Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Honestly, RAZD, what would you do, offer them some tea and ask why they just broke in to your house? I wonder if you'd be so glib about it with small children in the house.You are right, we don't know the reason the intruder is in the house, which is precisely why one should be [and is] afforded the right to be armed. Police carry firearms in the event they will need them. Well, it is the same for the citizen. They are there in the event they are needed. That is the beauty of freedom. One of your freedoms is to opt not to partake in another freedom. Perhaps you've never seen one of their programs, but it is well-sourced. Nice character assassination because they're magicians, as if magicians couldn't possibly be cerebral. You are right that the intent of the phrasing, based on numerous historical documents, was to have an army of citizens who, if they wanted to, trained as an army. The closest thing today that models the intent of the Framers is Switzerland. Average and ordinary citizens carrying guns. The only difference is they have conscription laws. You have to fight for Switzerland because of its small size. Not so, in the colonies.However, this does NOT take away from the basic premise that the common citizen was never intended to not be armed. There were a few dissenters, but most agreed and believed it was a right for the average citizen to be armed.How do we know? "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tenche Coxe; Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. -- Samuel Adams, letter written to John Adams Oct 04, 1790 "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence." -- John Adams; Legal Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 3:248. "The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison; Federalist Papers #46 "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." -- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to Major John Cartwright (June 5 1824) "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -- Melancton Smith, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.There were a minority who saw it as you do, however. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -- Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper #34, January 5, 1788Even that being the case, the overwhelming trend is in favor of average citizens having the right to bear arms for personal defense. You are drawing false parallels. Nobody but you said that laws were to be enforced by people not in the militia. The issue is whether or not the intent was to preserve the right of individual's to bear arms for individual protection. John Adams goes out of his way to express that the militia, being properly trained, should enforce laws and order, but that even those not in the militia are entitled to defense.In other words, I'm not asking for armed people to run around with guns enforcing their own laws. "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

So is Onifre. Are you saying that comedians or entertainers couldn't possibly be informed? It doesn't mean "just killin people," and never has. That's one of your fabrications and assumptions. It means having the ability to defend oneself.

quote:

---

Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."

---

Can you elaborate on why that is vigilantism? What an idiotic statement. If I think it is a right to be armed in the event of something, it must mean that I "fantasize about it." More fabrications and distortions. Look, Theo, if you are content in being complicit with murderers and rapists, have your fill. But there is no need to demonize people who protect themselves against violent offenders.Would resisting violent people with violence be taking the law in to your hands? You should you just acquiesce? Would you physically resisting the assaulter be assault or defense? If it is not, then what difference is there with arms other than it even the playing field? I have, numerous times. I have outlined each objection. You either don't respond to it or just keep repeating it.This is the last time I am going to ask you.You are in favor of "stricter" gun laws. Please provide some proposals for stricter gun laws. Don't let your menstruation get in the way of a good debate. Get some super-absorbent pads (with wings), pop a few Midol, and get back out there.You want stricter gun laws, then make some proposals. The gun control gang rarely make any real suggestions. The majority of the suggestions are already in place, rendering the argument for stricter gun control moot. And for most, "gun control" is code for "lets get rid of guns."Enough with the hysterical shrill of the echo chamber. Don't merely use platitudes, give me some substantive. Explain what you want.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Are you asking me what the longest shot I've ever made, was? If necessary, yes. In the face of imminent danger against myself or others. So if I haven't had to kill anyone it makes me a pussy? Why do you keep making it about killing people, when the argument is about defense? It's the hormones. Don't worry, it's natural.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Agreed, I just don't think you need a sub-machine or fully automatic weapon to protect you or your family. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and should be protected. The right to bear an uzi is not. The constitution does not place restrictions on gun control. Gun control (controlling what weapons should and should not be legal and allowing the registration of weapons) is fully within the pervue of the federal and state governments.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yes, I agree with states making provisions or reasonable limitations, because the Framers could not have contemplated something as technologically advanced as fully automatic weaponry.One has to interpret the intent and spirit and then reasonably determine what someone needs for a reasonable amount of defense versus a justifications to have better weaponry.I agree with gun control, insofar as they are reasonable limitations. I just often don't agree with the people that advocate gun control, when often it is code for the abolition of guns.That is why I think it is important to define terms and important in outlining the specific means of control.Any suggestions you have are welcomed.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Isn't funny that you accuse people of the same thing you do. Is this determined by the number of quote you can find? Please let us know how YOU know that this was a minority view?You seem to have a schizophrenic view of things.

quote:

---

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams"

---

Makes it very clear that. John Adams thought, though the people have a right to arms they can be and should be regulated.I think you are misreading Sam Adams completely.Notice this line.

quote:

---

or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances;

---

Kind of undermines your whole idea of getting your friends together and overthrowing the government doesn't it.

quote:

---

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." -- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to Major John Cartwright (June 5 1824)

---

So there are to be NO limits on freedom of speech and press either?

quote:

---

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -

---

Possess arms and be taught how to use them. I am all for that, but wouldn't you call that "gun control"? You willing to go to the point of legislating that everyone own arms? Or do you just want to take the things in these quotes that support you and ignore the rest/I find it hilarious that you quote Tenche Cox and Melancton Smith. Had you heard of them before you did Wiki search?More from Smith

quote:

---

"Congress will ever exercise their powers
to levy as much money as the people can pay.
They will not be restrained from direct taxes
by the consideration that necessity does not require them."

---

Tax the hell out of people. That is congresses prerogative.Melancton Smith was also very against the way members of the house of representatives were apportioned.
Page not found - Thirty-Thousand.org
Therefore you need to fight for a different way of apportioning members of the house, since what he had to say is so important to you. Smith was very against the equal representation of people and states.
He was an anti-federalist. In other words he was against the ratification of the constitution. Isn't it strange that you quote a person that was against the very document you claim to defend. Also don't be deceived be the title. He was no farmer. He was a prominent merchant in New York. The letter were simply propaganda.
Also from Tenche Cox.

quote:

---

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

---

Is the second amendment about guns or swords?
Can you give us any other reason we should respect what he or Mr. Smith have to say? Were they prominent leaders or just people that said something you agree with?It is good to see you can do a wiki search, now tell us why what these guys said should matter to us.I can play the quote game all day. Now make a good argument.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Wow we need to have another corollary I think. Since I don't want to kill people that rob me I am complicit with murderers and rapists? Wow how does your brain actually work? Umm no. It ain't. The first time you have asked. Wow sexist and insulting at the same time. This definitely worth pointing out to admins. In your mind.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Registration of ALL purchased/traded guns (including those bought at gun shows and online), illegalize all fully-automatic guns accept manuals and sem-automatics to the general public (exceptions made for registered collectors w/ no criminal history - automatic weapons would be permanently disabled). Limit stockpiles of ammunition and weapons (which should be pretty easy if all legal guns are registered). 3 day cool off period before issuing. All weapons will be serialized and registration will use a central federal database accessible by state and federal law enforcement personnel.Really how difficult can this be? Will this take all weapons out of criminal hands? Of course not but it will alow us to trace their weapons and thus activities easier. Yes, there will still be a blackmarket but it will be harder for these weapons to remain covert and out of the mandated federal registration system. Will this restrict in any way for people to defend themselves or use weapons for recreational activities. No.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Read what DA said. I agree.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I will now begin monitoring this thread. Violations of rule 10 that appear after this messages will bring short suspensions:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

I don't understand how home defense can be considered vigilantism, either, but either explore the issue or ignore it. Insults will only insure absence.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

DA,You and I agree on this topic but the regulations you listed are in place already. No one can legally purchase a fully automatic weapon. It's hard to even buy certain semi auto rifles. There's a million restrictions on magazine capacity (I, as a cop can carry more then the average citizen), type of ammo, ect. There are waiting periods after background checks. The regulation is there, but does anyone think a criminal cares about these regulations? No they don't, they instead go buy their handgun from a local drug house where someone traded a stolen gun taken in a home invasion for a $10 piece of heroin or crack...only law abiding citizens follow the rules.There's not a gun out there (for the most part) that if used in a homicide, that can't be traced to where it originally came from or where and who originally purchased it.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

You can in Missouri. Its a bitch, but you can do it.I shot a fully automatic AR-15 and a Mac-11, IIRC.They really tore up the old bowling pins

Basically it takes is a $200 tax stamp.

quote:

---

Your dealer will send us the proper paperwork for this first transfer, we prepare and fax the Form 3 transfer to BATF immediately, and then once the transfer clears BATF (less than 2 weeks) we ship the gun to your dealer.

​

Your in-state dealer then prepares Form 4 paperwork, which you will sign and also have signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your locale (Sheriff, Chief of Police, State Police Chief, etc...only need for one to sign).

​

You return the completed Form 4's to the in-state dealer, along with (2) passport size photos, (2) fingerprint cards, (1) citizenship authorization, and a transfer tax check made payable to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the one time per item transfer tax. A $200.00 transfer tax applies to Short BBL Shotguns, Short BBL Rifles, Machine Guns and Suppressors; a $5.00 transfer tax applies to items classified as Any Other Weapons - "AOW".

​

This paperwork is mailed to BATF and when this transfer clears you go pick up your gun.

---

Source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Catholic, I'll do some searching but I'm nearly 100% sure that you cannot legally purchase a fully auto gun. Clinton banned this in his sweeping gun ban legislation which made even getting semi auto weapons more difficult.Now, pre ban it might have been easier and guns can certainly be "altered" to be automatic but there's no law in Missouri that would override the Federal ban.I may be wrong on this but 99.9% (yes, it's going down) sure that you cannot purchase a fully auto weapon.

Assault weapons ban had nothing to do with fully auto. Dealt only with semi-auto assault weapons. Well the .01% wins. You are wrong.See my previous post.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts