What keeps us safe & free... [Archive]

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...one of little reason, and less rational...

Here is a New Year's GIFT for you:

Keep your gifts; my taxes bought them for you anyway.

You use the term "militia", to limit the number or kind for those whom this amendment was intended for.

No, actually the framers of the CONSTITUTION used the term that way. Did you even look at the link?

However, your's is an interpretation that fails to address the nature and use of the inclusive terms found herein, "...the right of the people..."

Predicated on the need of a regular militia. It's the first damn phrase in the Amendment, you illiterate chimpanzee. Read the link and try to argue intelligently, if you can.

Notice the authors didn't use the phrase as YOU would have it, "...the right of SOME people, to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

As I said, they DID state it that way. Except they knew how to spell "bear."

Moreover, I hold that the exact defination of 'militia' is uncommon, and not concrete, period.

You hold? You HOLD? Based on what? Pardon me for taking Jefferson's word over yours. The term is explicitly explained, which you would know if (here we go again) you had READ THE LINK.

For example years ago, women would not have been expected to fight, so would you then disallow 'women' the right to bare arms, and even still in past wars were children not asked to fight who were no more than 15???

I'm saying that's what the Constitution says, yes, and one more time for the intellectually disadvantaged, READ THE FRIGGIN LINK.

Male. 17-45 years old. Able-bodied. These people are not only allowed, but REQUIRED, to keep a working rifle and (I believe) 10 rounds of ammunition.

A few more specific points you conveniently miss:

Women are STILL not put into combat situations. Not then, not now.

Minors have NEVER been deliberately inducted (kids lie about their ages and the military winks, but that's not the same thing).

...and last but not least, the militia is for domestic defense and order, not sent to fight wars.

You claim a Second Amendment right that doesn't exist, and then you "hold" that the law you claim to support doesn't say what it clearly DOES say.

You are not able-bodied. According the the Second Amendment, you have no Constitutional right to bear arms. The issue being unaddressed, the state of Texas has the final say on whether you should be allowed to have a firearm.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust an ignoramus like you with a toaster, let alone a gun.

No sir, so that we might be able to secure a free state, The People's right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. And it IS this 'inclusive right' that has kept us safe as well as free.

Hot air and convenient misapplication of the facts. A healthy skepticism of psychos such as yourself who would be King in a friggin' republic is what keeps this country strong.

I know how eager you are to look like a part of the solution, but the fact is that you're a part of the problem.

King of the Americas

2nd January 2003, 10:42 AM

...but are you acquating 'well regulated' with 'able bodied'?

If so, would you also use the limiting term 'able bodied' to contradict this "...and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the 'unorganized' militia.", if they suffered the loss of a limb or other 'disability'?

I hardly believe you could or would try to disarm a veteran because of a disability they suffered defending American's right to keep and bear arms.

Your stance is contradictory at every turn.

Moreover, ALL of the terms you used as well as their definations came from an *"Excerpt from Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute", and NOT the Constitution itself. There ARE other definations for the terms you provided.

"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."

The amendment does NOT specify anyone that this amendmend does NOT cover, "...the people..." meaning "ALL of the people" is used and in a completely inclusive manner. Besides the supreme court has ruled over and over and over again that the phrase "...the people..." refers to Individual Rights, and I think that preceeds your little cornell aw school glossary.

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 10:52 AM

Listen, you impertinent little twerp. This is the last polite response you will see from me until you read the link.

With that understood, let's start dissecting your idiocy.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...but are you acquating 'well regulated' with 'able bodied'?

Of course not. The militia is regulated. The males 17-45 years old are able-bodied. One is an organization, the other is a member of that organization. Want me to draw you a picture, idiot?

If so, would you also use the limiting term 'able bodied' to contradict this "...and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the 'unorganized' militia.", if they suffered the loss of a limb or other 'disability'?

As I stated, you are the one confused with the terms; I am not. Your question is moot, and quite stupid as well. Members of tha armed services are not in the militia. Civilians are. Got it?

I hardly believe you could or would try to disarm a veteran because of a disability they suffered defending American's right to keep and bear arms.

Hey, you're the one trying to prove some loony theory by distorting the Second Amendment, not me.

I have read it and know what it says.
You heard about it on the radio and THINK you know what it says.

I'll say it again (it seems that brute repitition is the only thing that works on that thick skull of yours): The Constitution states that the regular militia is comprised of all able-bodied men of proper age. READ THE LINK, moron.

Your stance is contradictory at every turn.

Not at all. You clearly cannot grasp my stance, so I can't be held responsible for your comically inane opinions of it. If you call my argument contradictory, then you accuse Jefferson and Madison of the same.

But what else could one expect from a "person" such as yourself?

Moreover, ALL of the terms you used as well as their definations came from an *"Excerpt from Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute", and NOT the Constitution itself. There ARE other definations for the terms you provided.

They were culled from Constitutional documents that expaned upon the meaning and limitations of the Bill of Rights. If you want to see it first hand, I can easily oblige.

Next time, don't just read the headlines. Try to expect a little more from your own attention spand, chimp.

"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."

The amendment does NOT specify anyone that this amendmend does NOT cover, "...the people..." meaning "ALL of the people" is used and in a completely inclusive manner.

It clearly did not apply to blacks, did it? Aren't they "people"? You're attempting to squeeze through loopholes and wiggle by on false technicalities.

Besides the supreme court has ruled over and over and over again that the phrase "...the people..." refers to Individual Rights, and I think that preceeds your little cornell aw school glossary.

I would love to see a SCOTUS decision on the Second Amendment that didn't make mention of the pretext of a militia. Care to put your money where your mouth is, or will I just have to settle for "I 'hold' this to be true"?

Put up or shut up, idiot.

Ravenwood

2nd January 2003, 10:57 AM

From the United States Federal Code, webbed at this location: http://www.lneilsmith.com/militia.html

Legal Definition of "The Militia"
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

§ 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.

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL

§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

I think that spells it out correctly...even the unorganized militia stipulates "able-bodied".

King of the Americas

2nd January 2003, 11:01 AM

If so, would you also use the limiting term 'able bodied' to contradict this "...and any former member of the regular armed forces, are by law already members of the 'unorganized' militia.", if they suffered the loss of a limb or other 'disability'?

And your response:

As I stated, you are the one confused with the terms; I am not. Your question is moot, and quite stupid as well. Members of tha armed services are not in the militia. Civilians are. Got it?

*And, "...any former member of the regualr armed forces", would be now be 'a citizen'. MY QUESTION/Stance was how could or would you attempt to disarm a disabled vet who has given up part of his body to protect an American's right to bear arms???

*PERSONAL ATTACKS*
-Listen, you impertinent little twerp
-let's start dissecting your idiocy
- Want me to draw you a picture, idiot
-Your question is moot, and quite stupid as well
-READ THE LINK, moron
-Try to expect a little more from your own attention spand, chimp

Well, that's more than 3 strikes. You've more than earned another year of my ignorance. Damn, and I really was hoping for much more from you than this crap!?

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Ravenwood
From the United States Federal Code, webbed at this location: http://www.lneilsmith.com/militia.html

Legal Definition of "The Militia"
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

§ 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.

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 32 - NATIONAL GUARD
CHAPTER 3 - PERSONNEL

§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must -

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

I think that spells it out correctly...even the unorganized militia stipulates "able-bodied".

Thank you, sir, that was the very document I was trying to scare up.

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
<SNIP SNIP SNIP!!!>
Damn, and I really was hoping for much more from you than this crap!?

Yeah, well, sore losers like you are always surprised when they get trounced. As the very capable Ravenwood has already posted the document I was looking for, let me share another little tidbit with you.

You stated that "time and time again, the SCOTUS has upheld Second Amendment rights as individual rights."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Constitutional Law Search Page (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment02/) will set you straight, Perry Moron.

...The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

The ONLY case (not over and over) was upheld in the context of a militia, just like I said.

As for insulting you, well, what can I say? You're an idiot. A demonstrable, certifiable, textbook idiot. Is it still considered an insult when it's a provable fact?

Go crawl under a rock... and be sure to turn in your gun as you do.

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Well, that's more than 3 strikes. You've more than earned another year of my ignorance.

You stupid, stupid little man... the only person who has earned your ignorance is you yourself.

I, on the other hand, have earned an education.

There is a difference.

Crossbow

2nd January 2003, 11:33 AM

Ravenwood

2nd January 2003, 12:02 PM

IIRC, the Cheznyians, Somalis & Gold coast people are pretty well armed, But I see very little peace & freedom in those countries. A gun is not a magic talisman that gives you certain "freedoms", it is a tool, like any other. It can put food in your fridge, protect you from harm & provide hours of entertainment, but only if you are skilled & trained to use it properly...If not, it can be the source of a lot of problems...I hear a lot about "rights" from KOA, but very little about the responsibilities that come with those rights. I'm a Life Member of the NRA & ILA. I am a liscensed marksmanship instructor & active in our local political scene. What do you do to protect your precious 2nd amendment "rights" besides complain & try to justify not having to really do something about protecting them KOA?

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Ravenwood
IIRC, the Cheznyians, Somalis & Gold coast people are pretty well armed, But I see very little peace & freedom in those countries. A gun is not a magic talisman that gives you certain "freedoms", it is a tool, like any other. It can put food in your fridge, protect you from harm & provide hours of entertainment, but only if you are skilled & trained to use it properly...If not, it can be the source of a lot of problems...I hear a lot about "rights" from KOA, but very little about the responsibilities that come with those rights. I'm a Life Member of the NRA & ILA. I am a liscensed marksmanship instructor & active in our local political scene. What do you do to protect your precious 2nd amendment "rights" besides complain & try to justify not having to really do something about protecting them KOA?

You sound like a veteran KOA debator there, Ravenwood.
Please don't take my tormenting the feeble-minded as an anti-gun stance; on the contrary, I agree that it is an essential right and its placement in slot #2 is no accident.

I also believe in the responsibility of gun owners to train themselves, at least as much as one would learn to drive a car. And moreover, anyone claiming a Constitutional right should know what the hell they're talking about.

There's a lot of laws that would allow KOA to own a gun- but the Second Amendment (technically) isn't one of them.

Ravenwood

2nd January 2003, 12:22 PM

No problem Jocko, I just get annoyed when people try to wave the 2nd amendment around to justify all sorts of things without knowing what it really means. I am a firm believer that the constitution does not grant us rights, but spells out to the government what they cannot infringe upon or restrict. With rights come responsibilities, & those unwilling to accept those responsibilities do not deserve to enjoy the benefits. By all means, go back to having your fun, I just had to introduce some reality to the king...

Jocko

2nd January 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Ravenwood
No problem Jocko, I just get annoyed when people try to wave the 2nd amendment around to justify all sorts of things without knowing what it really means. I am a firm believer that the constitution does not grant us rights, but spells out to the government what they cannot infringe upon or restrict. With rights come responsibilities, & those unwilling to accept those responsibilities do not deserve to enjoy the benefits. By all means, go back to having your fun, I just had to introduce some reality to the king...

Total agreement on the frequent misuse (or in the KOA's case, frequent hijacking) of the Constitution, in parts or in toto, to justify some zany idiocy.

All too often, people haven't bothered to learn what the document truly is, let alone what it says, before they cry foul on some imagined abridgement of their "rights."

The KOA is the worst case scenario- too lazy to read up on it and learn, and too arrogant to suffer his ignorance in silence.

Then again, shame on us for arguing Constitutional law with someone who believes himself to be a king...? Could we really have expected better?

Ravenwood

2nd January 2003, 12:35 PM

I know what you mean...I've given up replacing the old irony meter...it just keeps blowing up.

Crossbow

2nd January 2003, 01:00 PM

Maybe the next time KOA runs for mayor, he can promise 'A Dime Bag to every Voter and Pistol for every Holster!'

Kodiak

3rd January 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Jocko
All too often, people haven't bothered to learn what the document truly is, let alone what it says, before they cry foul on some imagined abridgement of their "rights."

Sage comments about yourself, it seems...

Amendment II --

"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."

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

and

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

---------------------------------

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

----------------------------------

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."

"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."

"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

-------------------------------

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

-------------------------------

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."

"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

--------------------------------

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

--------------------------------

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

---------------------------------

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

Jon_in_london

3rd January 2003, 07:28 AM

So the reason 'merica hasnt been invaded is because its gun happy!

oic!

I guess thats why such a gun-shy nation as the Uk has been invaded twice a day and three times on sunday since before 'merica was even invented?

:D

Tmy

3rd January 2003, 07:46 AM

Allow me to oversimplify things.

I never bought the whole "militia= National Guard" 2nd amendment argument. To get into the national guard dont you first have to go through federal military training? Dont the feds still control the Natl Guard to some point? So why would they add an amendment allowing the army to bear arms? Thatd be silly.

I think Homer Simpson said it best, " If you didnt have a gun then the King of England could just walk in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that?"

Pyrts

3rd January 2003, 10:11 AM

I ought to point out that the very charming L. Neil Smith, whose website is quoted, is a science fiction writer. He's quite the charmer in person... to a point. But he's more than a tad biased and is not to be considered an authority in law and is not as conversant on history as he could be.

Great Britain has fewer guns than the US, has about the same range of freedom (more in some areas) and doesn't seem to have quite the same percentage of homicides. And if you bother to read Mark Twain's books on life in Silver City, Nevada, you'll discovere that in a free society where EVERY male (except Twain) was armed (he was ridiculed because he didn't believe in guns), that the murder rate was very high.

2-3 murders per night in a place with less than 100,000 people. Nowadays in Dallas, it's uncommon for people to carry guns (some do; most don't.) Our murder rate is under 90 individuals per year for a city area with several million residents.

Those westerners were trained to handle guns. They knew gun safety and all the other things the gun advocates promote. So howcome the homicide and crime rate was 20 times higher than it is in an area where guns are discouraged?

I don't think YOU would feel terribly safe in a well-armed town with 2-3 bodies on the sidewalk every morning.

crackmonkey

3rd January 2003, 10:59 AM

Jocko - the very site you were referencing contradicts your point.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

...and you were haranguing KOA about not reading the site???

Jocko

3rd January 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Jocko - the very site you were referencing contradicts your point.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

...and you were haranguing KOA about not reading the site???

I did not reference that site.

Shall I begin "harangueing" now, or would you like to check again first?

crackmonkey

3rd January 2003, 11:29 AM

That was a page on the same site you linked to. click on 'Second Amendment Network', click on 'facts', click on 'original intent and purpose of the second amendment'.

Now read the sources you quote, for God's sake...

Jocko

3rd January 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
That was a page on the same site you linked to. click on 'Second Amendment Network', click on 'facts', click on 'original intent and purpose of the second amendment'.

Now read the sources you quote, for God's sake...

Oh, I see. I needed to thoroughly examine every page on the law search site before I could mention it. Gotcha.

Hope you never have to visit the Enclyclopaedia Britannica website- that would keep you busy for quite a while.

Tmy

3rd January 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Pyrts

Great Britain has fewer guns than the US, has about the same range of freedom (more in some areas) and doesn't seem to have quite the same percentage of homicides. .

And yet they have far more soccer riot deaths than the US. The Brits are obviously a group of violent peoples who should not be armed.

King of the Americas

3rd January 2003, 11:58 AM

It is clear upon which side most Americans and American Law reside on this issue.

---

And I can't seem to find a response to how or why they think it is neccessary to disarm wounded war veterans because of their disability...:confused:

King of the Americas

3rd January 2003, 12:08 PM

Where is our military stationed, to best guard the homeland???

You want to know what makes you vulnerable to attack? Think like an attacker. Would you take on a well trained military force equal or great than your own, or would you attacker a less force to gain more land and resources so that you could build a bigger better positioned force???

You want to make yourself vulnerable, then disarm your citizens, open your borders, and limit law enforcement officials, while keeping the citizenery fat, lazy, and stupid.

We have bases in Germany, Korea, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, and everywhere else BUT our borders. Our borders are so soft that the Mexican Army invades regularly to provide cover for illegal trafficers. Less that 25% of all traffic in and out of Mexico is regulated, and our northern border with Canada is even less restrictive.

Taking small arms away from citizens might be the note that sends the fat lady off stage...

---

Tmy

3rd January 2003, 12:18 PM

Come now, Mexico and Canada are hardly hostiel nations. I think we'd treat our borders differently if we had Iraq across the Rio Grande.

Im more concearned about the Massachusetts/New York border. Lousy Yankee fans!

King of the Americas

3rd January 2003, 12:23 PM

...how tough would it be for middle eastern terrorists to get into America via Mexico or Canada?

Indeed these two nations aren't willing to invade us but their complete lack of national security should give rise to concern.

Psiload

3rd January 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Where is our military stationed, to best guard the homeland???

You want to know what makes you vulnerable to attack? Think like an attacker. Would you take on a well trained military force equal or great than your own, or would you attacker a less force to gain more land and resources so that you could build a bigger better positioned force???

You want to make yourself vulnerable, then disarm your citizens, open your borders, and limit law enforcement officials, while keeping the citizenery fat, lazy, and stupid.

We have bases in Germany, Korea, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, and everywhere else BUT our borders. Our borders are so soft that the Mexican Army invades regularly to provide cover for illegal trafficers. Less that 25% of all traffic in and out of Mexico is regulated, and our northern border with Canada is even less restrictive.

Taking small arms away from citizens might be the note that sends the fat lady off stage...

---
Uhh, "King"... have you looked at a calendar lately? It's 2003, not 1943. I mean, Red Dawn was a cool movie and all... Patrick Swayze back before he did that dancing movie, and made a fruitcake out of himself... but do you really think a large-scale invasion of U.S. soil is a real possibility in this day and age? That notion is just asinine... even for you.

Kodiak

3rd January 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
And I can't seem to find a response to how or why they think it is neccessary to disarm wounded war veterans because of their disability...:confused:

Come to Michigan, KOA.

Not only are disabled Michiganders, veteran and non-veteran, allowed to carry arms if they so desire and are physically capable, Michigan law often goes out of its way to make special considerations...for example allowing only disabled hunters to use crossbows

King of the Americas

3rd January 2003, 01:17 PM

Invasion and occupation would be all but impossible BECAUSE our civilians are or are thought to be quite heavily armed.

Do 'I' expect a large army to try...? "Not so long as we KEEP our citizenery aware of what keeps us safe."

Now, is it possible that small forces could inflitrate our borders, by substandard security to our north and south, and then once in make several attacks...? "Absolutely. And since our army is off on another continent, it will be up to those IN America to stop them."

I was very bothered by the amount of damage that was caused by the Maryland sniper(s). A group of similarily trained terrorists could reak much havoc IF spread across the U.S.

---

What's worse? I heard someone say the other day, "This War on Terror CAN be won easily, but it will cost you your freedom." Are we SO affraid that we would offer up so easily our freedom for security?

Psiload

3rd January 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Invasion and occupation would be all but impossible BECAUSE our civilians are or are thought to be quite heavily armed.

Do 'I' expect a large army to try...? "Not so long as we KEEP our citizenery aware of what keeps us safe."

Now, is it possible that small forces could inflitrate our borders, by substandard security to our north and south, and then once in make several attacks...? "Absolutely. And since our army is off on another continent, it will be up to those IN America to stop them."

I was very bothered by the amount of damage that was caused by the Maryland sniper(s). A group of similarily trained terrorists could reak much havoc is spread across the U.S.

---

What worse? I heard someone say the other day, "This War on Terror CAN be won easily, but it will cost you your freedom." Are we SO affraid that we would offer up so easily our freedom for security?
You, sir... are out of your cotton pickin' skull.

Tmy

3rd January 2003, 01:22 PM

Are you saying that the sniper would not have been siccsesful if our army was here instead of Germany???

Fisrt off all we do have a substantial police force. Of cousre they can not be everywhere. Thats why the sniper was able to hit so many people. Even if we had deployed teh Nat'l guard, they can be on every corner. Adn woudl you want them to be??

Jocko

3rd January 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Psiload

You, sir... are out of your cotton pickin' skull.

I object to your use of this language to the KOA.

Picking cotton is work, and you do cotton pickers an ill service by comparing them to a textbook study of inertia such as the KOA. Please apologize to menial laborers around the world immediately.

kittynh

3rd January 2003, 06:13 PM

Hey, we got Canada and Mexico....
we could keep from being invaded with sling shots! though last time I was in the Southwest I wasn't so sure Mexico hadn't won some sort of war we just didn't read about up North.

Plutarck

3rd January 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

I guess thats why such a gun-shy nation as the Uk has been invaded twice a day and three times on sunday since before 'merica was even invented?

Actually, it is being invaded constantly now. It's just happening so constantly that no one stays in power for long enough for it to be worth being reported. It happens so much that the press doesn't even mention it anymore.

Why it happens so often, you've actually already been conquered 3 times while I type out this post.

...and there it goes again.

Why, it even happens so often that you're invading it right now.

;)

Jon_in_london

4th January 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

And yet they have far more soccer riot deaths than the US. The Brits are obviously a group of violent peoples who should not be armed.

Ask the Argentinians! :D

Oh, you guys just havent discovered the pleasures of football-hooliganism yet! Give it few years. Actually wasnt there a riot at some inter-university 'merican-football match a few months ago?

CSSMariner

4th January 2003, 06:31 PM

I am 58, a North Carolinian by birth, a Floridian by choice, and soon to be a Texan by yet another choice. I am a gun owner, a gun shooter, and have been so since my pre-teen years. I have always had weapons near, even when I had children living at home. They were taught that guns were not toys, and would have never played around with such a deadly device when I was not there.

I keep a Walther P38 9mm that is equal in age to me that may have had 500 rounds cycled through it since its manufacture in 1944. It is well lubed and clean, and has a loaded clip inserted, and is in a drawer within one step from my bedside. There is also a flashlight in the drawer that also has working batteries installed. Keeping a weapon nearby that may be needed and the ammunition that is used in it locked up in a separate place would be as silly as keeping the flashlight handy and the batteries for it in a separate place. If one needed either one, the need is immediate, and having to grope in the dark for batteries when the lights go out is about as effective as grouping for ammunition when there is an intruder in the house.

Surveys of prisoners indicate that dogs are not the number one fear they have when breaking into a home. What do they say they fear most? That's right, they fear the pistol that the homeowner may have pointed at their worthless heads when they break into places in pursuit of their trade.

There was one idiot in Greensboro many years ago that broke into a home. There was a woman at home, and she shouted that she was armed and for whomever it was to leave. She was armed with a bow, and had an arrow notched up. The man saw the bow and came up the steps. The woman backed all the way down the hall, and when it was clear that he was still coming on, she let him have the broadhead hunting arrow right in the chest. He died from blood loss on the scene before the EMT guys could get there.

I will keep my guns, thank you very much second amendment.

King of the Americas

5th January 2003, 10:24 AM

You point is well made. I too will keep my weapons close and loaded, just as I do my flashlight.;)

Rollerball37

5th January 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner
I am 58, a North Carolinian by birth, a Floridian by choice, and soon to be a Texan by yet another choice. I am a gun owner, a gun shooter, and have been so since my pre-teen years. I have always had weapons near, even when I had children living at home. They were taught that guns were not toys, and would have never played around with such a deadly device when I was not there.

I keep a Walther P38 9mm that is equal in age to me that may have had 500 rounds cycled through it since its manufacture in 1944. It is well lubed and clean, and has a loaded clip inserted, and is in a drawer within one step from my bedside. There is also a flashlight in the drawer that also has working batteries installed. Keeping a weapon nearby that may be needed and the ammunition that is used in it locked up in a separate place would be as silly as keeping the flashlight handy and the batteries for it in a separate place. If one needed either one, the need is immediate, and having to grope in the dark for batteries when the lights go out is about as effective as grouping for ammunition when there is an intruder in the house.

Surveys of prisoners indicate that dogs are not the number one fear they have when breaking into a home. What do they say they fear most? That's right, they fear the pistol that the homeowner may have pointed at their worthless heads when they break into places in pursuit of their trade.

There was one idiot in Greensboro many years ago that broke into a home. There was a woman at home, and she shouted that she was armed and for whomever it was to leave. She was armed with a bow, and had an arrow notched up. The man saw the bow and came up the steps. The woman backed all the way down the hall, and when it was clear that he was still coming on, she let him have the broadhead hunting arrow right in the chest. He died from blood loss on the scene before the EMT guys could get there.

I will keep my guns, thank you very much second amendment.

Here we have Ken, typical gun owner.

Lots and lots of words, the only thing missing is a point.

CSSMariner

5th January 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Rollerball37

Here we have Ken, typical gun owner.

Lots and lots of words, the only thing missing is a point.

The only point is where to point if the need should arise. I do not seek a point, but should the time come, I am willing and prepared to make the point. My words were all that were needed to be said.

I am not sure you know what a "typical" gun owner is. I know dozens, perhaps hundreds of gun owners and fanciers, all of them very quiet, law-abiding, dedicated Americans who only want to be and remain free.

It is your choice not to own a weapon; that is the beauty of this great nation. However, all of mine guns are antiques, either owned by my father, grandfather, or uncle. Not one of them is less than 50 years old, and they are all collectors’ items that just happen to operate. One is a 12 ga. Hammer-type single-barrel shotgun that is over a hundred years old and was carried by my grandfather when he was hunting in the Virginia and North Carolina hills.

You seem to have a point, and it is the one at the top of your head when it comes to understanding the "typical" gun owner.

One does not need a f * * * * * g point to own a gun, it is a constitutional right. Get a life.

corplinx

5th January 2003, 03:41 PM

CSSMariner

5th January 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
I do not think the second amendment keeps us safe. Specifcally, gun control is done in such a way to make a citizens a non-threat the government. I am sorry but 10 shot pistol magazines of ammo that won't pearce kevlar and 10 shot semi-automatic rifles and not scaring the people who control a much better trained and equiped military at all. Your buckshot won't do much against a tank.

Americans have effectively lost the right to armed revolt implicit in the second amendment years ago. It's time to move on from thinking that the second amendment still protects americans from tyranny.

I never said one word about being afraid of our national military; they are not and never have been a threat to the citizens of America. Of course buckshot would never be a threat against an Abrams M1A Main Battle Tank. Hell, nothing in a civilian-held weapon would, only a blithering, babbling idiot would think that.

No, the second amendment does not keep us safe, it takes the entire constitution to do that, and it has served us very well for over two hundred years. The only time it did not serve America was when the Bible-pounding do-gooder "Dry" protestant idiots managed to get the 18th Amendment shoved down America's throat and we became "dry." The only thing it accomplished was to give the mob a reason to exist, and we are still paying for it to this day.

Why would there be an armed revolt in America, what would it serve? Only the paranoid, schizophrenic pinheaded retreatist idiots in the woods of Utah and Idaho think the black helicopters are coming after them. They play their little army games in the woods supposedly to stop the coming "One world government" headed by the UN and George Bush. I stopped playing army before I was old enough to drive; they need to grow up.

My primary complaint against Bush and his crowd is they would convert this democracy into a theocratic plutocracy if the likes of Pat Robertson and that bunch of idiots could have their way. Fortunately, we have a supreme court that on the mean supports a liberal interpretation of our constitution.

Furthermore, the non-religious and skeptic segment in America is growing, and already total more than all the other religious groups with the exception of the Catholic and Protestant put together. Our growth can be traced by and large to reaction to the smarmy, so-called religious right, which are not either by the way, having their way with the last four presidencies.

I served almost seven years in the Army Security Agency, the army military arm of the NSA, and have zero fear of our fine military, and I refuse to believe that Americans have anything to fear from military weapons in the hands of our military. It makes good material for conspiracy theories and movies about such crap, but in the real world it just is not an issue.

Anyone stupid enough to try to overthrow the American government is a fool, as it is the best thing going for humanity at the moment. Churchill said, "Democracy is the absolute worst form of government, except for all the others we have tried," and I believe that, and would not attempt to alter our basic form of government other than through the ballot box. I just do not like the thought of some government agency having access to masses of data about where I shop, what I buy, why I buy it, whom I call, why I call them, how much gasoline I buy, and so on.

I don't even have any problem with registering my weapons and actually inquired with the Broward Sheriff's office about it. When they saw what I had, they were not interested. However, if I had a class three license and owned fully automatic weapons, which I may one day as I want to collect a Thompson just for fun, I would rather have them registered than not in case someone did steal them. I would still not be paranoid that the government was going to come and get them. I do not fear the government as there are checks and balances, and I do not indulge in criminal behavior so what some agency like the FBI may glean from my activities is meaningless at the end of the day.

I just do not want anyone to have such access as I consider it to be unwarranted search. If I was stopped by a cop, and I have been on occasion but only for speeding, and although I was never asked, I would not allow them to search my vehicle without a warrant. Sure, they could get one, and I would have to wait for it to arrive, but it had better spell out exactly that for which they are looking. Even then I do not fear them as there is going to be nothing illegal in my vehicle, it is just the principle of the matter.

Law-abiding citizens have little to fear from the US government. Corruption causes far more damage to the nation that all of the terrorists put together, it is just not visible in the way that a pair of 767s are diving into the WTC. Be that as it may, if I had a terrorist in my sights before he, or she in fact, could do their bit, I would cap their worthless asses with less internal discomfort that I had the last time I dropped Bambi in the Virginia woods.

I will keep my weapons because I can, but primarily because they are important to me from a family association and memories of my dad, my grandfather, and my hero uncle who drove an amphibious truck ashore at Normandy and all the way to Kassel, Germany to help liberate Europe from a tyrant who confiscated the weapons of the citizenry.

Rollerball37

5th January 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner

It is your choice not to own a weapon; that is the beauty of this great nation. However, all of mine guns are antiques, either owned by my father, grandfather, or uncle. Not one of them is less than 50 years old, and they are all collectors’ items that just happen to operate. One is a 12 ga. Hammer-type single-barrel shotgun that is over a hundred years old and was carried by my grandfather when he was hunting in the Virginia and North Carolina hills.

You seem to have a point, and it is the one at the top of your head when it comes to understanding the "typical" gun owner.

One does not need a f * * * * * g point to own a gun, it is a constitutional right. Get a life.
I'm sure you believe you're going some where with all this useless information about how old your guns are, but we are as yet unimpressed.

You also seem to think I've offered some kind of anti-gun argument. Please direct me to the post that gave you this impression.

OR, you can just continue on as you have been and tell everyone about the 300 year old musket that your great grandfather used to prop the cabin door shut, and how that some how authenticates you to be a worthy weapon owner.

CSSMariner

5th January 2003, 05:05 PM

You call me "typical." Just what is a typical gun owner? What makes you an expert on the typical gun owner? More to the point, why would I care?

The Fool

5th January 2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Invasion and occupation would be all but impossible BECAUSE our civilians are or are thought to be quite heavily armed.

son, you are in lala land. Armed civilians are more of a risk to themselves than to trained military units. You read too many comics.... In war, civilians flee the fighting...armed or not. They would be much more likely use the guns to shoot someone to get a car to get away from the shelling....

Andalyn

5th January 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner
However, if I had a class three license and owned fully automatic weapons, which I may one day as I want to collect a Thompson just for fun,

Ah... the Thompson Submachinegun. "Thompson M1A1, .45 ACP".

Our Sheriff's Office keeps a few of these around. I checked one out not too long ago and had a blast. They weigh a ton, unloaded. Gives you a good amount of respect for those that carried this beast in WW2.

Just to make the anti-gun crowd uncomfortable, here is a pic of me firing one full auto (note the flying brass to the right). Alas, I have poor firing posture in this pick... you really need to lean into the weapon, but I was just trying to fire off a few for the camera at this moment.

http://www.boomspeed.com/andalyn/TommyGun1.jpg

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 04:16 AM

Now I'm jealous. However, I did get to fire a .50 Barett, which made me want to fire a .50 Browning. There was a little sign with the Barett that read, "Barett .50 Cal, the gun that shoots today, and kills tomorrow."

Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock used a .50 Browning as a sniper weapon in Viet Nam. The rate of fire was slow enough to allow him to pull off single rounds. He actually had a 'scope mounted on the .50, and holds the official distance record for a kill of 2,500 yards. You should read "Sniper" if you haven't already.

There I go again, "typical gun owner" praising the young lads who do a job no one else wants to do so the no-gun crowd can have something to cry about. :p

King of the Americas

6th January 2003, 06:54 AM

I do not think the second amendment keeps us safe. Specifcally, gun control is done in such a way to make a citizens a non-threat the government. I am sorry but 10 shot pistol magazines of ammo that won't pearce kevlar and 10 shot semi-automatic rifles and not scaring the people who control a much better trained and equiped military at all. Your buckshot won't do much against a tank.

Americans have effectively lost the right to armed revolt implicit in the second amendment years ago. It's time to move on from thinking that the second amendment still protects americans from tyranny.

*I think you overlooked the inability of American forces to be used American citizens...

I've heard more than one military solider say, "I won't fight two people Americans and Israelies. Both think themselves God's people, and 'could be' armed better than me..."

Gun laws should and usually DO keep proven law breakers as far from guns as possible. The law abiding gun owner could easily own and shoot any number of weapons that would pearce mere kevlar. Any number of canons could crush dozens of men wearing such garb. Why those garments are just as effective as the knight's armor was against the crossbow and trebuchet, when you compar them to today's weaponary.

Even a simple blowgun could do the task...

I think a motivated civilian force could certainly offer 'meaningful resistance' in a war featuring the overwhemling force of the U.S. Military.

The POINT, friend in keeping the Second Amendment an individual right, it keeps us free to practice ownership of the ability to bear arms, to whatever end. I can think of no good thing ever became of a citizenery that gave up their arms to their government...

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 07:02 AM

[i]The POINT, friend is keeping the Second Amendment an individual right, it keeps us free to practice ownership of the ability to bear arms, to whatever end. I can think of no good thing ever became of a citizenery that gave up their arms to their government... [/B]

Hear-hear! That gets my vote mate and I heartily concur.

King of the Americas

6th January 2003, 07:02 AM

son, you are in lala land. Armed civilians are more of a risk to themselves than to trained military units. You read too many comics.... In war, civilians flee the fighting...armed or not. They would be much more likely use the guns to shoot someone to get a car to get away from the shelling....

*Hold your dance, and your tongue, namely one.

When you speak of these things, you speak only of yourself. There are men among us that know of battle, and fighting for surivial. Armed, organized, and cordinated civilian attacks have led many a rebel force to successful ends...

I don't read comics, but I DO enjoy History.:cool:

Rollerball37

6th January 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by CSSMariner

There I go again, "typical gun owner" praising the young lads who do a job no one else wants to do so the no-gun crowd can have something to cry about. :p

NOW what are you talking about?

What young lads?
What job that no one else wants to do?

Maybe if you could express a clear thought and make an actual point with all this jabber there wouldn't be a problem here. You seem to think I'm anti-gun, when in fact I'm just anti-moron.

But please don't stop, I find you mildly amusing, so do go on...

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Rollerball37

What young lads?
What job that no one else wants to do?

Maybe if you could express a clear thought and make an actual point with all this jabber there wouldn't be a problem here. You seem to think I'm anti-gun, when in fact I'm just anti-moron.

What young lads/? The youngsters in the military.

What job? Dealing with the ******** of the world so whiners don't have to.

kittynh

6th January 2003, 07:49 AM

My friend reading this forum has a question, totally off the subject, but what did the Vietnamese (North) use during the war? she's Canadian, and wants to know if they used some sort of Russian weapon that was superior to what the US forces used.

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 08:31 AM

The Viet Cong used everything they could find, but eventually they were equipped with the Kalashnikov AK-47 that in many respects was superior to any weapon the American forces had in Nam. It is still the most copied and widely produced weapon in the world. If you have watched TV and the action in Afghanistan, you have seen a lot of AK-47s.

We initially used the 7.62mm M-14 until we realized that in a close in fight as that which takes place in a jungle, rate of fire is more important than the accuracy of a .30 caliber round 300 yards downrange. The M-16 replaced the old reliable M-14. The M-16 was developed from an AR-15 made by the Armalite corporation and still available today. I trained on the M-14 when I went into service, and was still in service when the change was made to the M-16.

The M-16 had problems initially that were traced to plating and a couple of other problems. They were rectified, and now the M-16 is recognized as a very good weapon. At the first all of them were "Select fire" in that they could be switched from semi to full automatic. That created supply problems as most soldiers just used full auto all the time and expended a lot of rounds with little effect. Even the Viet Cong forces had supply problems from the full auto operation of the AKs.

M-16s are now limited to three round bursts on auto, which is the preferred method of auto fire as it preserves the barrel that is rapidly burned up in full auto operation. I know of guys in Nam who peed on their weapons to cool them off in a long firefight.

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Rollerball37
You seem to think I'm anti-gun, when in fact I'm just anti-moron.

I don't care what you are, and now that you seem to want to get personal, you would not know a moron if one smacked you in the mouth.

Psiload

6th January 2003, 01:59 PM

Rollerball37

6th January 2003, 02:52 PM

6th January 2003, 02:54 PM

The Fool

6th January 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
son, you are in lala land. Armed civilians are more of a risk to themselves than to trained military units. You read too many comics.... In war, civilians flee the fighting...armed or not. They would be much more likely use the guns to shoot someone to get a car to get away from the shelling....

*Hold your dance, and your tongue, namely one.

When you speak of these things, you speak only of yourself. There are men among us that know of battle, and fighting for surivial. Armed, organized, and cordinated civilian attacks have led many a rebel force to successful ends...

I don't read comics, but I DO enjoy History.:cool:

You know of battle? . Your poetic little "there are men amongst us" speech was very touching but history shows that the only time civilians, armed or not, have impeded trained military has been when they clog the road system while fleeing. I have faced highly trained and motivated irregular troops and have no doubts of thier worth. But thats a far cry from Ma and Pa with an M16.

"Armed organized and co-ordinated civilian" WTF???? You have just defined trained military units... Is this what you imagine magically happens if you give guns to civilians? This is not what you were claiming, All armies are made from civilians, thats an undisputed fact, they don't come from Mars..... you were claiming that simply arming the general population would make a difference....You now also want to train and discipline them?.....Back to your war comics.....

kittynh

6th January 2003, 03:19 PM

Thanks for the Vietnam info....do our troops still use the M-16? Is that what they are still taking into combat?

You seem to know a lot about the subject of guns, so thanks for sharing your knowledge....

Andalyn

6th January 2003, 03:26 PM

Andalyn

6th January 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by kittynh
Thanks for the Vietnam info....do our troops still use the M-16? Is that what they are still taking into combat?

You seem to know a lot about the subject of guns, so thanks for sharing your knowledge....

Many US Soldiers are now being issued the M-4, which is really just a variation of the M-16. It's shorter and is capable of single shot, burst and full auto, IIRC. Why it got a whole new number designation is beyond me. It looks like a shorty M-16 carbine.

6th January 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Andalyn

Whoa there Droogie! I grew up with access to guns. I didn't kill myself nor anyone else.

Just a hypothetical question: What percentage of children involved in accidents with guns do you think were not warned about the dangers of guns?

Andalyn

6th January 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by sundog

Just a hypothetical question: What percentage of children involved in accidents with guns do you think were not warned about the dangers of guns?

Don't know. Could be quite a few. Many kid are not parented at all. Some are parented only on a part time basis. Some may just be dumb. Others stupid. Of course there will always the kid that is just plain bad. :)

What is a child? According to some gun control advocate groups, it is anyone who dies by gunfire under the age of 25. CDC list a child as anyone under 20.

You be interested to know that a child is much more likely to be killed by poisoning, drowning or machinery. Unfortunately, the control advocacy groups for these menaces have been under-funded as of late.

CDC search (http://search.cdc.gov/search97cgi/s97is.dll?Action=filterSearch&Collection=CDCALL1&ResultTemplate=cdcnormal.hts&queryText=Firearm+Availability+unintentional&filter=newsearch.hts&SortField=score)

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Psiload

You actually kept a loaded handgun within reach of your children?! You actually think you can keep a child from playing with a handgun by simply telling them not to?!
:eek:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

You need a license to catch a fish, but any ignorant ******* can be a parent.

No, I did not keep, and have never kept a loaded handgun within reach of my young children, or those of anyone else for that matter. However, by the time they were teenagers, they knew what they were, how they worked, and how they felt when fired. They started with BB rifles, and graduated to pellet rifles and pellet pistols, and eventually to archery and then to high powered weapons. They even learned to fire a Civil War black power artillery fieldpiece, now that's some shootin'.

When I was 12 I had a semi-auto .22 LR Winchester rifle with 4x scope, and a .22 High Standard Sentinel 9 shot revolver of my own. I was taught by my dad how to respect and use them safely, and never injured anyone, or myself. When I came in from school back in the late 50s, it was not unusual for me to take either one or both and go hunting in season, or just plinking when it was not. By the time my children were in their teens, they knew how to handle a gun.

NO, I would not expect a toddler or a pre-teen to understand anything having to do with a gun, and they most certainly did not have free access to a loaded handgun or any gun for that matter with the possible exception of a BB, which they could not cock and fire. All that time the weapons were under lock and key and I had the only key in my possession at all times. Kevin’s first shooting experience was at age 11 with a Daisy BB, taking care of pigeons that got into my sports car shop on occasion and tended to crap on customer’s cars if they were not taken out.

When our grandchildren come here, which is not often since one is in Belgium, and the other four are in Chicago, the weapons are secured under lock and key, and again only I have the key. The only time my pistol is easily available is when only the missus and I are home and no youngsters are about. However, sometimes the dogs are home alone, but I don't think they have figured out how to use it yet.

By the way, both of my children were always very well behaved, and it did not come from corporal punishment. I communicated with them verbally, and expected them to act accordingly, which they did as I treated them with respect and it was returned. Teachers remarked on both of them about their maturity and communication skills all the way through school. I talked with them at a level they could understand.

They never did the drug thing or the booze thing, never smoked, anything, were never disrespectful of others, especially adults, and usually did what I asked them to do the first time, because I always asked first. They knew that when it came to the second time it was no longer a request, it was a do it now instruction. Third time would have been a little tougher, but they never allowed it to go that far, and they always knew it would be consistent.

Before he was of driving age I also taught Kevin how to handle a car at high speed because I knew it would eventually happen at some time when he started driving. We also built British SCCA Production Class racecars, and Kevin learned what to do when things went wrong. He is now 35, and has never wrecked a car by loosing control, although a woman pulled out in front of him one time and stopped, and he hit her but was not charged. He is a great competition driver, and we will be racing together again in Texas. A car is much more dangerous to kids than guns ever were. Again, teaching the proper use thereof, and how to handle the things makes all the difference, just as with guns.

Both of them are responsible adults, in steady long-term marriages, no drinking, drugs, or running around, with equally dedicated spouses and great parents with children of their own, so something must have worked. When the grandchildren are old enough to understand, they will be instructed in the proper safety, use, and respect of all weapons, and the etiquette of shooting.

Therefore, the children this ******* reared were as youngsters, and are still exemplary in their adulthood, and set a very high mark for their peers to emulate. They are rearing their children in the same manner in which they were reared, and our daughter's 3 1/2 year old is already counting and speaking in English, French and Spanish as taught by his mother who was an honors student in HS and College. My son is a self-taught acoustic engineer who has been headhunted by Dr. Bose of BOSE, himself three times, and still he refuses. He wants eventually to do his own bit like his old man, and I taught him from earliest age. He is presently the Senior Technical Engineering Consultant for a large national corporation based in Chicago.

I have been self-employed for 3/4 of my professional life because I like it that way. I do what I please, when I please, and work as hard or as easy as I desire. We have customers worldwide. Have a look at www.deltamarineozone.com should you care to.

I am going into semi-retirement in April and moving from Fort Lauderdale to Texas so I can play with grandchildren. Yes, when they are old enough to understand, they will be instructed in firearms safety and use, if they so desire, just as their parents were. They will also be taught to handle a horse, and when the time comes, how to handle a car, and at the high speed end of each, in a safe manner, and in a way that they can understand. May sound simple, but it works, every time

It is fun to bait folks who quickly get their asses up on their shoulders about things like guns and weapons, and I especially get a kick when they have to resort to words like "moron" and "ignorant *******." Such depth, such insight.

I know you don’t give a rat's ass about all this, *******, so get a life please and piss off. This is boring.

The Fool

6th January 2003, 05:19 PM

CCSmariner.
If I told you that you could remove from the world the gun that was statistically most likely to kill you or your children would you consider it a good idea?

CSSMariner

6th January 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
CCSmariner.
If I told you that you could remove from the world the gun that was statistically most likely to kill you or your children would you consider it a good idea?

Statistics, statistics, statistics. I suppose everything else is just evidence. How about al the millions of others that did not kill anybody?

Statistics show that one is far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident within five miles of home. I suppose we should do all our driving no closer than five miles from home and statistically we would be accident-free..

G'day and go away mate!

The Fool

6th January 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner

Statistics, statistics, statistics. I suppose everything else is just evidence. How about al the millions of others that did not kill anybody?

Statistics show that one is far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident within five miles of home. I suppose we should do all our driving no closer than five miles from home and statistically we would be accident-free..

G'day and go away mate!

No, I refuse to go away..... I will sit here until you admit I am right :)

I really have no problems with nice people owning guns, But freedom to own guns also includes the not so nice.... One of the lines I read on this forum that really makes me laugh is the one that goes "things would be safer for you if everyone carried guns". I'm not suggesting this is your line but that little proposition is just stupidity. I sometimes drink at a fairly robust little drinking hole...sometimes there are scuffles, nose to nose discussions etc...occasionally someone gets thumped. If everyone in the place was packing a handgun it would, suposedly, be a lot safer...........yea, whatever.

Standup for your rights to bear arms or arm bears, I don't care....but whats with this guns=safety stuff? I live in a society where gun ownership is rare... I like it that way, Democracy and the rule of law are what keeps people safe and free, not a personal arsenal.

Rollerball37

6th January 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by CSSMariner
>SNIP!<
They even learned to fire a Civil War black power artillery fieldpiece, now that's some shootin'.

When I was 12 I had a semi-auto .22 LR Winchester rifle with 4x scope... >SNIP!<

You live in a trailer court, don't you?

So what is it about guns that get you off so much?
Do they make you feel more like a man or are you just so frightened of the world that you need the extra security?

You sure to blab about them a lot. I don't get it, I couldn't give a rat's ass about guns one way or the other. You speak about them as if it's some kind of right of passage. Like a freakin' religion or something. "My grand kids will learn guns just as my kids did and I did and my daddy did and his daddy before him... blah blah." Why? My family got through life fine without worshiping guns, all the families I know are fine without worshiping guns.

Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to take your precious bang-bang toys away from you. I say go nuts, but I'm just curious about it because you seem to expect respect because you've played with guns since you were 12. I'm not getting it.

By the way, the smack in the face remark is just what I'd expect from trailer tras... er.. excuse me, a 'gun lover'.

Andalyn

6th January 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Rollerball37

You live in a trailer court, don't you?

So what is it about guns that get you off so much?
Do they make you feel more like a man or are you just so frightened of the world that you need the extra security?

You sure to blab about them a lot. I don't get it, I couldn't give a rat's ass about guns one way or the other. You speak about them as if it's some kind of right of passage. Like a freakin' religion or something. "My grand kids will learn guns just as my kids did and I did and my daddy did and his daddy before him... blah blah." Why? My family got through life fine without worshiping guns, all the families I know are fine without worshiping guns.

Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to take your precious bang-bang toys away from you. I say go nuts, but I'm just curious about it because you seem to expect respect because you've played with guns since you were 12. I'm not getting it.

By the way, the smack in the face remark is just what I'd expect from trailer tras... er.. excuse me, a 'gun lover'.

Dude, you are trolling. :) This is a thread about guns and the second amendment - is it not?

CSSMariner

7th January 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Rollerball37

You live in a trailer court, don't you?

By the way, the smack in the face remark is just what I'd expect from trailer tras... er.. excuse me, a 'gun lover'.

My, my, you are a snob after all aren't you, speaking of those who occupy trailers as though they are less worthy as individuals, or citizens. I do know some folks who lived in trailers who were much nicer folks that some ******** in more permanent abodes. I just went outside and looked for wheels under the foundation, but could not find any. They must be hidden under the in-ground pool. Just for the record, it is a 4/3 with formal dining room and a sunken living room on a big, fenced-in lot that will sell for about 300K when we leave, so this must surely be a double wide. In Texas we are planning on buying another 4/3 on 8 acres so I can have horses. We looked at a 35-acre place, but that was too much to maintain.

But none of that matters, they are only details. I have friends who live in trailers, apartments, condos, single-family homes, and some in multi million dollar homes here and in the islands. Some of them own guns, some don't, but I do not value less those who choose not to do so. Clearly, you seem to consider yourself a cut above the "typical gun owner." The reason for the "Slap in the mouth" remark was, there is no such thing as a "typical gun owners" and it would take a smack in the mouth call your attention to that simple fact. If you had any sense at all you could figure that out. Is it too hard for you, or do you just want to remain smug in your superior non-gun owner attitude?

No, I did not offer to smack you in the mouth. I have hit two people in my entire life, once in elementary school, and once as an adult, and that last one was in 1968 in Munich, Germany. I am a very non-violent person, and try never to become that upset because I did not find it comfortable either time and it takes a while for the adrenalin to wear off. When I come across ******** in life, I just calmly turn my back and walk away and that really pisses them off. Although at 213 and 6', I am fully capable of doing so, I do not think that beating up on someone’s head will in any way change their thoughts, so why make the effort?

Thanks to you mate, this string has devolved into snide remarks, insults, and crude innuendos from someone who clearly feels he is superior to anyone just because he or she happens to enjoy the sport of shooting, and support the individual's right to bear arms, and I don't mean the rolling up of one's sleeves. There are many great Americans who also enjoy shooting and own guns, but I suppose they live in trailers as well.

Clearly I am spending far too much time here reading crap from the likes of you. I am going to unsubscribe from this thread because I do not have any more time to waste on idiocy and pointless arguments with a fool.

The Fool

7th January 2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Rollerball37

:trolling content removed:

who ordered a troll? anyone order this troll? no?...hmmm,ok, send it back to the kitchen.

kittynh

7th January 2003, 05:24 PM

No trailer park prejudice please! Nice people live in trailers, including I was interested to find out Sister Wendy!

King of the Americas

8th January 2003, 07:06 AM

...if the individual who begins the tread, actually controlled it. Such that when it was hijacked by a troll, the debate's integrity could be protected.

---

What keeps us free & safe...

...from trolls?

HERE, it would appear nothing. However, I would like to make a sincere attempt to revert back to the initial subject:

Guns, firearms, cannonery...and the ability to use them effeciently is what keeps anything or anyone 'secure'.

It is only when you appear weak, unarmed, and defenceless that you put yourself in danger.

THINK LIKE A PREDATOR. You don't try to take down the biggest, strongest, fastest, most well armed...THAT is how you get injured. No, you attack who you need to, in order to survive. It is always the weak and slow that draw the attention of the entire wolf pack.

Take guns away from citizens, localize them in a facility under lock and key, only accessible by beauratic bearers, and you'll see an invasion of 'some' kind of armed forces, be they local gangs or an invading force. Crime's ultimate defence is deterance, this victum may be better armed than me, what then?

I am aware of a study done that featured a strict law, that each and every civilian over the age of 21 was 'required' to own/carry some kind of firearm and be proficient in its use, be enforced across an entire town. The results were supposedly a drastic decrease in crime...

...I say 'supposedly' because I have never actually seen documentation of this event, and I fear it may be one of those 'urban statistic myths'.

The point is to have less weakness, and thus fewer attacks.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that crime is only caused by the appearance of an unarmed, weak civilian. Crime is also caused by neccessity. If a man is hungry, he will steal, rob, and commit other crimes in order to keep food in his stomach.

An NRA bumper sticker on a car, the possibility that a victum might be armed, sends him to the next car...probably.

8th January 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Andalyn

Don't know. Could be quite a few.

Therefore, stern warnings are not enough for all children, Q.E.D.

I'm not talking about teenagers, but even the best and brightest small children DO occasionally disobey Daddy, you know. Better safe than sorry.

Andalyn

8th January 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by sundog

Therefore, stern warnings are not enough for all children, Q.E.D.

I'm not talking about teenagers, but even the best and brightest small children DO occasionally disobey Daddy, you know. Better safe than sorry.

Yes, of course - but why not not responding to my post in context next time?

#1 - Yes, guns should be kept away from small children.

#2 - Many more small children are killed by other things. Hell, many more people are killed by other things.

#3 - Nothing is enough for all people. However, it seemed to work okay relatively alright in the past, why not now?

Is there such a great need for legislation or control due to the huge number of deaths of kids? Or are people like you beating this drum for other reasons. Could it be that you just don't like guns, so you are willing to make any claim?

But, what about the kids?!?!?!?!?

I love kids. I would also have you realize that this position taken by you is a position taken by others on a wide variety of topics. Appeal to Emotion. I have shown that "kids" deaths by firearms is not an epidemic. I have shown that more "kids" will die by drowning and poisoning. Why don't you jump on the that bandwagon?

Rollerball37

8th January 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
It would be nice...if the individual who begins the tread, actually controlled it. Such that when it was hijacked by a troll, the debate's integrity could be protected.

That would be great! That way you could control everything that is posted and only allow thoughts that agree with your own.... just like you do on your message board. Under the banner of "protecting the integrity of the debate" you could censor to your hearts content.

...oh if only you could truly be king.

Someday Albert, someday.

8th January 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Andalyn

Yes, of course - but why not not responding to my post in context next time?

#1 - Yes, guns should be kept away from small children.

#

That was my only point. Of course I didn't mean teenagers; teenagers are responsible enough to be around guns. Speaking of context, I don't think we're talking about teenagers who are killed in gun accidents, are we? I thought we were clearly talking about small children. Aren't they the ones who statistically are the most involved in this kind of gun accidents, or am I wrong?

There's no need to read anything devious into what I'm saying, it's a simple syllogism:

1. Some children are killed by guns.

2. Some percentage of those children were warned very sternly not to touch the guns.

3. Therefore, stern warnings alone are not enough to protect all children.

Premise #2 would of course require statistical backing, but I think we can agree to it in principle. No holes can be picked in this syllogism otherwise.

Now combine it with this syllogism:

1. I love my children and want to protect them to the absolute best of my ability, eliminating every danger from their lives while I am their protector, as far as this is possible and reasonable.

2. If we accept syllogism 1, some proportion of children who were only warned about guns will die.

3. Therefore I should take a stronger action than simply warning my children about guns.

If anyone can find fault with either of these I'd like to hear it. The only appeal to emotion from start to finish is premise 1 in syllogism 2. I presume you don't take issue with that premise.

I never said a word about any legislation. And by the way, I am a gun owner myself.

Andalyn

8th January 2003, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by sundog

That was my only point. Of course I didn't mean teenagers; teenagers are responsible enough to be around guns. Speaking of context, I don't think we're talking about teenagers who are killed in gun accidents, are we? I thought we were clearly talking about small children. Aren't they the ones who statistically are the most involved in this kind of gun accidents, or am I wrong?

I am thinking that most people who are involved in gun accidents are not children, but those who would routinely handle or have more exposure to guns. More exposure probably creates a greater chance of an accident. I handle a firearm everyday, and although I am trained in it's use - I would assume I have a higher risk of an accident than the 5 year old down the street.

Statistics on this are generally misleading, as I have stated before, because the age group that is generally referred to as "children" are anywhere from 0-19 years of age to 0-25 years of age. You and I would agree that the higher end of these "reported" accidents are in the higher age range of that group.

Originally posted by sundog

There's no need to read anything devious into what I'm saying, it's a simple syllogism:

1. Some children are killed by guns.

2. Some percentage of those children were warned very sternly not to touch the guns.

3. Therefore, stern warnings alone are not enough to protect all children.

Yes. Agreed. However - nothing is ever enough. How many stern warnings are given to teenagers about driving, yet are more likely to wreck a car?

Originally posted by sundog

Premise #2 would of course require statistical backing, but I think we can agree to it in principle. No holes can be picked in this syllogism otherwise.

Now combine it with this syllogism:

1. I love my children and want to protect them to the absolute best of my ability, eliminating every danger from their lives while I am their protector, as far as this is possible and reasonable.

Sure, I understand. However it is not possible or reasonable to suggest that you can eliminate every danger from their lives.

Originally posted by sundog

2. If we accept syllogism 1, some proportion of children who were only warned about guns will die.

Sure. Some will. This cannot be stopped, just as no matter how many stern warnings given to teenagers will stop some of them from dying on the highway.

Originally posted by sundog

3. Therefore I should take a stronger action than simply warning my children about guns.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that a simple stern warning combined with nothing else was all that was needed. What is suggested is that many kids grew up around guns. The vast majority did not shoot themselves. People recoil today at the notion that kids actually can grow up around guns. Why?

I don't know for certain, but I believe that a healthy exposure to firearms while young could probably help de-mystify the whole issue with kids. A healthy respect for guns at an early age. Do you disagree with this?

Originally posted by sundog

If anyone can find fault with either of these I'd like to hear it. The only appeal to emotion from start to finish is premise 1 in syllogism 2. I presume you don't take issue with that premise.

I never said a word about any legislation. And by the way, I am a gun owner myself.

No, I cannot find fault with your premises as written above.

Do you find fault in teaching kids about guns?

9th January 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Andalyn

No, I cannot find fault with your premises as written above.

Do you find fault in teaching kids about guns?

None whatsoever. I don't think we really disagree at all.

Bruce

28th May 2003, 06:57 AM

This thread has been RESSURECTED !!!

Malachi151

28th May 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...has something to do with the 2nd amendment, to me.

I seriously hold that it is our tendency to be armed that has kept us from being invaded for so many years. It is only when we appear to be fat, lazy, and unarmed that we will place ourselves in an invader's way.

No army would wish to fight a well armed civilian population from within it own cities...

...military dictators prefer unarmed citizens.

LOL, nothing like a resurrected thread :p

Anyway, the 2nd Amendment is not being upheld currently, and it is in fact impossible to uphold in modern time.

What does the 2nd Amendment really mean?

It really means that the CITIZENS are supposed to hold greater military power then the GOVENRMENT.

Obviously this is not the case and its not even possible, therefore the 2nd Amendment is useless.

The failure to be able to uphold the 2nd Amendment is one of the problems with our country today for sure, but alas there is noting to do about it unless our citizens militia is going to acquire Nuclear weapons, which would defeat the point of a militia anyway, and tanks and jets, and satellites, and submarines, etc.

The POINT of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the citizens more powerful physically then the government so that the citizens remain in full control at all times.

This is obviously not the case in America today.

The POINT of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate the ability of citizen to be able to abolish the government when the government does not serve the needs of the citizens. Again, obviously not the case in America today, and in fact laws have been passed that outlaw the overthrow of the government, something that the founders warned against.

At this point the right to bear arms is not an issue of the 2nd Amendment, because the Amendment was not about owning a gun, it was about maintain in a citizens militia that has greater force then the standing army. That condition was lost generations ago.

The founders stated that there should be no large standing army:

So as to reduce the likelihood of the government using the military to invade other countries.

So that the standing army could not be used against the citizen of America.

So that the citizens could overthrow the government when they desired.

Its clear that these conditions have not existed in America since the Civil War.

All the 2nd Amendment BS that these gun advocates spout is just a bunch of useless crap. Its an impossible Amendment to uphold unfortunately. Having a gun in our house does not uphold the Amendment.

Kodiak

28th May 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

LOL, nothing like a resurrected thread :p

Anyway, the 2nd Amendment is not being upheld currently, and it is in fact impossible to uphold in modern time.

What does the 2nd Amendment really mean?

It really means that the CITIZENS are supposed to hold greater military power then the GOVENRMENT.

Obviously this is not the case and its not even possible, therefore the 2nd Amendment is useless.

The failure to be able to uphold the 2nd Amendment is one of the problems with our country today for sure, but alas there is noting to do about it unless our citizens militia is going to acquire Nuclear weapons, which would defeat the point of a militia anyway, and tanks and jets, and satellites, and submarines, etc.

The POINT of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the citizens more powerful physically then the government so that the citizens remain in full control at all times.

This is obviously not the case in America today.

The POINT of the 2nd Amendment is to facilitate the ability of citizen to be able to abolish the government when the government does not serve the needs of the citizens. Again, obviously not the case in America today, and in fact laws have been passed that outlaw the overthrow of the government, something that the founders warned against.

At this point the right to bear arms is not an issue of the 2nd Amendment, because the Amendment was not about owning a gun, it was about maintain in a citizens militia that has greater force then the standing army. That condition was lost generations ago.

The founders stated that there should be no large standing army:

So as to reduce the likelihood of the government using the military to invade other countries.

So that the standing army could not be used against the citizen of America.

So that the citizens could overthrow the government when they desired.

Its clear that these conditions have not existed in America since the Civil War.

All the 2nd Amendment BS that these gun advocates spout is just a bunch of useless crap. Its an impossible Amendment to uphold unfortunately. Having a gun in our house does not uphold the Amendment.

Not surprisingly, you couldn't be more wrong...

"Amendment II --

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.

The Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the militia."

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."
"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

Malachi151

28th May 2003, 09:38 AM

And this proves what? That a bunch of people are wrong? Of course.

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

It is both, its an individual right nesiccary to uphold the collective right.

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

Does it state that its not also a collective right, and when was this ruling?

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

Makes no impact on my point.

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

Duh, its a 2001 ruling, you think they are goign to rule that the 2nd amendment means the civil milita is supposed to be stronger then the federal army? :p

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

Well, most Americans believe in god too, so what? They would be wrong.

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."

Okay, I'll consider this. I'll just have to go back and dig up the qutes from teh time of the drafting of the Constitution.

"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

This again does not dispute the collective intent of the law. The individual intent is a part of the colective intent.

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

Yes, secure the personal rights of the people by allowing them to oppose government by means of force :p

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

This does not invalidate my point.

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.

Exactly, this only proves my point. The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is to prodive for the common defense, it has military intent. The intent of a "common defence" was so that there would not be a large standing army.

I'll have to go dig up quotes on this issue I guess.