-91 votes

What's wrong with a little gun control?

I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:

In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.

He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun. I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license. You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel. You have to have car insurance. You have to obey posted speed limits. You're not allowed to drink and drive. You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking.

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

we should have justice.

but the truth is, justice doesn't come from laws, it comes from what is "just" or "righteous". hence, Rights.

laws were supposed to protect those Rights. it doesn't matter what a person drives, carries, has in their basement, etc.. if people want to kill other people they will find ways to do it... killing isn't justified just because you have an f16, and if you have one then others will too... so what's the big deal? if you try something stupid, someone else is going to attack you back and bring you too justice. the problem is when only 1 person or 1 group of people are allowed to have "all the power" ... like when you ban certain weapons from law abiding people... that just makes it so people who care about the law can't defend themselves against people who don't. the notion that you are going to deinvent something by banning it is absurd.

and the 2nd amendment was written with only one thing in mind, ensuring a free state. there is only one way to do that... you have to be able to defend yourself against people with the same arms they would use to violate your rights.

by the musket logic, freedom of the press only pertains to 1 page papers because printing presses back then could only print small amounts...

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Logic

you wrote

"the problem is when only 1 person or 1 group of people are allowed to have "all the power" ... like when you ban certain weapons from law abiding people"

Should a law abiding person be able to have a nuke?

Yes or No

Cyril's picture

In all honesty, I find the example about nukes ... suspect

In all honesty, I find the example about nukes and whether the right to bear arms entitles (or not) people to have those as well ... rather silly, or even, suspect.

If it's not a bit of a stretch, I don't know what is.

I've seen it several times come up, not just in this thread, but others debating pro or against a little more or a little bit less, or none at all, gun control.

Aren't we adults? Can't we have intellectually honest arguments?

Analogy.

Let's say we're in a distinct thread regarding the sharing of best practices in family/fatherhood/motherhood/kids education.

At some point, the topic of teaching little kids about the use of knives comes up.

Some may be proponents or fierce opponents, all in a polite, civilized debate.

But what to think of the person (say, an opponent to knives in little kids' hands) putting it in parallel with the use of ... A CHAINSAW to cut his/her little chicken wings?

Getting to my point?

Back to gun control. Or rather, the right to bear arms. Any arms.

Can we be INTELLECTUALLY honest?

Who SERIOUSLY considers making the parallel with the private ownership of nukes by Joe Schmoe?

WHY THE HELL ON EARTH would ANY Joe Schmoe EVER even consider NEEDING one?

Getting to my point?

It's like the "impossible" in science. Scientists, the serious ones, anyway, are NEVER definitive about their own knowledge and limits thereof. Hence, that encompasses also their notion/what they allude to by "impossible" or "impossible per current knowledge", or "PRACTICALLY impossible".

Even the U.S. government KNOWS that the CURRENT science of the cryptographic schemes they use for encryption of future potential message of order to send a nuke over Iran (or whoever else enemies they have decided) is NOT 100% enemy-proof. They ONLY know, per current science, that it is PRACTICALLY impossible for any of today's enemies to gather enough computing power to break their codes in a timely, counter-offensive fashion.

So, what is it all about putting nukes as OVERKILL weapons to contemplate "bad" / gone postal people to have and use and kill children or innocents?

I don't like to think about it as an excuse of pushing hard a fallacious argument, but I'm a realist, and I can't seem to think of another hidden agenda.

On the other hand...

What about my last remark in this comment linked below, on the type of weapons and how the government gets them (with which money, to begin with), which aren't even nuke ... and yet, that I fail to see easily accessible to anybody yet ... A N Y W A Y ?

http://www.dailypaul.com/271003/whats-wrong-with-a-little-gu...

Wouldn't that be a little bit more on topic?

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

No, I don't get your point

Your all over the place in your argument.

When you say a person can't have nukes, you are now infringing the rights of others to bear arms.

You have now entered the realm of weapon control. So like the good author asks, where is the line for what weapons you can have, and what weapons you can't have?

Answer the question!! Where would you draw the line?

Cyril's picture

"Where would you draw the line?"

"Where would you draw the line ?"

Where? Common sense.

Try to regulate the ownership of knives by people, and make "knives control laws" just because some crazy of them might want to consider/confuse chainsaws with them and harm their neighbors' kids.

Seeing better?

Try.

You don't need to make gun control laws. Because you don't need to make nuke control laws EITHER.

A C T U A L L Y.

It is YOUR government who has decided nukes aren't good for the people to own.

But. Find me someone who REALLY wishes they had a nuke to defend themselves.

It is YOUR government who is now trying to decide which guns aren't good either.

The Big LIE of the 19th and 20th centuries, ongoing : that people's wisdom and common sense is nothing and government's is everything that counts.

You may buy it.

I DO NOT.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The Line

Since you refuse to answer anything, I will tell you were my line is.

My line is at machine guns; because machine guns are made to kill masses of people. I think anything semi-automatic is okay.

There is no common sense. If sense was common, then we would not need to argue anything. Sense is an opinion. People tend to think that those who agree with them have sense, and the opposite for those who disagree.

Cyril's picture

I answered your question.

I answered your question. You may have missed my point, that I can rephrase once again:

why nobody tried to make knives control laws? Because nobody cares. Certainly not the government: they'll find funny you bring a knife to their gun fight if they want to take SOMETHING ELSE from you one day.

It's about principles. And the practical.

"My line is at machine guns; because machine guns are made to kill masses of people. I think anything semi-automatic is okay."

Fine. I could have the same in fact. With just one little modification: then, make sure NOBODY ELSE has those.

N O B O D Y .

Not even law enforcement or your government's (or even, mine) military.

Why would anyone need those if you and I aren't allowed to have them?

Just: WHY, then? Right?

"There is no common sense. If sense was common, then we would not need to argue anything. Sense is an opinion. People tend to think that those who agree with them have sense, and the opposite for those who disagree."

Good for us.

Now at this point I know we will both save time, then.

Because while you believe it (or think it as absolute truth) ... well, I believe the exact opposite.

And I have no intent to even try change your opinion (which almost always fails anyway. We all decide when and how our opinions change, if ever). It's just all about a basic assumption that completely underlies any argument from there on.

Just saying:

if there is no common sense as you say (maybe you're right), then you should start having someone writing laws and regulations (gov't-enforced) about every single of the milliseconds and experiences of our lives.

Start now. It's a lot of work ahead, I'm afraid.

Thanks,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You speak in riddles

And give vague answers with little meaning.

There are knife control laws.

For instance, in California

"Every person who possesses in the passenger's or driver's area of any motor vehicle in any public place or place open to the public, carries upon his or her person, and every person who sells, offers for sale, exposes for sale, loans, transfers, or gives to any other person a switchblade knife having a blade two or more inches in length is guilty of a misdemeanor."

And knives can be used for non-killing purposes such as cutting food, carving wood, skinning animals, opening packages, carpentry, plumbing, painting, fishing. etc.

And many guns have other uses than killing people, like hunting. But machine guns are made for killing masses of people, that's where I draw my little line. It's logical.

Cyril's picture

By the way, I should add, and end with, something else

By the way, I should add, and end with, something else re: my second to last comment, just for the sake to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding.

It's about regulations, precisely, or what it is about laws in general, in a society where justice and laws are proposed, explicited, written, voted on.

I am not against any regulations or laws, of course. But to give a little bit more of background on my rationale on when and how regulations and laws ARE indeed relevant or not, I believe in a general rule of thumb.

The first layer is all encompassing general principles (or "natural", "positive" so-called laws that can be understood by anybody, no matter the culture).

Maybe the first and foremost is the Golden Rule. Either the negative or positive phrasing: don't do to anybody what you wouldn't want to be done against you -OR- treat others as you'd like to be treated.

Just a personal preference: I believe the negative phrasing is easier to understand and apply, even with our human flaws.

Anyway. Only the hypocrite, in my view, will dare claim it's not easily accessible and we have to define it at lengths beyond that. Or give it a detailed interpretation.

Heck, even little kids can understand it as we raise them.

Then, you have a country's foundations: usually laid out after revolutions, at the birth of people gathering against a legacy and unjust power. A good representative for that is the Bill of Rights.

Then, you can build up with more elaborated state laws and regulations.

But here's the thing:

my very deep belief is it is fundamentally wrong and denotes an evil agenda to attempt make laws which supposedly should help make people live more easily, but that in fact LITERALLY INFRINGE on the first two fundamental layers.

Be wary of those who claim texts need their interpretations to be time-dependent.

It is A LIE. No. The founding texts are to be taken LITERALLY. In all times.

I don't even say it though I'm totally convinced. Ron Paul does, about the imaginary Constitution:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Pay attention to his point on Federal Courts who have a political (or "sociological") agenda, with or without good intents - it doesn't matter: they only fundamentally BETRAY what THEIR VERY function was in the first place - TO PRESERVE the meaning of those texts.

To be faithful to texts. It is not as difficult as some love to claim. The Devil is in the detail and complication. A two-line amendment doesn't need more to be understood than what it contains in those two lines. Nothing more than it has, nothing LESS.

Or else ask: why such simplicity and terseness? Where they lazy or in a hurry or ignorant?

No. It was purposely written SIMPLE.

TO LAST generations.

It is like after laying down the foundations of a house, and building upon it the main walls and the roof, well advanced in what should be only interior-only preferences ... you would put at stakes the very existence of the former two. They are foundations and walls that precisely allow you to still call it "the house".

Why would anyone do that, if it's not to build another *thing*, not a house -maybe a prison- without willing to confess it?

Bottom line:

if it is written once and accepted by many for generations, and built upon, that freedom of speech, move, property, and means of self-defense and representation, then you cannot put them at stake.

Then, either you betray your past words, your language, or your past commitment to both.

A spade is a spade. You can invent many other words/synonyms for it. But if you call something which isn't a spade "a spade", while pretending you are still genuinely referring to a spade (that you know ISN'T one)...

this is THE LIE.

And it forcibly has a purpose.

Principles are principles. Denying them in disguise with semantics of things that DEPEND on them is the same as betraying the word "spade".

Just like for machine guns today, the founders COULD HAVE made a provision to exclude some types of powerful canons or ways to using explosive powder. Or limiting accumulated amounts.

Truth is:

T H E Y

D I D

N O T.

WHO seriously thinks it HASN'T occurred to them that they may have to make such provisions? Did they have ALREADY political unanimity around them from all? AND ONLY political friends?

I don't think so.

YET,

THEY STILL decided NOT to close the door to their people to defend themselves against anyone, by any means, "by bearing arms", including possibly against the future, short or middle term governments they knew would follow soon after.

Because THEY KNEW already the nature of government IS ONLY FORCE. They knew all too well.

They were humble and devoted enough, to a cause of Liberty GREATER than their own ambitions, TO SURRENDER to the power of such Freedom principles, if they would allow it to be written down, once and for all. For themselves as much as for others.

At the risk of shocking many, I think regulations can even be many in fact, but they should be about things which are as far as possible from the founding principles of Liberty and its Freedoms.

What's the big deal, then? The useless or annoying ones (regulations or laws) will die/be rejected as fast as they were born.

I wouldn't care much a state tries to regulate on, say, the color of housing roofs in historical sites with many monuments - say, because of the local touristic activity/business or whatnots. As soon as the number of people too p*ssed off overwhelms the proponents, the law or regulation will be just voted against (or rather, repealed/replaced) in turn.

Either way: THE PEOPLE had chosen PRO ... and then CON.

Many laws and regulations are business and markets-related. Usually for more fairness in exchanges. They can work for a while, or longer, or very short times. But you can always change them.

It is fine as long as THE STAKES on the fundamental principles and freedoms are non-existent.

But DO NOT touch these, precisely, again: freedom of move, speech, association, property, and self-defense. And justice, due jury process, with trial, etc.

Or what you put in your own body or your kids' and how. If I don't like what you do, I'll look elsewhere. Who would I be to tell you what is right or wrong for you, as long as I'm free, myself, to do otherwise?

Who would I be what is right or wrong for you to own or how to defend your property? Or your person?

That is Liberty. And the Bill of Rights.

Very simple and strong principles to protect all the people and especially minorities, including you or I, against the tyranny of the majority or ... a government who PRETENDS to be on the side of the latter (sometimes, even to protect just ONE PERSON who is eccentric or avant garde enough to do like no one else does.)

Any angel-looking smooth talker may convince you it is out of good intents to challenge these. But can't we know better?

Seriously.

History books exist. The Romans and the Bread and Circuses schemes in their politics aren't that old, and are well documented.

We all know how Rome ended, too.

The people's common sense HAS CHOSEN those simple and powerful lines in the Bill of Rights in the first place. Mind you. As THE FOUNDATIONS, precisely.

It WAS NOT done randomly. They knew about reading History before their times, too.

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Well, funny coincidence.

Well, funny coincidence. Since I live in California, my own wife told me about that law a few weeks ago. I'm not even sure we were talking about this current gun control laws thing.

And we both find it idiotic. In a catalogue, we could see many OTHER types of knives as deadly (or more) than the few ones illegal, which could be even more easily concealed than the formers, too.

Yeah. Dear government can tell us what is the best to use for killing by the crazies and should be made illegal. Sure.

Tell me about logic.

I'm afraid they're just more interested in making sure YOU (and I) don't have this or that type of guns, for WHATEVER purpose they find impractical to deal with, that YOU (and I) won't get to know.

Again. You can try regulate just about anything. It's a choice/acceptance.

Just not mine.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

A nuke cannot be used in

A nuke cannot be used in reasonable self defense by an individual. There's no way to defend your home with it. There's no way to target a specific aggressor without ridiculous cost in innocent life and property damage. No single individual should ever be able to use such a weapon.

An "individual" in a home should be limited to the sorts of weapons which can apply selective targetting. We have neighbors. There are cars going by. A military paterned rifle with high capacity magazines is perfectly fine for this application.

Conversly, explosives, chemical weapons, etc cannot be reasonably controled to target "only" the agressor without unacceptable risk to innocent bystanders. Unlike a military patterned rifle which requires very little training to handle safley, weapons such as the above mentioned require specialized training to handle safley. They require specialized storage to keep safley. They present utterly unacceptable hazards in an urban setting where normal occurances like house-fires may happen. A gun isn't going to detonate spilling toxic chemicals or a blast radius to take out your neighborhood when your house burns down while you're away for the weekened.

These things should be common sense.

However when it comes to "community" defense against an external or internal threat, thats where the militia comes in. A local militia should absolutly have access to an armory filled with military grade weapons of war, including battle rifles, explosives, missles, tanks etc. These should be handed out to civilians who rise to the defense of their community up to the level of their training.

That's my take.

Any reason for the downvote?

Any reason for the downvote?

I figure an individual should be able to keep any kind of gun he can get his hands on. Im all for 100 round mags or bigger if you can get them. Full auto? Fine with me. Explosives and chemical weapons can't really be used to target specific targets without presenting ridiculous danger to neighbors.

Im not saying they should be prohibited by law. Im saying thats why people don't use them for home defense. I imagine if you live out in the boondocks, then whatever floats your boat.

As far as nukes are concerned, no one person should ever wield that sort of power. A nuke should require several people in seperate, but high places to activiate. Just my take.

Just thought I would add this small bit of history.

I saw a report some years ago, that during the Cuban Missile Crises, Russians had single tactical nukes on board small boat"s" under the control of the one man operating the boat....

If that is the (or in any) case, why should we limit ourselves to a bazooka? ...

Especially if your families you are trying to protect are out of range of the blast...

When at war, it all comes down to who has the bigger club.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Nothing

When I range tested for my CHL, I was 50 for 50 at all distances.

Gun Control is EXCELLENT and I have MASTERED Gun control.

If you come for mine, I can assure you, I am coming for those that come for mine and hell will be following close behind the rounds that I send down range.

Cyril's picture

+1. Point !

+1 Point !

I wish that's what "gun control" would refer to, by common sense wisdom, instead of having to fiercely oppose that horrendous denial of the Bill of Rights' (wisdom), in recent news.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Spot on

thanks for the +1

I will say that I completely

I will say that I completely agree that if you own a gun, any gun, you should be trained in the use of it. Properly trained.

You can't say you need to buy a gun in self-defense and then claim that you shouldn't be trained to use it. And you can get extra training if you want; there should be some minimal level of training required.

I think I'd also start putting some responsibility on gun sellers. Remove all restrictions if you want; just tell gun sellers or even manufacturers that if you sell a gun to someone and an accident happens, you will face some liability.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You don't need advanced

You don't need advanced training to handle a gun. My wife has a .38 snubnose hammerless. Simple Suzy. She understands that the hurt comes out of the pointy end, and that pulling the trigger makes it go. What more does she need? She's not an idiot, so she understands not to point it at people or leave it where the children can get it.

If she needs it, she can have it in her hand in moments. There is no saftey. Whomever has given my wife a reason to shoot will probably be nearly on top her by that point, so she really doesn't even need to be a marksman.

I think its benifits every gun owner to shoot and shoot often. That said, it is in no way a criteria needed to excersize your right to self defense.

No. That is just Another Round-About way to Infringe.

A gun seller is simply providing a product;

If I sell you a stick of gum and you go home and choke to death on it, am I liable.

The Last thing you want is to allow attorneys in on Rights,

That's half the problem we have today... Attorneys questioning logic and finding fault where there is none.

Guns are dangerous, ...

Horses are dangerous... What, should Christopher Reed have had the right to sue the person that sold him the horse he fell off of and broke his neck? Of Course not;

It what is called a tragedy; an accident; all terrible; but we can't all walk around with airbags on our chest.

I had a neighbor who when he was a child of 7 would ride his horse a number of miles to school around 1920's with a 22 caliber rifle and put it in the coat room at school; If he saw something to shoot and bring home for dinner he would;

Any relative that visits us I show them how to shoot so long as they are big enough to lift the barrel;

Should there be access to learning for those who do not have someone to show them? Yes;

Schools, Boy Scouts, Gun clubs, and even Stores can and do give access to lessons.

Liability? No.

Not to say insurance is a bad thing, where it can be afforded to assist if there is an accident.

But that is not the same as "adverse" liability.

We are talking about a item of greater good that bad thing can happen if used incorrectly;

Leave a hammer on top of a ladder, and you will more than likely experience a headache when you move the ladder;

When you concider that MILLIONS of guns in America killed NO ONE yesturday, or any day in the last 20 years; We have some pretty responsible people in the US;

The only thing that could cause a issue, is where the Federal or state governments try to abuse their powers, impoverish us or place us under arbitrary power... Which sadly is exactly what they are doing at the prodding on of all the state born EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGED ENTITIES (Corporations, Unions, Special Interests, non delegated federal and state bureaucracies, Un-enumerated Taxation, Zoning etc) that have been benefiting from the corruption.

John Locke: #201. "It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that; for wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the "preservation of their properties" is applied to "other ends", and made use of to IMPOVERISH, HARASS, or SUBDUE THEM to the ARBITRARY and irregular commands of those that have it, THERE IT PRESENTLY BECOMES TYRANNY, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."

See John Locke on Civil Government: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Locke_Civil...

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

It has to do with the degree

It has to do with the degree and hurting others.

There is obviously a much higher rate of gun violence and gun accidents than there are horse accidents/death horse accidents...the fact that I couldn't type horse violence without laughing alone supports my point.

Same with your chewing gum example.

Considering the relatively high frequency of gun accidents and gun-related violence, I do think we need something in place tha tputs the onus on sellers. When the NRA's members pursue legislation that increases gun ownership amongs criminals and felons because it leads to more profits in their hands, there is negligence.

Right now, what is the incentive for a gun seller or manufacturer to sell his weapons responsibly?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Full of fallacy

I do think we need something in place that puts the onus on sellers.
The government needs to do something to protect us!
There should be a law!

How many times have we heard that before? Anti free market rhetoric.
The gun industry is pathetically small, even the largest of which are sometimes anti gun and push for removal of their firearms from the civilian market. See HK and Ruger.

Right now, what is the incentive for a gun seller or manufacturer to sell his weapons responsibly?

Insanely fallacious. What's the incentive for dewalt to sell their drills responsibly? I mean If I kill someone with a drill, how will dewalt be punished?

That's probably the most anti-free market thing i've ever read on this site.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

fun with etymology...

arm (n.2) - weapon, weapons of a warrior (plural), implements of war (plural)
keep (v.) - to seize, hold, to observe, to keep an eye on
bear (v.) - bring, bring forth, produce, to wear, to carry

Applying a little substitution mojo, the phrase:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

becomes:

"the right of the people to [seize, hold, observe, keep an eye on] and [bring, bring forth, produce, wear, carry] [weapons, weapons of a warrior, implements of war] shall NOT be infringed."

Not "weapons of hunting" or a "weapon sufficient to protect your house" or a "weapon less powerful than domestic law enforcement" but weapons of ---> WAR.

Any questions? :D

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

*BEST ANSWER*

Thank you!!

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -John Quincy Adams

Epic answer. Put that in

Epic answer. Put that in your pipe and smoke it gun grabbing noobs.

BOYohboyohboy. ---- "LESSON"!!!

They didn't have guns like that???

OK; I think that you are not understanding several things here... Power and Force are two; Authority is another; Definition of Militia is another. "Original Compacts" yet another. Resistance yet another.

I will try to be brief as I can to summarize then back it up with Founders Documents etc.

When a Republic is created, it creates the "AUTHORITIES" for which it is to operate under. These "authorities" usually limited in free government REPUBLICS. Any authority NOT granted, is reserved by the people. NOTE: EXCEPT for those items UNDER the DELEGATED powers, REPUBLIC COMPACTS CANNOT CHANGE WITHOUT "COMPLETELY DISSOLVING AND REMOVING ALL AUTHORITY". i.e. Returning the people back into the STATE of NATURE.

I know this will seem strange, but that is fact; A government attempting to continue or create laws under its OWN AUTHORITY without abiding with the laws, limits and authorities "previously agreed to" by the people who created compact, USURPS the Original and acts without authority... Usually becoming tyranical against the liberty and properties of those who created it.

Lets say, just for arguments sake... now they (the government) are the only ones with a nuclear arsenal...large guns, planes with bombs and bigger knives... and you have a semi-automatic rifle and a pocket full of 30 bullet clips...

I do not want to scare you, but this imbalance of power is what has been the case in all of history's tragic stories of tyrants and subjects since the beginning... I'll let you look at history on that one.

Now, they, whoever they may be, who has a nuke, say's I'm going to NUKE YOU!

OK, Big decision here.... you pick up your knife? or your tactical nuke? (knife?nuke?knife?nuke?)

Ok, maybe that concept is hard to follow, So, let's go back to 1776;

Britain, sends a "Man of War" with sixty cannons and two hundred of Britain's Finest and they Say...

We're going to BOMB YOUR TOWN TO ASHES, SHOOT YOU and STICK YOU WITH OUR BAYONETS!!!

(now they usually used "floral words" like "We humbly implore you not to resist...)

Then when you didn't comply they "BOMBED YOUR TOWN TO ASHES, SHOT YOU and STUCK YOU WITH THEIR BAYONETS!!!

Note that the two examples - "NUKES and BOMBS" result in the SAME RESULTS... YOU and Everyone in your Town DEAD.

----

OK, another Big Choice arrises here.... You either pick up your "Musket" and Go out alone to do battle ...

"ORRRR".... You Unbury your "8 pound cannons" that you have "buried" (GASP! CONCEALED) in your field for just that "Rare" occurrence (i.e. That you MAY ... HEAVEN FORBID" have to "GASP AGAIN" "K.I.L.L." (GASP THE K.I.L.L. WORD) YOUR OWN "TORY" GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES-OFFICIALS- NEIGHBORS-POLICE-SOLDIERS etc.. "WHOLESALE"),

Placing those "CANNONS" and the "2 TONS" of Powder Kegs and EXPLODING 8 pound "CANNON BALLS", and "GRAPE SHOT" (What a shotgun!) that you DID "NOT" NEED to ask your state or federal government permission to buy; or to have a license to CONCEAL OR POSSES;

(What Caliber is a 8 or 12 pound Cannon Ball? hmmmm?)

Loading them Onto your FISHING or Trade ship, inside your "VEHICLE" without permit (Wagon), and along your shores;

Grab 400 ARMED towns people equally upset about having their property and liberty taken and DEFEND YOURSELF;......

Doing to the TORYS (Cheering all the while at every success) ALL the dastardly things which they would to do to you if you did not OBEY THEM! (then go home toast a beer and write a ballad);

Just to establish a point here, this is exactly what happened in 1776. (its true!)

And note that the BRITISH thought that they were "AMERICANS" TOO... (nono, really, many of them actually did.. go figure!)

Of course that little trivia didn't keep us from educating them to "essential natural rights" their king had conveniently put aside.

Samuel Adams: "...Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity FORGET that you WERE our countrymen.”

...is what he told them...

Many of "them" who lived here are still lying at the bottom of our harbors (along with a few REAL "Liberty loving" (to make a distinction) "Americans" who had lived here also whom we greatly owe our freedoms to).

The issue here is "freedom and liberty" "DEFINED";

and the "ABILITY to ADEQUATELY REPEL" "ANY" force which attempts to take those rights away and enslave you under arbitrary power; No matter where it occurs, or who employs the force, or "where they live".

Much of the pressure from Corrupt state & federal officials, Unions Banks is, well, in the European Union, Corporate entities and others, may very well be needed to be rooted out wherever they reside..." and laws established to Keep out STATE BORN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGED ENTITIES.

The same issues occurring now occurred in 1776; Taxation without CONSENT; Attempts to REMOVE CITIZENS ABILITY TO RESIST by taking ARMS that would LEVEL the playing field; Taking Property without Consent; ARBITRARY REGULATIONS; Foreign abuse of power... , Overburdened by Wasteful Bureaucracies ...etc.

ALL Warned that it would happen again by Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 (See Suggested Reading Below)

OK, MILITIA:

Now lets Look at who the MILITIA was,

The TRUE Definition of "MILITIA"

James Madison: (who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights):

"The highest number to which a "standing army" can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth (1/100) part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of the number ABLE to bear arms. This PORTION would not yield, in the United States, an (standing) army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To "these" would be "OPPOSED" (APP: indicating tha...t the "MILITIA" is to be a "OPPOSING force" to the standing army, as well as that of foreign enemies)

a (CITIZEN) MILITIA amounting to near half a million CITIZENS with arms in their HANDS,

"officered by men chosen from "AMONG THEMSELVES", (NOT by government or the standing army - a indicator of the TRUE DEFINITION of "MILITIA")

fighting for "their" (the citizen / militia's) common liberties and united and conducted by government"S" (local) possessing their (the citizen / militia's) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a "proportion" (ratio) of regular troops (i.e. standing army).

Besides the advantage of (the CITIZENS) being armed, it forms a barrier against the "enterprises of ambition" (Banks, Corporations Foreign Interests), more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America DID.

Let us NOT INSULT the "free and gallant citizens" of America with the suspicion that they would be "LESS ABLE" to defend the RIGHTS of which they (THE PEOPLE) would be in "ACTUAL POSSESSION" than the DEBASED SUBJECTS of ARBITRARY POWER would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

------

A 25 to 1 CIVILIAN (OFFICERED BY THOSE "CHOSEN AMONG THEMSELVES" - NOT BY GOVERNMENT OR STANDING MILITARY) SUPERIORITY OF "FORCE"

--- "OVER THE STANDING ARMY.".. (Lets see, 25 tanks for us Citizens... annnd "1" for you.... 25 F15 Fighter Planes for us annnnd "1" for you... )

This definition does not mean "National Guard" - FAR FROM IT.

This is You, or You and Me and neighbors who decide "who will be the officers".

In fact, you will read in the Virginia Ratifying Convention that the MILITIAS were not to be neglected, and if they were the states and local governments had the right to arm them without federal approval.

READ IT! Virginia Ratifying convention 6-16-1788, John Marshall - See Link and free .pdf below!

------

President George Washington presented his mistrust in the federal government very clearly and defined the true intent where the powers should lay, and that is in the hands of the civilians.

In response to a proposal for gun registration George Washington in 1790 said:

"ABSOLUTELY NOT. If THE PEOPLE are ARMED and the "federalists" (Federal Government) "DO NOT KNOW WHERE" the ARMS ARE, there can NEVER be an oppressive government."

The "RIGHT to CONCEAL FIREARMS" from the federal government; The "PURPOSE" clearly stated to have the power to put down an oppressive "federal government". This is clearly in line with the 12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence. This defines the Intent of the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founders.

(Quote recorded in the Boston Chronicle 1790; and not bogus as liberals are attempting to sell on Wikipedia, but in fact reported in print.)

------

Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked WHO ARE THE MILITIA, if they be not THE PEOPLE of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, by our representation?

I ask, WHO ARE THE MILITIA? They consist now of the "whole people", except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.

If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. ..."

James Madison - Author of the Constitution - Virginia Resolution 1798:

"...That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that "AMONG OTHER ESSENTIAL RIGHTS", "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press "CANNOT BE CANCELED", abridged, restrained, OR MODIFIED by "ANY AUTHORITY" of the "United States" (federal government),"

(APP: This includes Executive Orders (which in itself is unconstitutional), Legislative or Supre...me Court)

"...and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from EVERY possible attack of "SOPHISTRY or AMBITION", having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, ANNEXED to the Constitution; it would mark a "REPROACHABLE" inconsistency, and "CRIMINAL DEGENERACY", if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of ONE OF THE RIGHTS, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a PRECEDENT (UNDER A PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY) which may be FATAL TO THE OTHER (RIGHTS)...."

Here is a free pdf download of 4 Suggested Reading Founders documents... (which some above are from) so you can read much of the principles that the Constitution is built upon:

http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/American_Pa...

Read the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 in FULL: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

Or you can read our suggested reading from our website.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

Visit, Enjoy, Get Educated.

Know the FOUNDATIONS on which you stand, so that you will know that your actions will have the power of RIGHT.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

jrd3820's picture

We humbly implore you to not resist

lol

Thanks for that

Million Dollar Questions

I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns.

If no one is coming for our guns, why did Gov. Cuomo sign legislation doing so? Why did Illinois just a few weeks ago try to ban and confiscate all semi-automatic weapons? Why are there congressman currently serving a term who have said, if they could, they would ban all guns?

I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen.

Why are you so certain of this? Didn't the Soviets confiscate guns and kill millions upon millions of people afterwards? Didn't the Nazis do it right before they rounded up any "non-Aryan" races? What about when the Chinese did it and killed millions of political dissenters afterward? Have you forgotten the tens of millions of people murdered from the government after they were disarmed by the in the past century? Are those countries too radical and therefore could never happen in such a modern country like the USA? How do you explain Australia then? Or the UK? Are those not reasonable, modernized countries? It happened to them, did it not? Was the result effective? Do you think the gun murder rate going up since the ban has any correlation? Is U.K. gun control the standard when they're the most violent country in the E.U.? Is the U.K.'s violent crime rate of over 2,000 per 100,000 people higher or lower than the U.S.A.'s violent crime rate of 386 per 100,000? If violent crime is rampant in the U.K., what's the purpose of having gun control? Do you think it's because they have the ability to subject their citizens to constant video monitoring? Do you think it's because they have more of an ability to strip their citizen's of privacy? Do you approve of the U.K. putting cameras in the bathroom stalls of schools? Do you think it's okay that U.K. police can arrest you for insulting somebody on Facebook?

I have no problem with stricter laws.

While extermination doesn't seem plausible by our current government, doesn't a police state haunt you? If you have no problem with stricter laws, will you accept authoritarian, police state laws like in the U.K. as a result of stricter gun laws?

Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's.

If 3 armed burglars are breaking into your house, do you not want to defend yourself? Do you think the police will get there before or after they break into your house? Will you even have time to call the police? Do you think a 10 round magazine will defend yourself against 3 armed burglars? You do know we live in the real world and not Hollywood movies, right? Are you not aware that FBI reports show that criminals have routinely survived 5 direct hits of .45 hollow points? AK 47's and semi-automatic weapons of its kind have been around for more than half a century, why is it now a problem?

And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one.

What do you think the citizens of New York think about that? Do you think Illinois residents feel their guns are safe right now? When Obama and his supporters call for a ban on "assault" weapons, how could anyone feel the comfort that they will be able to keep their guns?

These were the same views Reagan had: In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed. As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public. He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

While Reagan's words were magnificent, just as you pointed out his actions were much different than his words, correct? Do you not see it? They banned fully automatic weapons 25 years ago, but why? Because this is a gun Americans just shouldn't have? Because they said we're just banning these military weapons but you can have the rest? Then explain the current attacks on "the rest"? Do you not see that they take what they can now, and come for the rest later? And what does the banning of carrying loaded firearms in public do? Do the criminals abide by it? Aren't loaded, concealed carry laws much more common now anyways? If that was such a good thing, why do so many states now allow it?

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.

How do you not understand what a well-regulated militia means? Is there not plenty of recorded conversations by George Mason (drafted the 2nd amendment) or Thomas Jefferson or George Washington that you can readily pull up online? When you read their words, do they not clearly explain what the militia is? Did they not clearly explain what the purpose is? When you study what the founding fathers meant the 2nd amendment to be, how can you propose they only had muskets in mind? Are the militia supposed to oppose enemies who have modernized weapons with lead balls and gun powder?

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

Who controls those drones? Don't Americans? Do you think every American would openly follow such an order? If you're not sure, why don't you ask somebody that is serving or has served in the military what they think of such an order? How about a police man? Or any citizen for that matter? Do you think a majority of Americans would comply with orders to kill their own? Are there not Sheriffs all over the country denouncing any future gun restrictions? Don't you think the military would be the same way? Or would you agree with Piers Morgan who thinks they'll just drop nuclear bombs on us and rule over a radiated, nuclear wasteland? I guess that would show us, right?

Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is.

The 2nd amendment clearly states the people have the right to bear arms, but I think you and I can agree that jets, missiles, and bombs are not firearms, correct? But isn't the militia supposed to be the last line of defense against tyranny? In a modern world, shouldn't a militia be trained on such modernized things? Are you aware of the Dick Act of 1903 then? Does it not regulate the militia in order for some of the militia to be trained on such things? Don't you know that a state's National Guard is it's form of a regulated militia that are trained on such things? And it brings us back to the question of do you think all people would comply with orders from the federal government that they were passionately, morally, and vehemently against?

Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

What if I say you're extreme based upon the above questions? What if I say you're extreme because you're trying to argue for more gun control but use terms like "assault weapons" to describe an AR-15 and a "rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds" when guns don't hold clips? Should you not become more familiar with guns before arguing against their use?

And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?

And if you know this, why insist on continuous blame of inanimate objects? Did we not have fully automatic rifles and semi-automatic rifles readily available to the public for more than half a century? Why didn't we have school shootings and movie theater shootings occurring on a regular basis 20+ years ago? The media should get it fair share of the blame, shouldn't it? Don't you think that somewhere in the sick minds of some of these people, they want that quick 15 minutes of sickening glory from the mass media? Do you think we're doing our best to improve the opportunities in the inner cities where the overwhelming majority of gun murders occur? Do you think the people who live in these poverty-stricken areas of these large cities are getting the best education opportunities? Do you think there are enough plentiful jobs to grow prosperity in those areas? Do you think that people who grow up in those areas are against a wall of odds to succeed? What do you think happens to people when they've exhausted all options and their backs are against the wall? Do you think we are doing our best as a civilization to help those parts of the country? But even more damning, don't you think we as a society have diminished? Would you agree that we are failing to pass on good values and morals? Wouldn't you agree that our current society is a horrible role model for children?

Before anybody even thinks about gun control, I think those are pressing questions that need to be pondered.

Great points and I appreciate

Great points and I appreciate the appropriate responses. It's late and I'm going to bed, but I will say this. Correct, I am not as educated in guns as most on here. I could probably say the same thing about car engines if that was the argument. But I don't believe I need to know, the ins and outs or the mechanics of a gun to argue for or against it's use. I may not know "how" they work or how they're put together but I personally know what the potential results are when they work correctly.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

I would add that knowing the

I would add that knowing the ins and outs of firearms "is" vital if you want to seriously argue this stuff. A proper understanding of how guns work can divorce you from Hollywood myths and help you to understand why a pistol is "not" all you "need" for home defense.

shills like Piers Morgan keep asking why we "need" an AR-15 for home defense.

When you understand that even your hog-leg .45 with hollow points is not going to turn a human being into a pink mist, nor does a shotgun send a person flying a dozen feet through a wall, then you may understand why more significant firepower is not only appropriate, but "needed" by most homeowners if they truly mean to mount an effective defense against multiple armed intruders.

A pistol is good for a single intruder in most cases "if" you get the drop and empty that whole magazine as fast as you can into him. You still might get shot in an exchange. Pistols lack stopping power.

These are the sorts of things you need to understand about guns if you want to be able to reasonably be able to debait this issue. Because there is a LOT of misinformation going about on guns.. and that is a BIG part of the problem.

double post.. oops

..