IF you are a member you have this right. The right is said to belong to the PEOPLE, not the militia. Aside from that, the 'militia' is defined as every citizen capable of acting for the common defense.
If it is not "Everyone should have a right to guns as they see fit.", then how do you see it?
Not to mention that MMM organizer Barbara Grahm was convicted of, get this, shooting a man she thought killed her son, but he was the wrong guy.
R TI CLE_ID=21617
l
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A
Not to mention all the other scams MMM has pulled:
http://www.citizensfortruth.com/criminalact.htm
The people that want strict gun control could never get an amendment passed and they know it. An amendment would require the ratification of 2/3rds the states, and very few states are in favor of gun control. That is after the 2/3rds vote in the house and senate too, which isn't happening with the current republican control. California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are probably the main four. Gun control is just not popular in most states, especially the more rural ones.
I can't wait till 2004 and that crappy AWB sunsets (god I hope so) and we can get cheap 30 round mags again, and flash supressors, and bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. w00t w00t!
No one in their right mind says that people should be able to have tanks.
i ng%20Gun.htm
IMO, all weapons up to and including M60 or M2 type machine guns should be legal for possession. Basically any weapon that is often issued to infantrymen in the US Army. Tanks and missles and nukes are not considered 'arms' in my mind.
Also, I know you won't enjoy this though probably, but gatling guns are legal, as they should be. Have you ever heard of a convenience store robbery with a gatling gun?
There are actually some pretty damn cool gatling gun kits you can buy and build, including variants that use recievers from AK style weapons to 10/22 types. Check theis out: http://www.bmikarts.com/Pages/Gatling%20Guns/Gatl
I agree, except don't use the term 'assault weapon'. It's a bullshit term made up by the gun control people. The legal definition of an assault weapon is 'any weapon used in an assault'. So a pen or a baseball bat are assault weapons.
You can correctly use 'assault rifle' as a description for a small carbine that fires an intermediate cartridge with select fire or automatic modes of fire. If it is just semiautomatic, then it is a carbine, not an assault rifle. IMO there is only one 'assault rifle' (the SturmGewher 44) and many assault rifle like guns(AK and AR type weapons).
We register cars because it's not a right to own a car.
As for a small determined citizenry not being able to stand up against the government, that's just bullshit. The government is not going to nuke a bunch of the people it is trying to control. Well, maybe as a last resort. You'd be amazed what a few people can do with a few rifles. Look up the Warsaw Ghetto uprising sometime and see. They didn't even have good weapons and still managed to be a rather large thorn in the side of the Nazis. Imagine if all of the Jews were as well armed as Americans are today...
I agree with your paraphrase, although I would say something more like:
Because a militia is neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Alot closer to the original wording..
Not quite, I know FN in Belgium is the current contractor for M16 production. Colt is still the only one making the M4 though...
Probably a few other contries that contract for the US armed forces as well..
I'd much prefer to defend myself WITH a gun than WITHOUT one, whether it's from a knife or a gun.
I think I'd rather be shot than stabbed as well, but I'm not sure, since neither has ever happened to me.