Shame on us for not stopping gun sales

The NRA says we cannot stop the sale of guns (similar to the tobacco industry’s claims that the right to smoke meant non-smokers bore the responsibility to avoid the smoke).

Why do we continue to protect the right to assault weapons, huge volumes of bullets and the implements that help one person kill volumes of strangers.

We glorify violence and the innocent pay the price. Kennedy. Reagan, Brady, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Gifford and nothing has changed.

Shame on us.

Kathleen S. Cheney

Peachtree City, Ga.

Sensible_American
Sensible_American's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/24/2012
Dear Ms. Cheney:

One would not need an assault weapon to kill large numbers of innocent people. Two simple pistols with 6 rounds in each, in the hands of a person with average skill, could have done the same. The only way to eliminate the threat of guns would be to adopt a policy similar to what exists in a totalitarian country like Iran. In Iran, anyone caught with a firearm of any kind is executed. In Iran, the government is the one committing the massacres. Perhaps you wouldn't mind THAT!

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Some quotes to clarify intent

The Second Amendment states: "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." 

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) we must return to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) 

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) 

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) 

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) 

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) 

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) 

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) 

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) 

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)) 

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) 

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.) 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) 

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) 

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) 

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) 

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386) 

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) 

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) 

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) 

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967]) 

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) 

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]) 

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]) 

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) 

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England) 

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) 

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)] 

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823] 

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46") 

"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. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]) 

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979]) 

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince") 

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince") 

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.] 

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] 

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] 

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] 

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] 

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] 

taxed too much
taxed too much's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/15/2012
2nd Amendment

It amazes me that some idiots always come out against guns when a criminal breaks the law. In areas where handguns are outlawed, criminals still get guns and break the law. Our country is great for many reasons and the 2nd Amendment is just one small part of what makes the US great. Criminals will always prey upon the weak and the unarmed. Don't be weak and unarmed.
A .45 Semi-Automatic and a 12 Gauge Shotgun are a good start Kathleen S. Cheney. We have a couple of nice gun shops in the area that will help you, go visit them, get educated, trained and prepared. Get your Weapons Carry License. The more concerned and responsible citizens carrying weapons legally, the less criminal activity will exist.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Tools of the trade Ms. Cheney.. tools of the trade...
Letters to the Editor wrote:

The NRA says we cannot stop the sale of guns (similar to the tobacco industry’s claims that the right to smoke meant non-smokers bore the responsibility to avoid the smoke).

Why do we continue to protect the right to assault weapons, huge volumes of bullets and the implements that help one person kill volumes of strangers.

We glorify violence and the innocent pay the price. Kennedy. Reagan, Brady, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Gifford and nothing has changed.

Shame on us.

Kathleen S. Cheney

Peachtree City, Ga.

It's called the Second Amendment Ms. Cheney you might want to look that one up...

"In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.

In England and Wales alone — discounting Scotland — there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down).

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US."
http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

Ms. Cheney I respect your right to have an opinion but humans have been murdering each other since the stone age... Man can be quiet inventive when the urge to kill becomes more then just an urge.

Guns are not the problem Ms. Cheney it was simply a tool to accomplish the act.
Like suicides if one wants to commit it there simply is no stopping someone from doing so.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Quick question Lindsey

how many knife attacks in the UK resulted in 12 deaths and 58 wounded in a matter of minutes? You guys need to pull your heads out to where it's daylight. Automatic assault weapons with 100 round magazines are what the average "gun control nut" is trying to ban. Not shotguns, pistols, etc. Ok, another question, if "guns are not the problem..." then what is? Holmes was an honor grad, PHD student, quiet but fairly well liked by anyone who knew him. Is that a sign of insanity? So maybe you have some type of answer to the question of how do we insure that going to a movie won't result in the death of many at the hands of one by a weapon (and enough ammo) to hold off an attack by a small military force?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
birdman

Of the top 5 worst gun "massacres" in the World did you know America is not even in the top three? We are 5th to be precise.

South America has 32,000 per year we have 9000 and that is tailing off..

Now I agree if you are one of the 9000 it sucks to be you but we also have a per capita gun death rate of 1 per 48k.... We are ranked tied 2nd in the World as the safest place to walk down a "dark street". 1st in Police efficiency, 10th in Suicides over 75yoa and not even in the top 100 in kidnappings.

Again birdman Man is very adapt at killing our fellow Man. We have been doing so well since forever... It's just another tool used to accomplish the task.

If you are intent on committing mass murder, trust me on this one, I could accomplish it without one single gun and I guarantee you I could rack up a better kill rate of 1 in 7.

You see birdman you don't need a gun to kill someone, it is the intent and no one can stop someone that truly intends to harm massed populations. Israel have been trying for 40 years and has not done so yet...

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Lindsay

But again, you and most others are taking an "all or nothing" stance. If you talk to most gun control advocates they don't propose a total ban of ALL guns. Only some type of reasonable control and banning of mass murder weapons like the AR-15. Look, I like shooting too. And I shot Expert on the M-16 in the military. But I don't need to own one. We can throw statistic after statistic out there and they can all be challenged. Bottom line is that Holmes was an honor grad, PHD student, quiet, a bit odd, kid from a good family (by all accounts so far). All the background investigations, licensing, etc. would not have stopped him. Inability to purchase an automatic military weapon and 6000 rounds and a 100 round clip, would not have stopped him. It might have saved the 6 year old though. It may have saved some of the carnage. It's way different shooting a hand gun with 9 rounds or a shot gun into a crowd than a fully automatic weapon with 100 rounds into a crowded theater where you simply can't miss.

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Birdman

You do realize almost every hunting caliber for deer size game and up is far more powerful and devastating than NATO approved ammunition. So, should we ban all of those as well?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
birdman you do know that...

most of the deaths came from an old fashioned shotgun don't you?

Yep the hi-tech "assault" weapon jammed and he used a shotgun and spent 20 minutes doing it..

So do you want to ban shotguns too?

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Veritas and Lindsay

Well since you see no way to reasonably deal with the shooting deaths other than the tired old "do you want to ban (you fill in the gun) too" line, I guess so. Let's just ban them all. Is that what you want to hear?
The answer is "of course not." But Lindsay, you need to get your facts straight. According to reports, Holmes bought his ticket just before 12:30am and entered the theater, went out the back exit propping the door open, got his guns and outfit, returned to the theater an started shooting. The 911 call was received at 12:39 am and the response was within 90 seconds. Hardly "spent 20 minutes doing it.."
I know the second amendment. In fact, here it is:

"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.

Notice the mention of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." One could certainly argue on an historic level that, since when the Constitution was written, the military was made up of State militias and the Founding Fathers didn't want one state to have power over another they didn't want the Federal Govt. to restrict arms for "militia use." But that is a whole nother argument. However I will give you this. The Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Second Amendment, allowed for ownership of a single shot, muzzle loaded, ball ammo, non-rifled, six foot gun to be owned. Ok. I'll go with that. Let's do what we always hear and return to the "intent" of the Founding Fathers. We'll outlaw ALL guns but Flintlocks. Now we can take the Constitution "literally."
Happy now?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Nope birdman already been decided

Supreme Court said so... So like Obamacare like it or not it's legal.

Now if you want to change the 2nd Amendment just gather 2/3rds of Congress and get the States to ratify it and viola you and your fellow travelers can disarm America.

One thing you guys always forget is the last part. You always want to argue the "Militia" part which in those days were citizen soldiers btw- but the part that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is usually the part you guys gloss over. It doesn't say the right of the Military it does say "the people". Now just who do you think "the people" are birdman?

Now BM tell you what I will go with limiting the "people" to the intent of the Constitution if you will agree to limit the Government as well.

Bet cha won't let that one through. Ah just think about it...no EPA, DEA, FDA or Dept. of Energy or Education no Federal intrusion at all.

Just the limited Government that the Founders INTENDED.

But of course then we go back to States Rights and if my State wants to allow me to have M60 then so be it....

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Good point Lindsay

and I'm glad you brought it up. Yep.... it was those darn "activist judges." So you DO believe in the Supreme Court. Now I knew I could get you and Veritas all worked up. So let me try and make a point. If the Pro Gun people would just ONCE listen to most (and I point out MOST) Gun Control advocates, you would find that (and I've said this over and over) we DON'T want to take away guns, we believe in you (well maybe not YOU Lindsay) but certainly the "sane" people having access to firearms for hunting, sport, and protection. But when someone (who could not be identified as a nut) does what Holmes does, it makes one wonder how this can happen so EASILY. That is the point. I know it's "fun" to own and shoot an AR-15. But it's also "fun" to smoke marijuana. Or it's "fun" to drive a Porsche at 150 mph. Or it's "fun" to go to a party and drink a lot then drive home. Yet there are laws that prevent us from doing ALL those, EXCEPT by an AR-15 and 6000 rounds of ammo.
So I get it you hate govt. Ok, fine. No problem. But what you and others propose is a return to the Old West. If everyone were armed there'd be no murder. Probably not so. Veritas mentioned Rwanda. Look at the killing and carnage. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Everyone is armed and there are violent deaths all the time.
But again, now listen carefully, I certainly do not advocate a repeal of the Second Amendment, only a limit on assault weapons. Really Lindsay, must you walk around carrying your AR-15 with 6000 rounds?

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Birdman "Intent" I'm all for that

Militia as the founding fathers saw and defines it The militia -- sit down, brace yourself, this gets complicated -- is: everyone! the militia consists of "all citizens capable of bearing arms". I think "everyone" pretty much covers it. They "intended" to allow the citizen to maintain and have access the same arsenal technology as the military is equipped. Hmmm heck I'm all for that.:-)

albion
albion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2005
conveniently omitted

"Well regulated"

Hhmm?

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Albion nothing omitted

Nothing omitted ... It's not a quote ...da da dur... I was pointing out the definition of Milita the founding fathers referenced. But here is what you did omitt "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, let's use your "well-regulated militia," that, by original intent AND definition would consist of every able-bodied man in the country. So Your point??? DA DA DUURR

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
I'd be for 'everyone' bearing arms if the arms were muskets as

was used back when the founding fathers made those decisions. Even this old, battle scarred body could probably make a hasty exit as the gunman loaded his gunpowder. That is how they did it back then, isn't it? I'm old but not old enough to have lived then--but almost.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
VERITAS - REALLY?
Quote:

They "intended" to allow the citizen to maintain and have access the same arsenal technology as the military is equipped. Hmmm heck I'm all for that.:-)

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
OH.. MOM

To much negativity and back biting on the blogs during this political season. Can't I be silly some times;-)
But really wouldn't it be cool to have your own F22 in your driveway.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Veritas

Gotcha!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Maybe a M1 Abrams Veritas

at least I wouldn't need a runway.

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Absolutely S.lindsey

Absolutely

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
.

.

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
birdman

Rwanda 750,000 hacked to death with machetes.
168-deaths 680 wounded Oklahoma bombing hmmm no guns
Sept 11. 2973 deaths no firearms involved

Norway has some of this strictest gun control laws in the world ...but
Anders Behring Breivik
77 dead, 96 injured

My point is if evil is intended then evil will be done. Regardless.
Arm yourself if you so desire.. thank god I live in a country where I have that right.
Be ready and able to defend your loved ones and yourself.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Veritas

True, but you can hardly compare us to Rwanda. And of course airliners flown into buildings will create mass death. And it is true that guns will most likely be found if wanted. But the idea that mass murder can be quickly and swiftly accomplished in the U.S. by a knife is absurd. The police were at the theater in a matter of a few minutes. How many knife deaths would have resulted in a matter of 4 or 5 minutes?
Again, most don't object to guns, we only feel that guns like AR-15's or 50 cal. sniper rifles should be controlled or banned. Everyone says "if someone were armed in the theater the gunman could have been stopped." Perhaps. But I bet if you were there carrying your gun, it wouldn't have been an AR-15 with a 100 round mag. Gosh, if I could have bought and armed a tank and had it stationed outside the theater, maybe he wouldn't have had the guts to try it. Simply put, where do we draw the line? Tanks, F-16's with missiles, nukes? We all acknowledge that if Al Qaeda wants to drop a nuke in New York, they could probably do it, so why not let everyone who wants one, have one? Absurd, but not far off the thinking.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Oh so typical....
birdman wrote:

we only feel that guns like......

Who the ________ is "we."

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Seriously cyclist

you can't figure that out????? Too bad.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Oh so typical II....

as he storms off in a huff.

Anyways, I suspect the "we" will rally around the likes of US Attorney General aka Eric "boom boom" Holder. A real darling and such a legal scholar just like the clown that hired him. His amicus brief to defend Heller at the expense of the 2nd Amendment was so typical of that crowd.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Well birdman and the mouse in his pocket Cy.

That's who the "we" are.

You know the ones who always know better.. Part of the "They" crowd.. you know "I heard that they said...or they did this"

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Good one Lindsay

really witty comment. You are quick, intelligent, learned, a true gentleman and person of honor. Say..... can you read the sarcasm?? You are an idiot. You will always be an idiot. Your head has been (as we used to say) "up and locked" your entire life. Trying to debate with you is like talking to a dead slug. Best part is you aren't going to win.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
birdman you hurt me so...

I thought I could get your true colors to show.

Birdman I would love to debate you but you have to have an argument not one liners and rhetoric.

Your view that the 2nd Amendment only covers established Military units is shall I say off a little.
First you are trying to tie today's "Militia" from over 200 years ago. THe word "Militia" means something very different today then then, but let's use your argument that "Militia" means the same today.

A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service, supplemental Police services or to resist a Military Coup, a militia is distinct from a national regular army. This is the most common definition in TODAY'S terms...

Now note here that the keyword is CITIZENS birdman. Citizens then and now are defined as CIVILIAN a member of a State. It can be both Military, Government or non-Governmental.

So BM let's review... A Militia is a group of Citizens not specifically defined as Military, however, it can be both.

So a "Well Regulated Militia" is not specified as being Military. Now BM if you wish to argue intent well then we have to go to the Federalist papers..

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"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

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Now BM I could go on and on and on... but I think you get the point.. The very Framers of the Constitution CLEARLY INTENDED for the 2nd Amendment to cover CIVILIANS.

Remember that second part I said you guys love to ignore...

"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."

Now note the COMMA before the word "the" and after the word "State".

Now the definition of the comma is.... com·ma   [kom-uh]
noun
1.
the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence.

Now BM again that comma is important. It separates the thought. You can argue, although incorrectly, that the Framers INTENDED a Militia to mean an organized Military force BUT and that's a BIG BUT the second half of the sentence CLEARLY indicates the Framers intended the CITIZENRY was to be armed if they so chose and Government shall not interfere with this right.

If the Framers intended, as you argue, for only the organized officially recognized Military be allowed the private ownership of firearms then that second part of the sentence would either NOT have been added OR the word "People" would read "Militia".

Now as to your other argument that the Framers could not have envisioned AK-47's well esoterically you are correct. But then again that is the beauty of the Constitution... The Framers could not envision the Internet either so does the 1st Amendment not apply because it was too far in the future?

Our very conversation here belies that fact so.....

Now BM here is an argument feel free to debate it or not.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
To add to the 'militia' arguement, SL...

Article II, Section 2 - The Executive Branch - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

Note they specify state militias (drawn from the civilian population; of course some might argue this, today, means the National Guard as they are 'well-regulated'). That said, one can argue that regular, every-day citizens DON'T have the right to keep & bear arms unless part of a militia (there are non-government, state militia groups in just about every state; not so 'well-regulated'). 'Being necessary to the security of a free State' was intended, IHMO, to ensure the States had a recourse against a tyrannical Federal government (remember a centralized gov't wasn't 100% popular - it took a lot of cajoling to make it happen).

That said, I believe any 'citizen' that wants a gun must take a licensing class, much like driving. That any yahoo can just walk in a buy a gun and walk out a few days later seeming naively stupid to me; SOME kind of training should be required. So, in the strictest of interpretations, I believe the every-day citizen does not have a RIGHT to bear arms, but good luck getting that genie back in the bottle.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
KC Veritas is correct..

At best the requirement to train before purchase is a States issue.. See 10th Amendment.
New Jersey requires you to get a License BEFORE you can even purchase a handgun and you have to get a new one at every purchase.

Now as onerous as I find that regulation it is entirely LEGAL because it was decided by the State. They are not denying the ownership just regulating it's purchase. The Citizens of NJ can decide they no longer want this restriction and simply enact a referendum to repeal.

That being said if Georgia decides that all you need is a Double Bubble wrapper and twenty Cheerios box tops to purchase that too is legal so long as you comply with the Federal mandates which IMO are not.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
S. Lindsey

Your avatar.
Is it the Dos Equis guy? The most interesting man in the world.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Yep...

A little hard to read though it says...

I don't always get called a Racist... But when I do I have just won an argument with an Obama supporter.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
S. Lindsey

Outstanding. A win is also indicated by non rational "Wah Wah" statements.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Chortling.... I am..

So true...

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Correction, SPQR...

...it's 'Wawa'; just came back from VA where they have lots of them! Didn't grab a sandwich there, though; they do have lots of stuff in their stores!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
KC

Spent 7 years in Roanoke, Va. Luv me a Wawa..

Also a member of the Virginia Militia.. a LEGAL militia duly authorized by the Governor. Although I hear next year the Legislature which has turned decidedly leftest is going to vote to disband us.

Hey does that mean I get to have the private ownership of firearms?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
In your own words, SL...

...depends on the State, and per discussions, you already have it! Next time I'll try a Wawa sandwich!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Good to know, SL...

...and hope every state sees the wisdom of requiring some kind of education before owning a gun. It is personal issue for me, as I trust most as far as I can throw them; if they handle guns like they drive around here, I should just lock myself in my basement now. Far too many fools to suffer...

Veritas
Veritas's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Enlightenment for KC

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) we must return to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

Here is the fact the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791. 

Understanding this here is some reading and enlightenment for you:

"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 provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"? 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.) 

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States? 

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today: 

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power: 

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: 

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution? 

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"! 

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth: 

"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." 

For those still overcome by propaganda: 

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE." 

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." 

Now I am in agreement that if an Individual wishes to carry they should have to under go some sort of qualifying / training with the weapon they intend to carry. On this we agree.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Yes I understand, Veritas...

...it's a 'lesser evil' argument; do we want the occasional nut gunning us down with weapons & tons of ammo purchased legally or be ready for when the Federal government tries to strip us of guns that we use to defend our homes? If the Federal gov't REALLY wanted to take our guns, it'd be a pretty short fight, all-in-all, if their weapons systems were brought to bear on the civilian populace. Let's pray it never, ever, gets to that point.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
S. Lindsey

Are you trying to edumcate the "we" crowd. Good luck.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know Cy...***sigh****

Just doing my part to provide cheap entertainment amongst our posters...

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Yeah, if only we had outlawed guns. That would have worked. UGH

Yeah, if we had only stopped gun sales years ago, people wouldn't use guns to shoot up a movie theater! Wow, how could we have missed that? I guess The Citizen published this as some kind of lesson in just how naive and ignorant some in FC are.

Now Ms. Cheney, go vote for your fellow anti-smoking zealot and Eric Maxwell puppet Steven Ott and leave the deep thinking to the adults.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Outlawing guns?

Why would an individual need an AK47 to protect his home and family? Do hunters need that to kill an animal? Can we outlaw individual purchase of AK47's?. Would that infringe on the second amendment? It's amazing at the low number killed in Aurora. It was reported that the gun jammed. There were gangs in LA that had AK47'S. Have you seen a body that has been assaulted with that weapon? Our society is 'sick' - not just the mentally ill IMO.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Nuk... two comments

first, you should lay off on Mrs. Cheney and her anti-smoking stand until you meet her and get to know her. Second, my Pterodactyl can whip yours! :)

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
birdman: I know Ms. Cheney

I know what she has gone through due to maybe being exposure to second hand smoking. I also know she is an extremist that wants to ban about anything that isn't government approved and sponsored, whether that is smoking or guns, and makes Obama look like a libertarian.

birdman
birdman's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2005
Nuk

As long as you know her background. It is understandable her opposition to second hand smoke.

taxed too much
taxed too much's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/15/2012
Freedom

I love the fact that I have the freedom to legally purchase the Barrett 82A1 .50 cal. or any other legal firearm. I pity the person or persons who attempts to unlawfully take it.