I agree will your article for the most part Ken. My personal interpretation of the second amendment is slightly different then yours, but with the same result. Interpretation seems to be the issue when it comes to this amendment. Such as the definition of a militia and what is meant by the word people.

For starters, I don't believe that the current military reserve or national guard are militias in the traditional sense. Traditionally, militias are citizens who are called to duty only during emergencies. This hardly meets today’s definition of the guard or reserves whose members can be called up for years at a time. We have several reservist working in my office, doing data analysis for the acquisition of aircraft. Hardly what I would call an emergency call up.

Next, its my understanding that the constitution only used the word people, when referring to the individual citizens of the country. If this amendment wanted to limit guns to the military, then why would it say people and not "the right of the militia," or the military, or the government. What it does say is "the right of the people" which seems pretty clear to me.

My next statement doesn't have any direct correlation with the second amendment, but is simply my opinion. It seems to me, that allot of the gun control advocates live under the false impression that the police are going to appear out of thin air and save them when their life is in danger. The reality is that the police are mainly cleanup crews. They don't show up until after the crime is long over. I'd consider a good response time for the police in populated area to be 10 minutes. But that isn't 10 minutes after the crime, that’s 10 minutes after someone calls them. If you happen to live near my sister, that time would be closer to 45 minutes. This is not a fault of the police, it is simply reality. I don't know about the rest of you, but after I've been shot dead, I don't think I will be too concerned about when the police are going to show up. I’d prefer not to be dead in the first place. A gun may not guarantee this, but its better then standing there believing the police are going to save me.

Lastly, I think to many in positions of power and influence, guns in the hand of the common peasants represents a threat. Many past governments no longer exist because of unhappy armed citizens. Our own government came into existence in this manner. These people are afraid of a revolt and they should be. It’s the government’s job to keep the country stable by responding to the needs of the people. But unfortunately, this is much harder then controlling the people through force. Disarming is not an attempt to respond to peoples needs, its an attempt to give the government the upper hand when using force.

Warron, I would like to have your last two paragraphs tattooed on the forehead of every citizen in the US.

Originally posted by Warron
For starters, I don't believe that the current military reserve or national guard are militias in the traditional sense. Traditionally, militias are citizens who are called to duty only during emergencies. This hardly meets today’s definition of the guard or reserves whose members can be called up for years at a time. We have several reservist working in my office, doing data analysis for the acquisition of aircraft. Hardly what I would call an emergency call up.

Warron,

Thanks for the kind words and I too agree that interpretation is the key. The militia I was referring to is the one called for in the Constitution that allowed for the nation to have standing armies and navies. Not really the militia of the states as we have today with the reserve components and the Guard.

But for the sake of debate as to how the militia is viewed I will default to Title 10, Subpart A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 of United States Code. Which states;

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Those filling in where you work are there because they are needed to relieve other persons that are needed elsewhere. While we might not see the big picture for the need to have them there that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Those duties might not seem worthy of calling up people to do them, but someone sure as heck thinks they need to be there.

>>Those filling in where you work are there because they are needed to relieve other persons that are needed elsewhere. While we might not see the big picture for the need to have them there that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Those duties might not seem worthy of calling up people to do them, but someone sure as heck thinks they need to be there. <<

There were no military personel in my department for the first two years I worked there. These aren't billets that had to be filled by military personel who were called away and are now filled by reservests. These are reservests who requested to be assigned to active duty and were sent to us because we had openings and they met the qualifications. The same job could have been filled by a civilian just as easily. I don't have a problem with them being there and they do a good job, but its going to take allot more to convince me they are here in response to any emergency.

I personally don't own a gun, though I have thought about getting one. I have enjoyed going to shooting ranges with friends and enjoyed friendly competition. I think gun control laws can be MAJOR waste of time because I really don't think a criminal of any sorts would have a moral issue with obtaining a gun illegally. My personal preference is a hand gun, but know many people who feel a nice shotgun is perfect for home protection.

I just wish the major gun owning advocates would find some better arguments to make their case a no-brainer. They could pretty easily do this if they change their way of thinking from the old outdated excuses.

This may be a little long, so bare with me. I basically agree with Ken, I just wish his reasoning was a little clearer so that his opponents would have less material to work with. I'll give modifications to his story where I can, otherwise I'll point out the problems and he can fix them with his own new wording.
examples:

I have not once heard a person go into a gun shop and say they want a gun because of the possibility of the country being taken over by a tyrannical form of government. They either buy guns for the sheer enjoyment of having them, or they want to make sure they have increased leverage over someone who may try to harm them. Those are two points that are clearly logical and much more "in the times" than the BS reasoning of the country being taken over by tyrants. True, this still could happen; it just isn't part of the reasoning for most gun owners.

The major emphasis is on the fact that everyone has the right to bear arms, as stated in the constitution. But then you mention that some people shouldn't own guns such as violent crime criminals and mentally unstable people. At first glance this seems like a very straight forward issue, but then you look back at the reasons for having guns (protecting against a tyranny take over, or the more appropriate issue of leverage over your opponent or aggressor) and can see where a mentally unstable person should have the same right as you or I.
But then later on you talk about the new safety laws and balked at the idea of banning hand guns because what if the person is handicapped or just can't handle anything bigger than a handgun. Since people say mental issues are a handicap, in two different paragraphs you say that people shouldn't have guns because of a handicap, then later you argue that a certain gun law would be unacceptable because people with a handicap could not use the weapon. I would offer a suggestion as to a re-wording, but it just jumps around so much I really don't know which way you lean. I'll think about it someone and try to create a modified version of what you stated to be more consistent.

The issue of the type of weapon that a person can own is based on what you currently feel is a threat. Going back to the first reason for owning a gun, a tyrant take-over, I really doubt a 9mm or an AR-15 would do much good against armored tanks and aircrafts dropping bombs on us (just ask the Iraqi people). When the gun ownership laws were written, another person was the biggest threat so a gun would be all you would need. However, if you use my reasoning for gun ownership (fun and protection from people, not armies) then a simple hand gun or shotgun will do the trick. But what if these aggressors do obtain larger weapons such as tanks and planes? Do we adjust our thoughts to allow for bigger and bigger weapons?


The last paragraph or two should just be cut completely. It Jumps around too many times and too many topics within a single paragraph. with new safety devices, there will be of course a lot of opposition because it is new, things like "What if it doesn't work properly".. People used the same argument when seatbelt laws were created, and people said the same with airbags were being installed.
As for the money issue for the new features, that should not be an issue at all for several reasons. 1) People gladly pay extra money for family safety in terms of airbags and antilock breaks on their cars, home alarm systems, preventive health care, etc.
2) We live in a society where people on average spend about $2000 a year killing themselves (smoking and excessive drinking) that I don't think spending a little extra to save your life is an issue. 3) Can you really put a price on family safety?

For the most part Ken, the ideas behind your words were good. Just the reasoning was a little skewed and could open it up to a lot of debate. Change it around a little and drop a few things and you could have a pretty tight argument.

Smalltown,

Objective critique, appreciated. Though I don't really care if I left material for opponents to argue about or not. I am only stating my point of view on this topic. If I left an opening, go for it, as it gives an opportunity for dialogue on the subject.

If you are thinking of getting a handgun you better be quick because as of Jan 1, 2003 there aren't any being sold to the public that meet the Maryland standard.

The major emphasis is on the fact that everyone has the right to bear arms, as stated in the constitution. But then you mention that some people shouldn't own guns such as violent crime criminals and mentally unstable people. At first glance this seems like a very straight forward issue, but then you look back at the reasons for having guns (protecting against a tyranny take over, or the more appropriate issue of leverage over your opponent or aggressor) and can see where a mentally unstable person should have the same right as you or I.
But then later on you talk about the new safety laws and balked at the idea of banning hand guns because what if the person is handicapped or just can't handle anything bigger than a handgun. Since people say mental issues are a handicap, in two different paragraphs you say that people shouldn't have guns because of a handicap, then later you argue that a certain gun law would be unacceptable because people with a handicap could not use the weapon. I would offer a suggestion as to a re-wording, but it just jumps around so much I really don't know which way you lean. I'll think about it someone and try to create a modified version of what you stated to be more consistent.

There are Federal laws written that indicate that some are not entitled to firearms ownership. The justification is for the common good of our society. Can they stand judicial review? Well they have. A mental condition is a lot different then a physical handicap. I will default to the statutes on this where physical handicaps do not result in the infringement of the right but mental issues, criminal behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse are specifically addressed.

I also said that I was open to the discussion of the larger variety of weapons (planes, tanks, other armored vehicles, ships, etc.). I mean if you've got 50 or 60 million dollars lying around shouldn't you be allowed to buy an F-16 or something similar? Or why not one of the older varieties lying dormant in the bone-yard at Davis-Monthan? Anyway I am still open to that debate and am unsure exactly how I feel about it or if there is a Constitutional prohibition from doing so.

Skewed or not the reasoning is mine and if debated I am sure it will either become clearer or murkier. But be assured the debate is welcome.

The Swiss are a great example of what weapons to sell to the general public. This is quote from American Rifleman Feb 1990.

"The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns. About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have no rules at all There is no discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies."
And Switzerland is the SAFEST country in the world when it comes to gun violence or gun accidents.

There are two items which are not open to debate. In the Constitiution, the word "people" is used to refer to American citizens, not members of a Federally or state controlled organization. Secondly, the term "militia" has been defined by Congress in the Militia Act of 1792 and in several updates since, as recently as the 1950s. The original act required male citizens to maintain a firearm and ammunition!
However, the word "militia" is irrelevant in the firearms ownership debates. The Second Ammendmant does not state that a "militia" has the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Ammendmant states that the government will not infringe the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms. In no part of the Constitution is it stated that the government has a power to regulate private ownership of arms. (As an aside, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 levied taxes to regulate firearms, as the Federal government could raise revenue, but not regulate firearms. This was specifically stated in committee to explain why purchase of a tax stamp to own restricted firearms would be required, not an outright ban of fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, etc. Those supporting a Federal law to ban these firearms admitted Congress has no specified power to do so.) And, if we read the works of Madison and Jefferson, the Federal Government was not intended to have any power not specifically stated in the Constitution. Madison himself wrote that in his liftime the term "common good" had been abused to expand Federal powers beyond what was intended. That the government was intended to provide for the "common good" using those powers specifically stated in the Constitution. How ironic that today we have members of Congress and common citizens assuming the government has all powers not specifically denied it, contrary to what those who wrote the Constitution had stated their intent was!

Originally posted by Ken King
Smalltown,


If you are thinking of getting a handgun you better be quick because as of Jan 1, 2003 there aren't any being sold to the public that meet the Maryland standard.

I consider this pretty much a moot point! Considering that a gun is a man-made item...just how does "Big Brother" think he is going to stop someone from making a gun in their basement? Access to the right "tooling" equipment would not be difficult to come by, and ......

All this discussion about trigger locks and safety features becomes pretty silly when you consider building your own!

Of course.....when we do this....we have now become the criminals!!!

I see the right to have a gun the same as the right to have an abortion. We all have the choice...but the best one is probably not to have the gun and not to have the abortion. Americans should have the right to own a gun and I explain this to liberals all over America. My version of liberalism says that civil rights are vastly more important than all else. Give us the choice and trust us to make the right decision.

So you agree that people should have the right to own guns? Or you don't?

Comparing the right to an abortion to the right to own firearms is like comparing apples to oranges. The first ends a life, the second could save a life.

Forget criminal statistics. Gun violence is almost universally committed by those attemting to victimize the Citizen. Most 'gun toting Americans' are quite responsible with their firearms. And they would readily weild them to protect themselves.

Abortion is a quite different issue.

Unless you put a .45 in that little fetus' hands. Then it would have rights!

Don't mix the two. Unless, Dems, you have a counterpoint?

My 2 cents.....

1. The right to own a firearm should be unabridged. Criminals WILL get guns and WILL commit crimes no matter how many laws are made to restrict or ban ownership. Allow the common citizen the right to protect themselves.

2. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one! But you'd damn well better not tell anyone else how to run their life. Don't force YOUR beliefs on anyone else just because YOU don't agree with it.

:bandit:

BTW...this isn't aimed at anyone in particular...except the hard core card-carrying liberals. :biggrin:

Originally posted by Voter2002
My 2 cents.....

1. The right to own a firearm should be unabridged. Criminals WILL get guns and WILL commit crimes no matter how many laws are made to restrict or ban ownership. Allow the common citizen the right to protect themselves.

2. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one! But you'd damn well better not tell anyone else how to run their life. Don't force YOUR beliefs on anyone else just because YOU don't agree with it.

:bandit:

BTW...this isn't aimed at anyone in particular...except the hard core card-carrying liberals. :biggrin:

Pro-lifers are generally republican.. So maybe I don't follow your point #2 and the BTW?

As far as #1 goes, I have always thought it incredible that people think criminals will follow the law with regards to obtaining guns. "Yea, they would kill someone, but they will go to wal-mart and fill out the paperwork to get the gun to do it.." yea, right..

I oppose most forms of gun control...I think that certain measures like background checks and banning high-ammo machine guns (we don't need a stinger or an oozie) are beneficial to the nation's security and thus should be established. But the vast majority of gun laws are anti-democratic and contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

On abortion, I consel my children not the have them and it is my moral belief that life begins at conception. Yet the law does not recognize that belief (as well it should not) and many people within this nation do not hold it. The 14th Amendment refers to an American citizen as being "born and naturalized." Thus, it pains me to say, developing fetuses cannot be considered alive under the law and have no rights. That being said, I believe in choice and women's rights, not abortion.

The last time that I checked my Bill of Rights I must have skipped over where it says Americans have a right to an abortion. There is no right to abortions! Abortions are tolerated because of a Supreme Court decision on a privacy issue that was not tossed out because of its relationship to abortion. That's why both sides of the issue need to get together and pass an ammendment that decides the issue one way or the other.

IRT to tyrants being deterred by an AR-15 or pistol, remember that the 2nd Ammendment was originally intended to deter the armies of the time from illegally entering your home or taking your property. The Founding Fathers felt that any army, US or Foreign, would have to think twice before entering the houses of occupants who were as well armed as they were. At the time, a citizen with a Brown Bess musket was as well armed as any soldier. Had the original intent of the Founding Fathers been followed through with, the average citizen would have nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles, etc., which would deter most Tyrants.:biggrin: But there are many that say that since we're such an intrenched form of government that there will never be a need to protect ourselves from a tyranical government and that the 2nd ammendment is no longer needed. These are also the same people who go ballistic if someone starts saying that the 1st ammendment is outdated and needs changing, or the 5th ammendment, etc. They are always willing to change the 2nd, but who-be the person who wants to touch any of the others.

I think that the biggest problem gun owners face is regulatory creap. It just never seems enough to ban guns from criminals and crazies. There's always someone trying to ban guns altogther, and every gun law that gets passed makes complete banning more of a reality. I was one of those NRA'ers who agreed with the NRA's decision to support the banning of selective fire weapons back in 1985, and I deeply regret that support. I believed the government when they said that only selective fire weapons would be banned and that semi-autos would be left alone. Then came 1994, and the precedent had been set. Say goodbye to the semi-autos, but the rest of your guns are safe. Yeah... but for how long? Canada's and Australia's total gun bans started out the same way.

I have a rack full of guns that I never shoot. They just sit there and look nice. I don't plan on repelling tyranical governments or shooting intruders. I have them because I want them, and I have an ammendment to the Constitution that says that's ok.

Originally posted by Bruzilla

I think that the biggest problem gun owners face is regulatory creap.


This is what I have said numerous times and it applies to almost anything you could call a right or a civil liberty. It comes back to the old adage, "give an inch, take a mile." People start thinking that is ok to give up a couple liberties here and a couple more there for a little more security and to make them feel better. Then after a while you will find out that you don't have any rights or civil liberties left.

Pro-lifers are generally republican.. So maybe I don't follow your point #2 and the BTW?

The comment about liberals was in reference to the anti-gunners. The abortion comment was aimed at everyone who trys to force their moral beliefs on anyone else...such as trying to enact legislation based on a moral belief.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not pro-abortion...just anti-getting-someone-else's-moral-ideas-shoved-down-my-throat.

My position: early termination in cases of rape/incest only. Anything beyond that, the woman made a choice to engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy and would have to live with the consequences of that choice. That's my version of pro-choice - you chose to get laid, now deal with the rest of the package that comes with it!

Back to the original topic...

Maryland is getting to be a pain in the arse to own a handgun and it will only get worse. The Attorney General for the state has a personal agenda to rid the state completely of handguns. As long as you can still buy a BB-gun, that's his idea of fulfilling the second amendment requirement.

:burning: