***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Cookiemonster]

But where you and so many others on your side lose all credibility is when you start arguing about slippery slopes, about a tyrannical government, about seizure of guns, about dictatorships, etc. That's when normal people shake their heads and think: these guys are ####### crazy. These sorts of arguments are not helping your position whatsoever. They make you look wacko.

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.“

“By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”479

MAHATMA GANDHI, PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONARY

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

ARISTOTLE

“Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

THE DALAI LAMA

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”480

GEORGE ORWELL

“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle, hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”481

HUBERT HUMPHREY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny.”482

JOHN ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.”483

“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 offense.”484

ST. GEORGE TUCKER, AMERICAN REVOLUTION MAJOR AND POST REVOLUTION JUDGE

“In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”485

WALTER MONDALE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN

“Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.”486

THOMAS JEFFERSON, AUTHOR OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”487

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”488

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”489

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”490

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common firearms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house.”491

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”

JAMES MADISON, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

OLIVER STONE, MOVIE DIRECTOR

“I like automatic weapons. I fought for my right to use them in Vietnam.”

PATRICK HENRY, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER AND CATALYST FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

“The great objective is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

MACHIAVELLI

“The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom”492

“From this we plainly see the folly and imprudence of demanding a thing, and saying beforehand that it is intended to be used for evil ... For it is enough to ask a man to give up his arms, without telling him that you intend killing him with them; after you have the arms in hand, then you can do your will with them.”493

TENCHE COXE, REVOLUTIONARY ERA WRITER

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”494

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”495

MALCOLM X, AMERICAN BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST

“It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.” 496

“... I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.”497

SAMUEL ADAMS, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”498

WILLIAM RAWLE, POST-REVOLUTION U.S. ATTORNEY

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”499

THOMAS PAINE, AMERICAN REVOLUTION POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER

“Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order. "

MAFIA INFORMANT SAMMY “THE BULL” GRAVANO

“Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.”

RICHARD HENRY LEE, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”500

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”501

ZACHARIAH JOHNSON

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”502

TIMOTHY DWIGHT, ARMY CHAPLAIN DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed ... to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless ... If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country.”503

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

“The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” 504

“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”505

Looks like us "wackos" are in some pretty good company. I think some of the bolded and especially the red bolded illustrate what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, what it's for, why it exists and that we are not just making believe in our resistance to gun restrictions. Try to think before you call us "nutjobs" or "wackos" and instead consider that you may have been fed too much by your media.

[QUOTE='gunfacts.info]A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights. For broadcasts from major networks from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories:

• The ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was 16:1. • Anti-gun spokespeople (Sarah Brady, etc) were given three times the number of

sound bites than pro-gun spokespeople (NRA, etc).
[/QUOTE]Perhaps turn off the TV. Just sayin'.

 

[Dvorak]

But where you and so many others on your side lose all credibility is when you start arguing about slippery slopes, about a tyrannical government, about seizure of guns, about dictatorships, etc. That's when normal people shake their heads and think: these guys are ####### crazy. These sorts of arguments are not helping your position whatsoever. They make you look wacko.

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.“

“By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”479

MAHATMA GANDHI, PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONARY

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

ARISTOTLE

“Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

THE DALAI LAMA

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”480

GEORGE ORWELL

“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle, hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”481

HUBERT HUMPHREY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny.”482

JOHN ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.”483

“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 offense.”484

ST. GEORGE TUCKER, AMERICAN REVOLUTION MAJOR AND POST REVOLUTION JUDGE

“In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”485

WALTER MONDALE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN

“Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.”486

THOMAS JEFFERSON, AUTHOR OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”487

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”488

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”489

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”490

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common firearms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house.”491

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”

JAMES MADISON, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

OLIVER STONE, MOVIE DIRECTOR

“I like automatic weapons. I fought for my right to use them in Vietnam.”

PATRICK HENRY, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER AND CATALYST FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

“The great objective is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

MACHIAVELLI

“The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom”492

“From this we plainly see the folly and imprudence of demanding a thing, and saying beforehand that it is intended to be used for evil ... For it is enough to ask a man to give up his arms, without telling him that you intend killing him with them; after you have the arms in hand, then you can do your will with them.”493

TENCHE COXE, REVOLUTIONARY ERA WRITER

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”494

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”495

MALCOLM X, AMERICAN BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST

“It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.” 496

“... I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.”497

SAMUEL ADAMS, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”498

WILLIAM RAWLE, POST-REVOLUTION U.S. ATTORNEY

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”499

THOMAS PAINE, AMERICAN REVOLUTION POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER

“Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order. "

MAFIA INFORMANT SAMMY “THE BULL” GRAVANO

“Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.”

RICHARD HENRY LEE, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”500

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”501

ZACHARIAH JOHNSON

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”502

TIMOTHY DWIGHT, ARMY CHAPLAIN DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed ... to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless ... If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country.”503

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

“The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” 504

“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”505

Looks like us "wackos" are in some pretty good company. I think some of the bolded and especially the red bolded illustrate what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, what it's for, why it exists and that we are not just making believe in our resistance to gun restrictions. Try to think before you call us "nutjobs" or "wackos" and instead consider that you may have been fed too much by your media.

You are doing The Lord's work in here, my friend.

 

[Cookiemonster]

You are doing The Lord's work in here, my friend.

That was post #5896

 

[Spanky267]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

Tim, if the American colonists hadnt possessed their own weapons at the beginning of the Revolution there wouldnt have been a Rebellion for the French to support. While it may be true that not all of the weapons used by the colonists were privately held many state militias were bank rolled by wealth land owners. Our Military today is the spiritual descendent of the Continental Army.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

Tim, if the American colonists hadnt possessed their own weapons at the beginning of the Revolution there wouldnt have been a Rebellion for the French to support. While it may be true that not all of the weapons used by the colonists were privately held many state militias were bank rolled by wealth land owners. Our Military today is the spiritual descendent of the Continental Army.

tim getting raked over the coals here.

 

[timschochet]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

Tim, if the American colonists hadnt possessed their own weapons at the beginning of the Revolution there wouldnt have been a Rebellion for the French to support. While it may be true that not all of the weapons used by the colonists were privately held many state militias were bank rolled by wealth land owners. Our Military today is the spiritual descendent of the Continental Army.

tim getting raked over the coals here.

Hardly. He didn't contradict anything I wrote. And Cookiemonster's quotes don't justify the belief that privately owned firearms protect a nation against tyranny. They never have and they never will. You guys can believe this all you want but I'm telling you it makes you look nutty and extremist. And if the NRA pushes this as their main reason for opposing mild gun control measures, they will continue to lose more public support.

 

[Glass Joe]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

You mean like in 1774 and 1775 when the British were removing arms from the states? The British Parliament banned the export of muskets and ammo to the colonies. This was all before the Revolutionary War and one of the causes of it. State militias were hiding their cannons and #### out in the woods so they wouldn't be confiscated.Acts like this are one of the primary reasons George Mason argued for the inclusion of right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. They didn't want standing federal armies during peacetime that could enforce the government's will like English kings used to do. There were always political struggles involving Kings, Legislatures and Churches and gun control laws and standing armies were used to weaken enemies.

There is so much wrong with what you wrote here that I'm not sure where to start but:1. Although some of the colonists brought their own privately owned guns to militias, more were given guns BY the militia, and these guns were not owned but were the shared property of the militia.

2. Many of the weapons we used to defeat the British were given to us by France. We also received from France training and direct military aid, and these facts are the key to our success in the American Revolution, not the presence of privately owned guns.

3. The spiritual descendents of our early militia movement is not today's private gun owner, but our military forces and the national guard.

Tim, if the American colonists hadnt possessed their own weapons at the beginning of the Revolution there wouldnt have been a Rebellion for the French to support. While it may be true that not all of the weapons used by the colonists were privately held many state militias were bank rolled by wealth land owners. Our Military today is the spiritual descendent of the Continental Army.

tim getting raked over the coals here.

Hardly. He didn't contradict anything I wrote. And Cookiemonster's quotes don't justify the belief that privately owned firearms protect a nation against tyranny. They never have and they never will. You guys can believe this all you want but I'm telling you it makes you look nutty and extremist. And if the NRA pushes this as their main reason for opposing mild gun control measures, they will continue to lose more public support.

They're in so deep with their gun fetish they can't see how nutty they look to the rest of the world.

 

[Cookiemonster]

They're in so deep with their gun fetish they can't see how nutty they look to the rest of the world.

 

[Cookiemonster]

A huge, black hole in the argument for registration, "assault weapons" bans and magazine capacity restrictions is the coming out party of 3D printers. Magazines for ARs of all capacities up to 30 rounds are soon to be made public. AK magazines already are. AR lowers (the registered part) are already public and being made. They are not of the quality and durability of machined parts, but will soon be much more available, cheaper and untraceable. ANYBODY criminal, mentally impaired, political, juvenile, exiled, pedophile, crosseyed, crippled or crazy will have access to their own AR-15 knockoff. So what if it only last 100 rounds? That is more than most mass-shooters deploy. If I were you, I'd either get your own firearm and learn how to use it, or hope nobody decides to make you their #####.

 

[Dvorak]

A huge, black hole in the argument for registration,

Please hurry up and delete this!You just gave Tim enough ammo to go on for another 120 pages.

 

[Abraham]

I am still in favor of mandatory jail time for both registered owner and possessor of a firearm not possessed by its registered owner. That would drastically increase the control of firearms by their registered owners (and not the government).

 

[Cookiemonster]

I am still in favor of mandatory jail time for both registered owner and possessor of a firearm not possessed by its registered owner. That would drastically increase the control of firearms by their registered owners (and not the government).

So, I can't loan my dad a pistol to take to the range? What if they're stolen - and before you say, "Charge them for dereliction, they should be locked away," try my google search. If this applies both ways, then I'm on board. My link and my other link.

 

[Cookiemonster]

A huge, black hole in the argument for registration,

Please hurry up and delete this!You just gave Tim enough ammo to go on for another 120 pages.

Then I'll be here for 121.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.The left: calls the the right idiots and

So 3 pages later and this still holds true.

 

[Dvorak]

A huge, black hole in the argument for registration,

Please hurry up and delete this!You just gave Tim enough ammo to go on for another 120 pages.

Then I'll be here for 121.

Well then, 120 pages of fake-expert testimony about the "The Homemade Gun Loophole" soon to be coming your way! I can't wait!

 

[timschochet]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:

There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically:

end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically: end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy. If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

My opinion won't change. It wouldn't effect me at all. I live in Kalifornia, so I already have all those rules. 53% in favor on liberal web pages do conflict quite a bit with the numbers I have seen on conservative pages. Besides, EOs cannot make law. They are only a method of directing the federal law enforcement agencies under the President's command as to how he wants them to enforce discretionary facets of existing federal laws. Obama, from what I understand, can not make 10+ round magazines illegal. He can not make AR-15s illegal. The background check thing he probably can tighten up.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I have no problem with closing any private or "gun show" loopholes. I buy all my guns legally.

There are hundreds of millions of "standard" high capacity magazines in American homes already so it will not be relevant for decades.

You guys have made sure that America is well stocked.

Besides I can afford a top of the line 3D printer.

 

[Dvorak]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically: end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy. If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

I think it would be a huge mistake for Obama politically, especially given the current make-up of the US Supreme Court. So, I would welcome it thinking he would lose in court and would result in an even greater victory for our second amendment rights than were confirmed in the Heller decision. I'm still going to make sure my representatives hear my disgust with the EO, but I will leave it in the hands of SCOTUS.Our local news covered this pretty fairly, IMO. My linkHeck, if they find that he issued an unconstitutional EO, would it open up grounds for impeachment?Edit to add, I should be careful what I wish for. I was pretty sure Obamacare was going down. The whole, it's a tax/it's not a tax flip threw me off. He's a smart politician, so I'm sure the legal arguments will be written before the EO is signed.

 

[urbanhack]

LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS ON A FRIDAY NIGHT!

 

[SacramentoBob]

LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS ON A FRIDAY NIGHT!

Killing it lately.

 

[Cookiemonster]

LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS ON A FRIDAY NIGHT!

Killing it lately.

He said to the guy who came into a gun thread on a fantasy football forum on a Friday night.

 

[urbanhack]

LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS ON A FRIDAY NIGHT!

Killing it lately.

He said to the guy who came into a gun thread on a fantasy football forum on a Friday night.

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE***

Member name Posts

timschochet 454

Otis 304

ATC1 239

Henry Ford 230

5 digit know nothing 228

Matthias 174

Apple Jack 157

tom22406 147

Mr Two Cents 140

Cookiemonster 136

 

[Hoosier16]

I love the idea in this thread about having a database held by the manufacturers. A question I have about it is comparing it to maybe something like the phone companies. Is it still a tough thing for the government to subpoena phone records or is it just easy access for them?

The purpose of that was in the manufacturers' best interest of maintaining that privacy for fear of a devastating loss of their consumer base for violating it. It would, of course, have to have strong restrictions on government usage. Like I mentioned, subpoena by law enforcement who have said gun in hand, and reference to a case number to validate the investigation, and only on a case by case basis. No blanket inquiries by ANY organization. Not public record, and not published (like a phone book).

I understand that and I like the idea but I am just trying to make a comparison to the phone companies to see what the government reach is there. We could say that there would be restrictions on the government on the records but how limited would it be? Is it tough to get phone records for the government? What's to say they wouldn't pass this for the manufacturers and it really wouldn't matter since the gov does what it wants anyway and these records would be readily available.

Ah. So I could see where backdoor deals by the government and under the table payoffs could be a problem. We need to close the private sale to government loophole too then, eh? It sucks when they have to play by the same rules as us.

Yeah, I wanted to like the idea and thought it might be a good answer but think it'll just become a gov database in the long run anyway. I'm still not seeing a compelling argument in favor of a database and what good it would do.

I don't understand the fear. In the scenario we discussed here, the manufacturers would only hold the information to which FFL the gun was sold. They would not hold any information about private ownership. Any information about transfers to and between private individuals would be maintained by FFLs. Maybe gun manufacturers are an easy target for the government but it would be tough to confiscate records from every FFL. I can't even imagine how it could be done.I think the phone records analogy isn't a good one. I think our health system is a better one. For the government to access your health records, they have to go through an individual doctor (FFL). Your doctor won't give up that info without a subpoena and there would be massive stalling and lawsuits if the government ever demanded blanket access to every doctor's records. Your FFL will act the same, and probably even be more protective of that information.

 

[Cookiemonster]

LET'S ARGUE ABOUT GUNS ON A FRIDAY NIGHT!

Killing it lately.

He said to the guy who came into a gun thread on a fantasy football forum on a Friday night.

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE***

Member name Posts

timschochet 454

Otis 304

ATC1 239

Henry Ford 230

5 digit know nothing 228

Matthias 174

Apple Jack 157

tom22406 147

Mr Two Cents 140

Cookiemonster 136

And... Yeah, my life is lame enough that I'm in here debating guns on a Friday night. I can say that with pride to a guy who's life is so lame he comes to a thread he doesn't care for, in an off topic forum, on a fantasy football message board, to make fun of people he doesn't know, ON THE INTERNET, on a Friday night..

 

[tom22406]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically: end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy. If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

I don't believe he will need to use executive orders to get the background check done and in fact believe this will pass with ease if sent alone.The magazine limit will face stiffer competition but as long as it doesn't include a ban on the weapons that can accept them it should pass even though I believe it truly is not going to make any real change in crime or mass shootings.So my belief is IF these are the only things asked for he should get them but I don't see that going down at all.I see a pretty extensive list of guns included in this thus making it very difficult to pass.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:

There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically:

end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

I don't believe he will need to use executive orders to get the background check done and in fact believe this will pass with ease if sent alone.The magazine limit will face stiffer competition but as long as it doesn't include a ban on the weapons that can accept them it should pass even though I believe it truly is not going to make any real change in crime or mass shootings.

So my belief is IF these are the only things asked for he should get them but I don't see that going down at all.I see a pretty extensive list of guns included in this thus making it very difficult to pass.

In my lack of political expertise, I think he gets gun registry through Senate with no problem, and it's a close-but-not-quite in the House. Magazine and/or gun bans aren't going to get through at all, and Biden's "threat" of E.O.s are only that. It's a face save to make it look like they're doing all that they can do, but are restricted by partisan bickering and republican blockading to gain sympathy. I don't actually believe Obama is really trying to take a hard line against guns, but only to make it look like he is trying to "save the children" without pissing off the NRA, losing court battles, having E.O.s overturned by SCOTUS and losing a lot of dem backers come mid-term elections if serious gun restrictions were to come to pass. By not taking drastic measures, he ends up looking like the guy who was hamstrung to the left, who didn't go out of his way to step on the right, and who looks very reasonable to all when flanked by Feinstein and Bloomberg. If we see any further gun laws, it will be fairly minor IMO. More than gun rights groups want, not nearly enough for anti gun groups, and we'll all let the issue slip to the back of our minds just in time for mid-terms.

 

[Abraham]

I am still in favor of mandatory jail time for both registered owner and possessor of a firearm not possessed by its registered owner. That would drastically increase the control of firearms by their registered owners (and not the government).

So, I can't loan my dad a pistol to take to the range?

Correct.

What if they're stolen - and before you say, "Charge them for dereliction, they should be locked away," try my google search. If this applies both ways, then I'm on board. My link and my other link.

Report it stolen. The intent of such a law would be to place the burden on gun owners to secure their guns. It plays in to satisfying both sides: if you want to own a gun, you are free to. But it is YOUR responsibility at all times.

 

[tom22406]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:

There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically:

end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

I don't believe he will need to use executive orders to get the background check done and in fact believe this will pass with ease if sent alone.The magazine limit will face stiffer competition but as long as it doesn't include a ban on the weapons that can accept them it should pass even though I believe it truly is not going to make any real change in crime or mass shootings.

So my belief is IF these are the only things asked for he should get them but I don't see that going down at all.I see a pretty extensive list of guns included in this thus making it very difficult to pass.

In my lack of political expertise, I think he gets gun registry through Senate with no problem, and it's a close-but-not-quite in the House. Magazine and/or gun bans aren't going to get through at all, and Biden's "threat" of E.O.s are only that. It's a face save to make it look like they're doing all that they can do, but are restricted by partisan bickering and republican blockading to gain sympathy. I don't actually believe Obama is really trying to take a hard line against guns, but only to make it look like he is trying to "save the children" without pissing off the NRA, losing court battles, having E.O.s overturned by SCOTUS and losing a lot of dem backers come mid-term elections if serious gun restrictions were to come to pass. By not taking drastic measures, he ends up looking like the guy who was hamstrung to the left, who didn't go out of his way to step on the right, and who looks very reasonable to all when flanked by Feinstein and Bloomberg. If we see any further gun laws, it will be fairly minor IMO. More than gun rights groups want, not nearly enough for anti gun groups, and we'll all let the issue slip to the back of our minds just in time for mid-terms.

You could be right and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were true.Another line of thinking is this is another attempt to paint the conservatives as the bad guys for not passing "common sense"(seen this thrown around a ton)laws and to say well we tried but look at those nuts who hate kids and don't care about America.Either way this is all about politics and nothing to do with stopping the real problems.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Either way this is all about politics and nothing to do with stopping the real problems.

Amen, brother. Just wish more could read between the lines.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I am still in favor of mandatory jail time for both registered owner and possessor of a firearm not possessed by its registered owner. That would drastically increase the control of firearms by their registered owners (and not the government).

So, I can't loan my dad a pistol to take to the range?

Correct.

What if they're stolen - and before you say, "Charge them for dereliction, they should be locked away," try my google search. If this applies both ways, then I'm on board. My link and my other link.

Report it stolen. The intent of such a law would be to place the burden on gun owners to secure their guns. It plays in to satisfying both sides: if you want to own a gun, you are free to. But it is YOUR responsibility at all times.

Is there a grace period for reporting it stolen? Several of my guns only see the light of day once a year. Many people have guns in their collection that never come out (curio/relics). How often are we supposed to take inventory? My shotgun could be stolen and I wouldn't know it for a couple weeks or more. A .22 rifle of mine could be gone for a year or two before I'd notice.How secure is secure? A $2000 safe that can be opened in 30+ minutes by thieves with $100 worth of tools, or the $700 safe from the box stores that can be burgled in 5 minutes with $25 worth of tools? Or cable locks with the master locks we all love, and the way the Marine Corps kept our M-16s locked up during boot camp that I can open in 5 seconds with a scrap of aluminum soda can? You know how easy it is to pick a < $75 residential or commercial door lock? Cable locks and security cabinets are only good for keeping inquisitive young children safe. A determined teenager can gain enough info from friends or youtube to use your tools (or your empty Pepsi) to get to your guns. Casual criminals may be deterred by the $2000 safe, but not the $150 security cabinet from Walmart. Good thieves will be deterred by the $2000 safe, but not the $700 safe. No safe is protected from professional thieves and only inventive ways to disguise/camouflage your stash can save your stuff. So where do we draw the line as "responsible security?"Your ideas sound fine on paper, but in practical application are found wanting. IT IS CRIMINALS WHO ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT GUNS. I'd prefer to be capable of stopping a couple armed criminals since we can't seem to be able to segregate the criminals out of our daily lives.

 

[timschochet]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:

There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically:

end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

I don't believe he will need to use executive orders to get the background check done and in fact believe this will pass with ease if sent alone.The magazine limit will face stiffer competition but as long as it doesn't include a ban on the weapons that can accept them it should pass even though I believe it truly is not going to make any real change in crime or mass shootings.

So my belief is IF these are the only things asked for he should get them but I don't see that going down at all.I see a pretty extensive list of guns included in this thus making it very difficult to pass.

In my lack of political expertise, I think he gets gun registry through Senate with no problem, and it's a close-but-not-quite in the House. Magazine and/or gun bans aren't going to get through at all, and Biden's "threat" of E.O.s are only that. It's a face save to make it look like they're doing all that they can do, but are restricted by partisan bickering and republican blockading to gain sympathy. I don't actually believe Obama is really trying to take a hard line against guns, but only to make it look like he is trying to "save the children" without pissing off the NRA, losing court battles, having E.O.s overturned by SCOTUS and losing a lot of dem backers come mid-term elections if serious gun restrictions were to come to pass. By not taking drastic measures, he ends up looking like the guy who was hamstrung to the left, who didn't go out of his way to step on the right, and who looks very reasonable to all when flanked by Feinstein and Bloomberg. If we see any further gun laws, it will be fairly minor IMO. More than gun rights groups want, not nearly enough for anti gun groups, and we'll all let the issue slip to the back of our minds just in time for mid-terms.

Very interesting analysis. The reason I believe there will likely be executive orders is that Congress seems incapable of debating single issue bills. I dont believe there will be one bill for universal background checks, but rather an omnibus bill that includes all of the proposed gun control measures- and that is unlikely to ever pass.

The other point is that a lot of Dems in Congress are very uneasy about this. They receive support from the NRA and they don't want to be forced to vote against the NRA. So they may pressure Obama to be the bad guy here. Obama is already beyond the pale to the NRA and its membership; he needn't worry about making them any more angry.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Question for Cookiemonster, Dvorak, Mr. Two Cents, et. al:

There is more and more talk about Obama using executive order to enact certain gun control methods that are popular with the public. Specifically:

end the private sales loophole to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.• ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

If Obama signs executive orders that these two things be done, what do you guys think will happen? What will your reaction be?

I don't believe he will need to use executive orders to get the background check done and in fact believe this will pass with ease if sent alone.The magazine limit will face stiffer competition but as long as it doesn't include a ban on the weapons that can accept them it should pass even though I believe it truly is not going to make any real change in crime or mass shootings.

So my belief is IF these are the only things asked for he should get them but I don't see that going down at all.I see a pretty extensive list of guns included in this thus making it very difficult to pass.

In my lack of political expertise, I think he gets gun registry through Senate with no problem, and it's a close-but-not-quite in the House. Magazine and/or gun bans aren't going to get through at all, and Biden's "threat" of E.O.s are only that. It's a face save to make it look like they're doing all that they can do, but are restricted by partisan bickering and republican blockading to gain sympathy. I don't actually believe Obama is really trying to take a hard line against guns, but only to make it look like he is trying to "save the children" without pissing off the NRA, losing court battles, having E.O.s overturned by SCOTUS and losing a lot of dem backers come mid-term elections if serious gun restrictions were to come to pass. By not taking drastic measures, he ends up looking like the guy who was hamstrung to the left, who didn't go out of his way to step on the right, and who looks very reasonable to all when flanked by Feinstein and Bloomberg. If we see any further gun laws, it will be fairly minor IMO. More than gun rights groups want, not nearly enough for anti gun groups, and we'll all let the issue slip to the back of our minds just in time for mid-terms.

Very interesting analysis. The reason I believe there will likely be executive orders is that Congress seems incapable of debating single issue bills. I dont believe there will be one bill for universal background checks, but rather an omnibus bill that includes all of the proposed gun control measures- and that is unlikely to ever pass.

The other point is that a lot of Dems in Congress are very uneasy about this. They receive support from the NRA and they don't want to be forced to vote against the NRA. So they may pressure Obama to be the bad guy here. Obama is already beyond the pale to the NRA and its membership; he needn't worry about making them any more angry.

I don't think for a second that they actually intend to push the Feinstein proposal, but would happily shoot for a more minimal registration only bill, since that is all they really seem to have good support for.Taking into account how minimal the NRA has been about these issues and how vanilla Obama has been despite popular perception of his anti-gun stance, I have to think there is either hidden agendas that have already been debated, or a consensus that furthering gun restrictions could be bad for both sides so, "Let's put on a good show and keep 'em quiet." The latter is what I'm worried about, in that if no further restrictions are imposed, the right will easily be made to blame and could result in a big shift towards the left in the house and an increase in the already majority senate. Why I said several pages back, "Whoever wins the battle, may lose the war."

 

[cobalt_27]

But where you and so many others on your side lose all credibility is when you start arguing about slippery slopes, about a tyrannical government, about seizure of guns, about dictatorships, etc. That's when normal people shake their heads and think: these guys are ####### crazy. These sorts of arguments are not helping your position whatsoever. They make you look wacko.

JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.“

“By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”479

MAHATMA GANDHI, PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONARY

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

ARISTOTLE

“Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.”

THE DALAI LAMA

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”480

GEORGE ORWELL

“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle, hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”481

HUBERT HUMPHREY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny.”482

JOHN ADAMS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.”483

“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 offense.”484

ST. GEORGE TUCKER, AMERICAN REVOLUTION MAJOR AND POST REVOLUTION JUDGE

“In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”485

WALTER MONDALE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AND U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN

“Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.”486

THOMAS JEFFERSON, AUTHOR OF THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”487

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”488

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”489

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”490

“I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common firearms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house.”491

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”

JAMES MADISON, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

OLIVER STONE, MOVIE DIRECTOR

“I like automatic weapons. I fought for my right to use them in Vietnam.”

PATRICK HENRY, AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHER AND CATALYST FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS

“The great objective is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

MACHIAVELLI

“The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom”492

“From this we plainly see the folly and imprudence of demanding a thing, and saying beforehand that it is intended to be used for evil ... For it is enough to ask a man to give up his arms, without telling him that you intend killing him with them; after you have the arms in hand, then you can do your will with them.”493

TENCHE COXE, REVOLUTIONARY ERA WRITER

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”494

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”495

MALCOLM X, AMERICAN BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST

“It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.” 496

“... I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.”497

SAMUEL ADAMS, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”498

WILLIAM RAWLE, POST-REVOLUTION U.S. ATTORNEY

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”499

THOMAS PAINE, AMERICAN REVOLUTION POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER

“Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order. "

MAFIA INFORMANT SAMMY “THE BULL” GRAVANO

“Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins.”

RICHARD HENRY LEE, MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”500

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”501

ZACHARIAH JOHNSON

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”502

TIMOTHY DWIGHT, ARMY CHAPLAIN DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed ... to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless ... If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country.”503

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

“The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” 504

“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”505

Looks like us "wackos" are in some pretty good company. I think some of the bolded and especially the red bolded illustrate what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, what it's for, why it exists and that we are not just making believe in our resistance to gun restrictions. Try to think before you call us "nutjobs" or "wackos" and instead consider that you may have been fed too much by your media.

You are doing The Lord's work in here, my friend.

Nobody here is looking to marginalized the Second Amendment. You guys are all in a froth over this, when your rights aren't going to be taken away any more than they already are by the fact that you can't purchase a rocket launcher or RPG.

 

[Dvorak]

Nobody here is looking to marginalized the Second Amendment. You guys are all in a froth over this, when your rights aren't going to be taken away any more than they already are by the fact that you can't purchase a rocket launcher or RPG.

My bad, I thought they were trying to make my AR-15 with a 30 round magazine illegal. Let's move on then.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

re: magazine capsAs soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".http://www.assaultweapon.info/

 

[timschochet]

re: magazine capsAs soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But in both of those situations, even more people might have died without the cap. And in the case of Jared Loughner, less people would likely have died with the cap. And many of the Aurora families believe this to be true in their case as well. Your post demonstrates, correctly, that magazine caps will not deter these crazy mass shooters. What it might do, however, is limit their damage, sometimes. And that's enough for me to support doing it.

 

[hammerva]

This last page is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country. Jon Stewart put it best when he basically said that we can't solve today's real issue of guns in this country because we are more worried about a future imaginary problem. I mean in the last 4 years of Obama when has he EVER taken guns away from law abiding "responsible" as you love to use people? They might have taken away permits but when you go on youtube telling people that you will kill people in the government if they try is just asking for it. Hell the NRA and the right should be thanking him because gun sales have increased and more weapons out there. You can mention Hitler and Stalin a million times but there is absolutely no proof that the government and our military is out to take over the people and steal all of our guns. It is a way to scare the stupid and naive but there is no factual proof anywhere

 

[hammerva]

Nobody here is looking to marginalized the Second Amendment. You guys are all in a froth over this, when your rights aren't going to be taken away any more than they already are by the fact that you can't purchase a rocket launcher or RPG.

My bad, I thought they were trying to make my AR-15 with a 30 round magazine illegal. Let's move on then.

And what do you actually use that AR-15 with a 30 round magazine that you can't do with a smaller one with 20 round magazine.

 

[tom22406]

This keeps being brought up so I thought I would throw this out and a warning for the very bottom of this(if you even make it that far)that has a picture that may disturb you.

Who really needs an AR-15?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This last page is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country. Jon Stewart put it best when he basically said that we can't solve today's real issue of guns in this country because we are more worried about a future imaginary problem. I mean in the last 4 years of Obama when has he EVER taken guns away from law abiding "responsible" as you love to use people? They might have taken away permits but when you go on youtube telling people that you will kill people in the government if they try is just asking for it. Hell the NRA and the right should be thanking him because gun sales have increased and more weapons out there. You can mention Hitler and Stalin a million times but there is absolutely no proof that the government and our military is out to take over the people and steal all of our guns. It is a way to scare the stupid and naive but there is no factual proof anywhere

So here you have Tim saying "what if" and now you are blaming the pro-gun crowd for saying "what if", irony at its best.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

re: magazine capsAs soon as the AWB became law, manufacturers began retooling in order to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant with the new gun regulations. One of those new, ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995 carbine, which was sold with ten-round magazines.In 1999, five years into the Federal AWB, the Columbine shooting occurred. Eric Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: 13 magazines were found in the aftermath. Harris fired at least 98 rounds before killing himself.Cho (Va Tech shooting) fired approximately 170 rounds - or 10 rounds per magazine - from two handguns before killing himself.Like Eric Harris before him, Cho demonstrated that a magazine cap was incidental to the amount of death and destruction an unopposed murderer could cause in a "gun-free zone".http://www.assaultweapon.info/

But in both of those situations, even more people might have died without the cap. And in the case of Jared Loughner, less people would likely have died with the cap. And many of the Aurora families believe this to be true in their case as well. Your post demonstrates, correctly, that magazine caps will not deter these crazy mass shooters. What it might do, however, is limit their damage, sometimes. And that's enough for me to support doing it.

Speculation at its best. I give you two examples where about 100 rounds went off adhering to these new laws you want passed and you are so blind to realize it will have no noticeable impact. You keep saying it "might save one life". Banning gasoline or Drano might save one life too it is a ridiculous argument.

 

[spreagle]

This last page is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country. Jon Stewart put it best when he basically said that we can't solve today's real issue of guns in this country because we are more worried about a future imaginary problem. I mean in the last 4 years of Obama when has he EVER taken guns away from law abiding "responsible" as you love to use people? They might have taken away permits but when you go on youtube telling people that you will kill people in the government if they try is just asking for it. Hell the NRA and the right should be thanking him because gun sales have increased and more weapons out there. You can mention Hitler and Stalin a million times but there is absolutely no proof that the government and our military is out to take over the people and steal all of our guns. It is a way to scare the stupid and naive but there is no factual proof anywhere

Here, I found you an example of absolutely no proof:“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” Diane Feinstein

 

[hammerva]

You can say what if all you want as long as you have actual factual proof that the "what if" can occur. I can say "what if the US gets invaded by a military alien life force that will drop nuclear bombs and destroy our cities" but there is absolutely nothing to prove that will happen and preparing yourself for it is stupid. This whole preparing for a government take over and capture of law abiding citizens guns is just this paranoid fantasy.

 

[hammerva]

This last page is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country. Jon Stewart put it best when he basically said that we can't solve today's real issue of guns in this country because we are more worried about a future imaginary problem. I mean in the last 4 years of Obama when has he EVER taken guns away from law abiding "responsible" as you love to use people? They might have taken away permits but when you go on youtube telling people that you will kill people in the government if they try is just asking for it. Hell the NRA and the right should be thanking him because gun sales have increased and more weapons out there. You can mention Hitler and Stalin a million times but there is absolutely no proof that the government and our military is out to take over the people and steal all of our guns. It is a way to scare the stupid and naive but there is no factual proof anywhere

Here, I found you an example of absolutely no proof:“If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” Diane Feinstein

And you think that would actually happen? If you really believe that the Senate would vote for this and the president would sign this then you are proving your paranoia.

 

[Cookiemonster]

This last page is why we will never have any real changes involving gun in our country. Jon Stewart put it best when he basically said that we can't solve today's real issue of guns in this country because we are more worried about a future imaginary problem. I mean in the last 4 years of Obama when has he EVER taken guns away from law abiding "responsible" as you love to use people? They might have taken away permits but when you go on youtube telling people that you will kill people in the government if they try is just asking for it. Hell the NRA and the right should be thanking him because gun sales have increased and more weapons out there. You can mention Hitler and Stalin a million times but there is absolutely no proof that the government and our military is out to take over the people and steal all of our guns. It is a way to scare the stupid and naive but there is no factual proof anywhere

My link1st of all, you listen to Jon Stewart. I listen to Rush and Hannity. We're never going to see eye to eye on this, and the best arguments we could make would only convince the other that we're not "bat #### crazy." I haven't seen you in this thread, where I have only been on board for the last 1500 or so posts, so I'll take another shot and see if you are more like ChopMeat or Matthias (so far anti-gun you can't talk to him), Timschochet (very left, and mostly ant-gun but will accept reason for what it is and is willing to take a peek at what is on the other side of the fence), or if you just have not heard more than one side (Jon Stewart's).If you see all gun owners similar to the wanna-be-militaristic-tactifool instructor on youtube, then you would only be about 0.05% right about us. Yes, there are some of us like that out there. 50% just don't care unless it affects only them. Probably 40% of us are just pissed about all the gun talk, and about the fact that a proven non-solution is being preached about by the same people that have been preaching the same things for 15+ years, only because they had a couple good tragedies to use. I think this whole gun debate is a disrespect to the slaughters that happened, and to the root problem and is also a disrespect to our citizens who are being bombarded by the heavily-anti-gun-influenced media who take the side of a very vocal few in politics who are fanning the newfound flame for gun bans. It is sad that our media can control our population's feelings so much by telling everybody what they're afraid of and who/what is to blame for it, but nothing about how to fix it. We have gone on for pages and pages here about the effectiveness of gun-free zones (killing fields), AWBs (very little, if any effect - but are used in so few crimes that their sample size is too small to even determine whether the previous AWB made any difference or not), and magazine restrictions (been shown plenty of times that limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows down the rounds per minute rate from about 100 to about 90 rpm) and that even eliminating semi-auto could be minimally effective in slowing down someone who was willing to put in the work and practice (most of these mass-killings are done by mentally damaged people, but they are usually of at least average intelligence, patient, thorough and deliberate in their planning and fairly resourceful - so practice reloading a revolver to be 90% as fast as semi-auto is a non-issue). The only other issue that is up for grabs is keeping the guns out of hands of criminals. Some want to say we should be required by law to have them locked up. I squashed the idea of that just a few posts back. I didn't even get into the protection from search and seizure that controlling our methods of locking guns up would violate. The other idea is a nationwide gun registry. That is worth debating back and forth if you don't care to go back a few pages. I have the patience to do it again. Let me know and we can discuss... again.

 

[timschochet]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

 

[tom22406]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

If you ever need a Constitutional lesson you should listen to Mark Levin.

 

[timschochet]

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Diane Feinstein

Just for reference, she's talking about all assault rifles here, NOT about all guns. The statement was a response to a point made, that the AWB including grandfathering in all assault weapons that were previously owned. It's been misconstrued ever since to suggest that Feinstein is secretly (or not so secretly) in favor of banning all guns. That is not the case.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I listen to Rush and Hannity.

That explains a lot.

Same difference, but instead of trying to be funny (Stewart) they try to be sensational. Actually, I prefer to listen to my iPod, but there is two sides to the fence... not that I have to explain that to you. At least we can agree, or agree to disagree depending on the subject.