In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
You know something. Our cars are licensed. Driving is a PRIVILEGE. This concept is good when used properly. What we are driving is a registered vehicle. Driving is not a right, and testing is issued to assure people are able to properly control a car. Same with a pilot's license.
Owning a firearm is a RIGHT. There is a difference. Most of us learned about guns as teenagers (or in my case, as a 7 year old) from our fathers (or in my case, grandfather, since mine was gone) and we don't need special licenses to own them, or to shoot them. As is stated numerous times in this subject, there is nothing in our rights that associate to hunters, or their alleged rights. The Second Amendment pronounces our right to own firearms and be fully accountable for the actions we do with them. It does not grant us the right to kill at will, as this is an infringement of our 9th Amendment right to not be infringed upon by other's rights. It was never intended to be a solution for an argument. It was not so we can allow our firearms to rust in a case in our closet. It was to ensure the safety of ourselves, our families and our country.
Much like driving is a privilege, So is hunting. It isn't a right. You have to be licensed to hunt, right? I'm with Gordian Blade on this one. Buy your meat at the store like the rest of us. If we really need to thin the herd, let professional consevationalists do it, that way we know exactly what was thinned and there is no danger of poaching. What do you think of that?!?!?
In all seriousness, I may not be a hunter, but I have no problem with hunters hunting until hunters begin having a problem with my choice of firearms. That's when TSHTF.
...and yet there is nothing that says the right to firearms ownership cannot be reasonably regulated. Courts have held that current laws about machine guns, for example, are constitutional; see Haney v. United States regarding Haney's possession of two unregistered machine guns, which was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. Sure you might believe that the right is inviolable, but much like the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms has been limited in scope by Supreme Court decisions on both the state and federal level. Still, it is true that the original framers advocated that the private citizen own similar weapons to an army for the purpose of defense against the government, producing a compelling argument for private firearms ownership. See the Federalist Papers at http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html #24-26, 29, and 46
Guardian, you're right about machine guns; Congress enacted the Firearms Act of 1934 to require their registration, so anyone who pays the tax and has a successful background check and photos taken may own one in a state that doesn't prohibit them. This is an excellent compromise. Still, a semi-auto AK or AR shouldn't be a problem, as with a 30 round mag it addresses both the gang-banger attack you mention and the stray bullet problem you also mention. Unfortunately, the government went too far in '89 with the import "sporting use test" and 1994 domestic assault weapons manufacture ban.
I will second that notion about the '89 import ban and the '94 domestic bans of firearms and their magazines. These are infringements on our rights. As far as I'm concerned, so is the concept of registration. It is a violation of our privacy and it is nobody else's business what I own. And I don't care what you own, either. As far as I'm concerned, if I learned my next door neighbor, a law abiding peaceable citizen, owned a bazooka, I don't care. Why should I? If he is a peaceable man, he won't point that thing my way.
Sorry, but I am completely with Guardian, he sounds a little more educated than many others on here. I haven't read the last 10 or so posts because they all started sounding the same. Yes a gun is a gun, but I could give a rats * about owning a $6,000 Class 3 gun. Proper tactical placement with my Browning .308 will take out any trigger happy idiot any day. I hear it every time I go hunting. Bang...bang bang bang bang bang bang bang...you know the rest. While I do own a semi-auto rifle, every deer I have shot was one shot, one kill. Have you seen what a Mac-10 looks like? Hardly engineered for accuracy. If you want to shoot someone entering your house, you better be damned sure he is armed, he is threatening you, and you have given him an opportunity to retreat. If you don't, you better have a really good lawyer. Criminals have family that can very easily call the ACLU and Gun Control Inc. who would have no problems representing them for free if it could better their cause. In the mean time, they will make sure all the media knows about it and Charlton Heston would have to be doing some spin control. As for as pulling a gun in self defense, you better be fast, be accurate, and he better be chicken or couldn't shoot the broad side of a barn. Intelligence will keep you out of most situations where you would get a gun drawn on you. I tend to avoid bad neighborhoods after dark. Most people out to rob you aren't going to shoot you, but point a gun at you, empty or loaded to scare the * out of you so you give up your stuff. Few want to kill anyone, but you going for your gun turns it into a self defense position for them. The odds aren't in your favor, his is already drawn.
quote:
...and yet there is nothing that says the right to firearms ownership cannot be reasonably regulated. Courts have held that current laws about machine guns, for example, are constitutional; see Haney v. United States regarding Haney's possession of two unregistered machine guns, which was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. Sure you might believe that the right is inviolable, but much like the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms has been limited in scope by Supreme Court decisions on both the state and federal level. Still, it is true that the original framers advocated that the private citizen own similar weapons to an army for the purpose of defense against the government, producing a compelling argument for private firearms ownership.
Edited by - imadork on 06/10/2002 02:28:25
Imadork- There is something that says the right to firearm ownership cannot be reasonably regulated-the second amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That statement says that firearm ownership CANNOT be regulated-at least by the federal government.
I do not see anywhere in the constitution, where it says that the bill of rights can be "reasonably regulated". Bottom line, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT INFRINGE IN ANY WAY ON THOSE RIGHTS LISTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It does not say, "well they can infringe on these rights if it is reasonable". You might think ity is "reasonable" to prohibit ownership of "machine guns". Chuck Schumer thinks it is "reasonable" to register ALL firearms, licence all firearm owners, ban handguns, ban centerfire rifles, etc. He thinks these prohibitions are reasonable. Why do you think that banning(or licensing) machine guns is "reasonable" and constitutional, while Chucks gun laws are not constitutional?Why is Chucks opinion about "reasonable" regulation wrong, but your opinion is right?
No, the right CANNOT BE INFRINGED- that means, the right cannot be infringed in ANY WAY. It does not mean "It can be infringed, if the infringement is reasonable".
I guess you feel that when they said "shall not be infringed" they didnt really mean that.
You seem to rely a bit on how the courts interpet the constitution, as the final arbiter. That might be the case, but that does not make the courts opinion correct. The courts are not god, and they are certainly not infallible, and they are certainly not above deciding an issue on their personal or political "feelings" without any regard to the constitution.
Shortly after the founding of this country, there was a certain "sedition" act. This law stated that it was illegal to speak against the policies of the government, the policies of the president, and the policies of politicians. THis is an obvious infringement on the first amendment. Guess what? The courts did not look at this act as unconstitutional. They went right along with the rest of the federal government, and actually prosecuted people under this blatantly unconstitutional law. The courts did not do the "right" thing. They were in bed with the other branches of government-JUST AS THEY ARE WITH RESPECT TO GUN LAWS TODAY.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
carbineking, I'm glad you're such a great shot with your deer rifle. I'm not that good, so I'll keep my semis and pump shotgun for defending my home, thank you very much.
As far as the bad guy "usually" not wanting to kill me, I guess you haven't read the papers lately, or studied history for that matter. Of course, if a bad guy has the drop on you, you're dead meat no matter what, but that proves nothing. There are hundreds of thousands of cases yearly, some say as many as a million, where someone effectively defended against a bad guy with a firearm, most of which don't involve killing anyone. So please make sure your facts and logic are solid before offering us regurgitated material we've all read hundreds of times from the anti-gun groups.
One last point: When they come to get your .308 deer gun because it could be used as a sniper weapon, don't come crying to me.
I am not sure what the point of "one shot, one kill" is supposed to prove in home defense, anyhow. You fire on a deer, miss, it runs away. Big deal. A street thug, on the other hand, that wants to roll you and is perhaps with others who want to do the same thing, whipping out a gun could make all the difference.
No one can over trump the power of God, the instater of our rights as citizens. Those who shall do so shall also face the wrath of God, spelled M-I-L-I-T-I-A. I'm with Salzo on that 100%
Wow gordianblade, your condescending tone really helps your argument. Thanks though, I'll make sure to steer clear of your house. I never said all cases that you should be unarmed. You are touting the media as your ammunition, sure there are cases where an individual uses a firearm in self defense and saved their life and many others, however, the gun control people you all hate spouts off just as many "newspaper articles" about kids killing people with their parent's guns, Columbine-type school shootings, and accidental mistaken of identity shootings. In fact, I hear about many more of these than proper justifiable shootings. Either way, I am not about to use the media either way to defend my cause. I am almost certain that any bullet holes in police cars were caused by non-legal firearms, but I doubt this changes the cop's perspective. The less guns they encounter on the street, the safer their job is, plain and simple. How are they to know which guns are legal and which ones aren't?
..more of the same old same old. I am sure you think your comments are profound carbine king, but you spout the usual anti gun rhetoric that we hear all of the time.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
carbineking, I read on another thread that you are 21. Now, you could be lying; there are a bunch of liars on this board. But I'm going to take that at face value unless I have reason to doubt it.
If you are following the various personalities here, you will know that there are some who will cut no slack to anyone on account of youth. (Whiteclouder comes to mind.) Myself, I have three sons about your age (a little younger) and they've all gone through or are still going through growing pains. You will learn a lot in the next 30 years. I hope I do also.
Yes, I was a little snide with my remarks, but I thought you were also bragging a bit on your one-shot ability. If the time ever came that you thought you were in a life-or-death situation, I don't think you'd be so sure of making one shot count.
One thing you will find out in the next 10 years or so (I hope) is that many of the teachers you had in school have been feeding you propaganda of various sorts under the disguise of history or current events. Now that you're 21, it's time to research and think on your own. You may feel you have already done that, but at 21 you haven't scratched the surface.
Let me get you started with one stark fact about the 20th century. If you add together all the intentional and unintentional deaths that can be attributed to civilian use of firearms in the 20th century, they pale in comparison to the deaths perpetrated by governments against unarmed civilians, usually their own civilians. Some estimates put this as high as 65 million, some say 30 million is closer. Because governments did the dirty work and often tried to cover it up, we will probably never know the exact numbers. So strip aside all the propaganda and who wrote what history, just going by statistics you have a lot more to fear as an unarmed civilian against a tyrannical government than you do against a random attack by another civilian with a firearm.
This issue hits home with me because my ethnic group can claim to be the first 0.5-1.0 million of those casualties in the 20th century, including people from my family. The first step was for the government to disarm us of all firearms and swords.
And finally, about whether the police want civilians armed or not: They can differ in their opinions like we can. I believe the truth is that most police officers don't mind law-abiding civilians being armed with civilian weapons (not MP-5's or whatever) but they don't want bad guys to be able to get them. I think that is a goal most people can agree on. In my case, an officer in my local P.D. went out of his way to help me get my pistol permit, so there at least is one officer who doesn't mind civilians being armed. Besides that, it's my right (not privilege) whether anyone likes it or not.
Yes, I am 21. You make good points Gordian Blade, you can cut me whatever slack you want based on my age, you don't know me and I don't know you. I have met 15yr olds that act more mature than 30yr olds, so age really isn't much of a yardstick on intelligence, life experience, maturity, or whatever. Maybe I glorified my abilities, maybe others have glorified their abilities to take down armed assailants on dark streets. Either way, a firearm designed specifically to hunt is going to be more accurate than some Russian piece of crap designed to spit out 500+ round a minute and then modified to be only semi-auto in accordance to our laws. I admit, going to a liberal arts college has opened my mind quite a bit. My viewpoints have changed over the last 4 years. Call it propaganda or whatever you will, but recognizing the other side of the issue is operating on a higher level of psychological cognition. I'll get back to you in 10 years when I grow up and experience the world though. Until then, I will sit back and mindlessly follow everything taught to me. The teachers that influenced my decisions were ex-police officers and a retired Air Force JAG officer, but I guess they have no experience with firearms and their implications, so I should not listen to them at all. You can compare the United States to what occured in Germany and all the other countries you implied your millions of deaths to, I know history also. None of these other countries have even close to as many armed civilians as the United States. I seriously doubt The Government is out to take away all our guns so they can oppress us and kill us. If you want to keep thinking this go ahead, it is your right. Call me niave, call me what you will, but I have more important things to worry about. Thanks you for protecting me from opression by the government I work for.
I too was taught history from one of the greatest possible sources....my Grandfather. Let me give you some form of idea about him. First of all, as an enlisted soldier and WWII veteran, he was able to tell me things and show me history books dated in times that many of the true details were not blotted out by the eraser of Big Brother. For some reason, his knowledge didn't match up to the Ex police officers and Air Force JAG's. Since I was old enough to understand grandpa, he has taught me many many things school failed to mention. Now, at 29 years of age, I see things in a way that others refuse to see because they were not as fortunate as me.
Maybe it's just me, but I would have to say WWII vets are far more qualified than those listed above for teaching military history... or any other history, for that matter.
Not to dig up a dead topic, but I am bored and just got my dsl up and running again. I too was educated by my WWII vet grandpa, he served in Sicily and his stories are unfortunately just now being told. My father was drafted towards the end of Vietnam but was not sent overseas. Both taught me many things about the ethics of hunting and firearms, so did the Boy Scouts. I am not saying I completely rely on everything college professors say, I completely agree that most of them are just spouting crap for a paycheck and I am just paying for a piece of paper to hopefully get a better paying job. Granted, you do not know any of the professors I am refrencing, so you do not really know where I am coming from, but the retired JAG officer is probably the biggest hardass on campus and is republican with a capital R, drives a big truck, he has great appreciation for Texas and is not too fond of the California courts (the Supreme Court sets them straight plenty). The ex-police officer walked the beat in a large Texas city for years before getting burnt out on dealing with the dreggs of society and took an administrative position. Regardless of your political motivations, it is obtuse to not recognize both sides to an issue. Understanding your enemy is often the best way to win.
Ok, that is fine. When I see gun grabbers making statements the Department of Justice statistics are not backing up, that makes the LIARS. Capital L small I small A small R, Period. For me, when they do this, they lose credibility, and thus, I believe nothing they tell me, ever again. So therefore, I have learned to doubt everything a gun grabber says, because they are liars.
Check out the history on gun control over the past century and you will see what I mean. The next time someone says they think we should ban guns outright, maybe we should ask them which group of people they want to see exterminated.
I defended myself and my home from a knife wielding adult male. As a 4th grader I used a 12-gauge pump when I was home alone in my crime-infested neighborhood. My parents ran to the grocery store just after dark to grab some food for dinner. I didn't want to go and as they only planned to be gone for a bout 15 - 30 minutes, they left me locked in the house. I heard a noise from our back door. A man was trying to jimmy the lock and when he saw me through the window in the door he started trying to break down the door. I retrieved and loaded the shotgun and came back to the window. The attacker then had a change of heart and ran for his life. The next morning my family woke up to learn an elderly lady was stabbed to death less than a block away that same night. Perhaps she didn't have superior firepower.
Point is: my gun trumped his knife. From that point on I've tried to be the guy with the superior firepower.
Over time my neighborhood was overrun by gang wars and I grew up hearing full auto gunfire multiple times per week. Our car was shot up on Christmas eve when I was in high school. People were fatally shot multiple times per week within 6 blocks of my home. The gangs had full auto weapons and seemed to enjoy using them. Nevertheless, my old neighborhood is now nice and quiet. Wanna know why?
Army rangers moved in nearby because the military converted part of my area to military housing. The Rangers threw a loud party, effectively daring the local gangs to mess with them, and sure enough the gangs came. When the punks came at them with guns, they were shocked to be met with full auto fire from M16's as somehow the Rangers managed to get their firearms off base. You see, the Rangers had gotten tired of having their families live in fear and decided to take care of the problem with this well designed "party". Over 10,000 rounds were exchanged and when it was over, no innocents, including the Rangers, were harmed. There were, however, a few less punks in that neighborhood and that marked the decline of crime in my neighborhood. Again: effectively deployed superior firepower saved the good guys and made my entire neighborhood safer for all the low-income people that couldn't escape it. This wasn't a movie and if you'd like to look it up, check for old newspaper headlines discussing the "Hill Top" region of South Tacoma WA, in the mid to late 1980's.
Those are two true, real-life examples of guns successfully defending the good guy. These types of situations alone should be reason enough to let citizens own powerful firearms. In addition to this, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to also protect against government encroachment of our rights. Had the Jews and sympathetic Germans citizens not given up their firearms prior to the holocaust there is no way it could have taken place. Germany was not positioned to fight both a World War and a resist a civil uprising. If 1 in 10 of those 6 million jews were armed, they would have had 600,000 people to fight, not counting any sympathizers who might have sided with them. Unfortunately for Germany, Hitler successfully imposed a strict gun control policy prior to his ultra-aggressive fanatical policies and the ethnic "cleansing". The Jews learned this lesson well and now Israel armed to the teeth.
I'd be willing to bet he'd be singing a difFerent toon if his wife was being gang raped and mutilated by some drugged up freak. He says he has made the decision to never take a human life. I say he must not love his family very much...WAPOS...
When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
quote: You dont have a "Right" to hunt, its not written that way. You have a right to bear arms as part of the militia, which is all able bodied males between 18 and 46, not the Nat Guard.
The 2nd ammendment says, "A well regulated malitia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first part of the ammendment is actually a pre amble and is secondary to the actual right which is given to "The People" not the malitia. It is saying that in order for (A) to happen, that (B) must happen. (A) being a free state. (B) being the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
No reference is given toward hunting because it was as natural of an action as breathing to the men of their time and they viewed it as self evident and not an issue.
When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
grretings, i realize this is an old post but some realy good questions have come up that bear looking into. irealize that the supreme court has the final say on any constitutional issue, but it has reversed itself several times,ie. roe vs wade. brown vs board of education,thompson vs railroad, etc. my point is the interpertation of the high court is dynamic usually refecting the times and not the intent of the founding fathers, thus it may be wrong but still the law. another point is do the legislative bodies have the right to restrict a recognized (not granted) right? if the ninth and tenth amendments are read correctly, the answer is no. it might suprise most that on these two amendments most state and federal laws declared unconstitutional were declared so because of one or both. it might also surprise most that the high court in at least three different decisions struct down the notion that driving was a privilage granted by the state or munispality(sic). the notion that part (a) of the second amendment ,ie. the militia limits the part (b) the right of the people. a favorite argument of the lower courts until recently. this notion is false because the amendment is stated as a logical propisition, ie,p=q or anacedent and consequence. that is the right of the people == secuity of the state via the militia. respt submitted dads-freehold
Has anybody noticed that, with laws being passed that limit or restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms in our country, that all the rest of our rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights constantly get walked on by Fedcoats????
I'll second that one, HK. How exactly does he believe he is a "Guardian", anyhow. Exactly what is he guarding???
He sounds like one of those golf-gunners. You know, one of those that wants my assault rifle banned, as long as you don't mess with his Over-Under Sports Shotgun that is extremely high-priced.
All gun control is unconstitutional, I don't care what it is. And so is gun registration.
Kind of like putting a man in charge of the security of our rights as Americans, from the government. That isn't going to happen, either. Why would we trust one???
Comments
Owning a firearm is a RIGHT. There is a difference. Most of us learned about guns as teenagers (or in my case, as a 7 year old) from our fathers (or in my case, grandfather, since mine was gone) and we don't need special licenses to own them, or to shoot them. As is stated numerous times in this subject, there is nothing in our rights that associate to hunters, or their alleged rights. The Second Amendment pronounces our right to own firearms and be fully accountable for the actions we do with them. It does not grant us the right to kill at will, as this is an infringement of our 9th Amendment right to not be infringed upon by other's rights. It was never intended to be a solution for an argument. It was not so we can allow our firearms to rust in a case in our closet. It was to ensure the safety of ourselves, our families and our country.
Much like driving is a privilege, So is hunting. It isn't a right. You have to be licensed to hunt, right? I'm with Gordian Blade on this one. Buy your meat at the store like the rest of us. If we really need to thin the herd, let professional consevationalists do it, that way we know exactly what was thinned and there is no danger of poaching. What do you think of that?!?!?
In all seriousness, I may not be a hunter, but I have no problem with hunters hunting until hunters begin having a problem with my choice of firearms. That's when TSHTF.
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
Guardian, you're right about machine guns; Congress enacted the Firearms Act of 1934 to require their registration, so anyone who pays the tax and has a successful background check and photos taken may own one in a state that doesn't prohibit them. This is an excellent compromise. Still, a semi-auto AK or AR shouldn't be a problem, as with a 30 round mag it addresses both the gang-banger attack you mention and the stray bullet problem you also mention. Unfortunately, the government went too far in '89 with the import "sporting use test" and 1994 domestic assault weapons manufacture ban.
Edited by - imadork on 06/10/2002 02:28:25
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
...and yet there is nothing that says the right to firearms ownership cannot be reasonably regulated. Courts have held that current laws about machine guns, for example, are constitutional; see Haney v. United States regarding Haney's possession of two unregistered machine guns, which was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. Sure you might believe that the right is inviolable, but much like the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms has been limited in scope by Supreme Court decisions on both the state and federal level. Still, it is true that the original framers advocated that the private citizen own similar weapons to an army for the purpose of defense against the government, producing a compelling argument for private firearms ownership.
Edited by - imadork on 06/10/2002 02:28:25
Imadork- There is something that says the right to firearm ownership cannot be reasonably regulated-the second amendment. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That statement says that firearm ownership CANNOT be regulated-at least by the federal government.
I do not see anywhere in the constitution, where it says that the bill of rights can be "reasonably regulated". Bottom line, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT INFRINGE IN ANY WAY ON THOSE RIGHTS LISTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. It does not say, "well they can infringe on these rights if it is reasonable". You might think ity is "reasonable" to prohibit ownership of "machine guns". Chuck Schumer thinks it is "reasonable" to register ALL firearms, licence all firearm owners, ban handguns, ban centerfire rifles, etc. He thinks these prohibitions are reasonable. Why do you think that banning(or licensing) machine guns is "reasonable" and constitutional, while Chucks gun laws are not constitutional?Why is Chucks opinion about "reasonable" regulation wrong, but your opinion is right?
No, the right CANNOT BE INFRINGED- that means, the right cannot be infringed in ANY WAY. It does not mean "It can be infringed, if the infringement is reasonable".
I guess you feel that when they said "shall not be infringed" they didnt really mean that.
You seem to rely a bit on how the courts interpet the constitution, as the final arbiter. That might be the case, but that does not make the courts opinion correct. The courts are not god, and they are certainly not infallible, and they are certainly not above deciding an issue on their personal or political "feelings" without any regard to the constitution.
Shortly after the founding of this country, there was a certain "sedition" act. This law stated that it was illegal to speak against the policies of the government, the policies of the president, and the policies of politicians. THis is an obvious infringement on the first amendment. Guess what? The courts did not look at this act as unconstitutional. They went right along with the rest of the federal government, and actually prosecuted people under this blatantly unconstitutional law. The courts did not do the "right" thing. They were in bed with the other branches of government-JUST AS THEY ARE WITH RESPECT TO GUN LAWS TODAY.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
As far as the bad guy "usually" not wanting to kill me, I guess you haven't read the papers lately, or studied history for that matter. Of course, if a bad guy has the drop on you, you're dead meat no matter what, but that proves nothing. There are hundreds of thousands of cases yearly, some say as many as a million, where someone effectively defended against a bad guy with a firearm, most of which don't involve killing anyone. So please make sure your facts and logic are solid before offering us regurgitated material we've all read hundreds of times from the anti-gun groups.
One last point: When they come to get your .308 deer gun because it could be used as a sniper weapon, don't come crying to me.
No one can over trump the power of God, the instater of our rights as citizens. Those who shall do so shall also face the wrath of God, spelled M-I-L-I-T-I-A. I'm with Salzo on that 100%
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
If you are following the various personalities here, you will know that there are some who will cut no slack to anyone on account of youth. (Whiteclouder comes to mind.) Myself, I have three sons about your age (a little younger) and they've all gone through or are still going through growing pains. You will learn a lot in the next 30 years. I hope I do also.
Yes, I was a little snide with my remarks, but I thought you were also bragging a bit on your one-shot ability. If the time ever came that you thought you were in a life-or-death situation, I don't think you'd be so sure of making one shot count.
One thing you will find out in the next 10 years or so (I hope) is that many of the teachers you had in school have been feeding you propaganda of various sorts under the disguise of history or current events. Now that you're 21, it's time to research and think on your own. You may feel you have already done that, but at 21 you haven't scratched the surface.
Let me get you started with one stark fact about the 20th century. If you add together all the intentional and unintentional deaths that can be attributed to civilian use of firearms in the 20th century, they pale in comparison to the deaths perpetrated by governments against unarmed civilians, usually their own civilians. Some estimates put this as high as 65 million, some say 30 million is closer. Because governments did the dirty work and often tried to cover it up, we will probably never know the exact numbers. So strip aside all the propaganda and who wrote what history, just going by statistics you have a lot more to fear as an unarmed civilian against a tyrannical government than you do against a random attack by another civilian with a firearm.
This issue hits home with me because my ethnic group can claim to be the first 0.5-1.0 million of those casualties in the 20th century, including people from my family. The first step was for the government to disarm us of all firearms and swords.
And finally, about whether the police want civilians armed or not: They can differ in their opinions like we can. I believe the truth is that most police officers don't mind law-abiding civilians being armed with civilian weapons (not MP-5's or whatever) but they don't want bad guys to be able to get them. I think that is a goal most people can agree on. In my case, an officer in my local P.D. went out of his way to help me get my pistol permit, so there at least is one officer who doesn't mind civilians being armed. Besides that, it's my right (not privilege) whether anyone likes it or not.
Maybe it's just me, but I would have to say WWII vets are far more qualified than those listed above for teaching military history... or any other history, for that matter.
That's my 2 Lincolns
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
Check out the history on gun control over the past century and you will see what I mean. The next time someone says they think we should ban guns outright, maybe we should ask them which group of people they want to see exterminated.
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
Point is: my gun trumped his knife. From that point on I've tried to be the guy with the superior firepower.
Over time my neighborhood was overrun by gang wars and I grew up hearing full auto gunfire multiple times per week. Our car was shot up on Christmas eve when I was in high school. People were fatally shot multiple times per week within 6 blocks of my home. The gangs had full auto weapons and seemed to enjoy using them. Nevertheless, my old neighborhood is now nice and quiet. Wanna know why?
Army rangers moved in nearby because the military converted part of my area to military housing. The Rangers threw a loud party, effectively daring the local gangs to mess with them, and sure enough the gangs came. When the punks came at them with guns, they were shocked to be met with full auto fire from M16's as somehow the Rangers managed to get their firearms off base. You see, the Rangers had gotten tired of having their families live in fear and decided to take care of the problem with this well designed "party". Over 10,000 rounds were exchanged and when it was over, no innocents, including the Rangers, were harmed. There were, however, a few less punks in that neighborhood and that marked the decline of crime in my neighborhood. Again: effectively deployed superior firepower saved the good guys and made my entire neighborhood safer for all the low-income people that couldn't escape it. This wasn't a movie and if you'd like to look it up, check for old newspaper headlines discussing the "Hill Top" region of South Tacoma WA, in the mid to late 1980's.
Those are two true, real-life examples of guns successfully defending the good guy. These types of situations alone should be reason enough to let citizens own powerful firearms. In addition to this, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to also protect against government encroachment of our rights. Had the Jews and sympathetic Germans citizens not given up their firearms prior to the holocaust there is no way it could have taken place. Germany was not positioned to fight both a World War and a resist a civil uprising. If 1 in 10 of those 6 million jews were armed, they would have had 600,000 people to fight, not counting any sympathizers who might have sided with them. Unfortunately for Germany, Hitler successfully imposed a strict gun control policy prior to his ultra-aggressive fanatical policies and the ethnic "cleansing". The Jews learned this lesson well and now Israel armed to the teeth.
So many guns, so little money . . .
When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
Edited by - 4GodandCountry on 07/11/2002 11:32:40
The 2nd ammendment says, "A well regulated malitia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The first part of the ammendment is actually a pre amble and is secondary to the actual right which is given to "The People" not the malitia. It is saying that in order for (A) to happen, that (B) must happen. (A) being a free state. (B) being the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
No reference is given toward hunting because it was as natural of an action as breathing to the men of their time and they viewed it as self evident and not an issue.
When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
rodney colson
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
New gun??? No, honey, I've had it for years.
Edited by - hecklerxkoch on 07/18/2002 09:31:24
He sounds like one of those golf-gunners. You know, one of those that wants my assault rifle banned, as long as you don't mess with his Over-Under Sports Shotgun that is extremely high-priced.
All gun control is unconstitutional, I don't care what it is. And so is gun registration.
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak
New gun??? No, honey, I've had it for years.
Kind of like putting a man in charge of the security of our rights as Americans, from the government. That isn't going to happen, either. Why would we trust one???
Death to Tyrants!!!
-Gunphreak