What can a little gun control hurt?

[mikenold]

A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------ --------- ---------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- ------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated

------------ --------- ---------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- -------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- --------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------ --------- ---------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

We must keep the right to bear arms.

[MarkLV]

Mike, I'm behind you on the point you're making. But the last example, the one about Australia, was debunked on the Snopes.com website (if you have trust in their reporting).

[mikenold]

Mike, I'm behind you on the point you're making. But the last example, the one about Australia, was debunked on the Snopes.com website (if you have trust in their reporting).

Actually it has not been debunked as you say. The status is Multiple. This is because the figures are relatively true, but snopes says that do not give the complete picture because besides gun control there has been a gun buyback as well. If you care to check what it says you can go here:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
The point is still made.

[Save Us]

Plus the fact that amendment secures the other amendments!!

It would have been difficult to win our independence from Britain without firearms.


Australians are wussys!:p

[dave338]

A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------ --------- ---------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- ------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated

------------ --------- ---------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- -------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- --------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------ --------- ---------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

We must keep the right to bear arms.

Wait a minute - the author of this article (not you, mikenold) believes that the deaths in the Holocaust were caused by GUN CONTROL LAWS? Ho. Ly. Crap. Did every Jew have a gun in 1937, then? The gun control "laws" in Germany were not laws, but dictatorial decrees. In fact, most of these are cases were a dictator who was already in power just put gun control laws in place without legislative or judicial support.

Further, this article was written at least as long as 7 years ago, and the facts about Australia are completely bogus or misleading (for instance, homicides are up 3.2% leaves out the fact that they were increasing at an even FASTER rate before the ban).

[mikenold]

Wait a minute - the author of this article (not you, mikenold) believes that the deaths in the Holocaust were caused by GUN CONTROL LAWS? Ho. Ly. Crap. Did every Jew have a gun in 1937, then? The gun control "laws" in Germany were not laws, but dictatorial decrees. In fact, most of these are cases were a dictator who was already in power just put gun control laws in place without legislative or judicial support.

Further, this article was written at least as long as 7 years ago, and the facts about Australia are completely bogus or misleading (for instance, homicides are up 3.2% leaves out the fact that they were increasing at an even FASTER rate before the ban).

I never claimed that this was my article. Don't get too bent out of shape here. The Jews were not allowed to own guns. This is gun control no matter where the edict came from.

Check the statistics from Australia. Misleading or not? It depends who you talk to:

The NRA video claims that following the country's ban, assaults involving guns rose 28 percent, gun murders increased 19 percent and home invasions rose 21 percent. Though the gun group's ad does not cite sources, a March 3 WorldNetDaily report gave similar statistics that were provided by an Australian pro-gun organization called the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The group's statistics mirror those of the NRA, but characterize the Australian government's crime statistics reports as "dishonest, incomplete and inconclusive" because they "focus upon the method used in a small sample of homicides and suicides or make assumptions about correlations between a piece of legislation and an accompanying drop in figures."

Believe what you want, but historically, every time guns are taken away from law abiding citizens, the criminals are emboldened and violent crimes escalates dramatically. Criminals pay no attention to laws, that includes gun laws. When criminals have guns and the citizens do not, the criminals can do what they want and usually do just that.

[dave338]

I never claimed that this was my article. Don't get too bent out of shape here. The Jews were not allowed to own guns. This is gun control no matter where the edict came from.


My clarification was to indicate I didn't say _you_ thought Jews died because they couldn't have guns, but that the article's author thought that. I wasn't trying to imply that you were claiming ownership.

[mikenold]

My clarification was to indicate I didn't say _you_ thought Jews died because they couldn't have guns, but that the article's author thought that. I wasn't trying to imply that you were claiming ownership.

That's OK, but if the Jews were allowed to have Guns, do you think that the Germans would have had such an easy time rounding them up and killing them? This is where I can agree with the author. I believe it is relevant.

[dave338]

There are many, many articles on the internet (including http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html) that show that crime rates saw at most a slight bump in the year or two after the gun laws in Australia, but then leveled back off again.

So in one case, gun control leads to mass genocide over the next 6 years, and in another case the gun control laws lead to maintaining or improving the status quo.

[mikenold]

There are many, many articles on the internet (including http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html) that show that crime rates saw at most a slight bump in the year or two after the gun laws in Australia, but then leveled back off again.

So in one case, gun control leads to mass genocide over the next 6 years, and in another case the gun control laws lead to maintaining or improving the status quo.

Gun control laws have never lead to maintaining or improving the status quo.

[dave338]

Gun control laws have never lead to maintaining or improving the status quo.

On the contrary - the article I posted showed no long term effects on the rates of crime, violent or non.

[dave338]

That's OK, but if the Jews were allowed to have Guns, do you think that the Germans would have had such an easy time rounding them up and killing them? This is where I can agree with the author. I believe it is relevant.

I seriously doubt it would have made any difference.

[Save Us]

with all things being equal, I like to be able to defend myself vs enemies foriegn or domestic thankyouverymuch :)

[MarkLV]

Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass) and The Nurenburg Weapons Laws

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938

With a basis in § 31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and § 9 of the Fuhrer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1331 ) are the following ordered:


§ 1
Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.


§ 2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
§ 3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.


§ 4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.


§ 5
For the implementation if this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.


§ 6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.


Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior Frick

[dave338]

Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass) and The Nurenburg Weapons Laws

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938


Wow - you make it sound like it might have been tough to be a Jew in Germany back then... who knew???

[Save Us]

can you imagine the colonists having to turn their guns to the British authorities. ;)

[mikenold]

can you imagine the colonists having to turn their guns to the British authorities. ;)

Can you imagine having to turn in your guns to Obama?

[WNYresident]

Can you imagine having to turn in your guns to Obama?

There are a lot of people who will not comply. Simple as that. What are you going to do? Arrest millions and millions of people? People with guns? Talk about the crap hitting the fan.

Wouldn't any officer or government official who would force that on the american citizen be consider traitors to the bill of rights. Traitors to the United States of America. They hang traitors don't they?

[dave338]

Can you imagine having to turn in your guns to Obama?

Remind me again what makes you think this is even a possibility...

[mikenold]

Remind me again what makes you think this is even a possibility...

Google gun control and Obama. Decide for yourself. He want to take away all the guns in the world, not just the US. Check his record in the Senate and the Illinois Senate. If you do this you will agree with me that this is a real possibility.

[mikenold]

There are a lot of people who will not comply. Simple as that. What are you going to do? Arrest millions and millions of people? People with guns? Talk about the crap hitting the fan.

Wouldn't any officer or government official who would force that on the american citizen be consider traitors to the bill of rights. Traitors to the United States of America. They hang traitors don't they?

I for one will not comply. But this would be a real test for our Country, its constitution, and its people.

[dave338]

Google gun control and Obama. Decide for yourself. He want to take away all the guns in the world, not just the US. Check his record in the Senate and the Illinois Senate. If you do this you will agree with me that this is a real possibility.

I googled it before I asked you the question. I saw that he's in favor of gun control - but nothing about taking guns away from people who already legally own them.

[mikenold]

I googled it before I asked you the question. I saw that he's in favor of gun control - but nothing about taking guns away from people who already legally own them.

Tell me what you think gun control is?

[dave338]

Tell me what you think gun control is?

Controlling who is able to purchase guns at the present time. Outlawing the sale of handguns to private owners does nothing to remove guns from the hands of people who had already bought them.

[mikenold]

Controlling who is able to purchase guns at the present time. Outlawing the sale of handguns to private owners does nothing to remove guns from the hands of people who had already bought them.

Your definition is not the same as Obama's.

A couple questions from an interview with Obama:
Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

Some facts about Obama and his idea of Gun Control (notice the difference to your view)
Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

When you vote to ban any particular ammunition or gun that includes the taking away of those that are presently out there. Ban and confiscate is self explanatory. You and Barack do not agree on your definitions of gun control.

[dave338]

Your definition is not the same as Obama's.

A couple questions from an interview with Obama:
Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

Some facts about Obama and his idea of Gun Control (notice the difference to your view)
Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership
Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

When you vote to ban any particular ammunition or gun that includes the taking away of those that are presently out there. Ban and confiscate is self explanatory. You and Barack do not agree on your definitions of gun control.

Everything in your post is rhetoric posted by the NRA, and most of it has been shown to be outright lies or twisted from 10-year-old newspaper clippings. This is what I found when I did my googling earlier.

He didn't even fill out the questionnaire you cited, and he voted to ban hollow point ammunition. Unless deer and chickens are wearing flak jackets I don't think there's much to worry about there.

I'll sum up my position - the NRA are liars. Period. They're fearmongers and slippery-slope sky-is-falling liars.

[Save Us]

The second amendment exists for a great reason...

one need only to read the constitution to understans.
Sorry, but I would die for my right to bear arms,, period

A government that is strong enough to give you everything you want is also strong enough to take everything away..

I think that is a quote from Jefferson.

That's a quote for all the people who see government as a savior as it applies to the need for the second amendment..

[Save Us]

I guess in the balance of life their are people meant to be subjegated, controlled and others who's inate spirit calls for freedom. :D

[mikenold]

Everything in your post is rhetoric posted by the NRA, and most of it has been shown to be outright lies or twisted from 10-year-old newspaper clippings. This is what I found when I did my googling earlier.

He didn't even fill out the questionnaire you cited, and he voted to ban hollow point ammunition. Unless deer and chickens are wearing flak jackets I don't think there's much to worry about there.

I'll sum up my position - the NRA are liars. Period. They're fearmongers and slippery-slope sky-is-falling liars.

Rhetoric is something unsubstantiated. I have been very careful to put the reference votes and such to show that these are substantiated facts about Barack Obama. But the truth seems to mean nothing to you if it doesn't line up with what you have said. Its OK, you can believe what you want. The frog in the pot thought is was nice and cozy warm until he was boiled for dinner. :p

[dave338]

Rhetoric is something unsubstantiated. I have been very careful to put the reference votes and such to show that these are substantiated facts about Barack Obama. But the truth seems to mean nothing to you if it doesn't line up with what you have said. Its OK, you can believe what you want. The frog in the pot thought is was nice and cozy warm until he was boiled for dinner. :p

You didn't read any of the links you posted. The senate vote you reference that was supposedly taking away most forms of ammunition does nothing of the sort. The bill's intent was actually to keep ammunition manufacturers from being held liable when their products were misused, and the amendment clarifies what hollow-point ammunition is.

Your first reference shows nothing but a check mark in a box next to Obama's name and accuses him of voting for a 'poorly crafted' bill that fearmongers worried could apply to them, instead of semi-auto assault weapon owners.

It's rhetoric only because I'm loathe to call it BS.

My final word on this subject - if anyone in an official capacity asks you to turn in or hand over a gun because of new legislation enacted while Obama is in office, I will give you $50. I'm willing to stake my money on the fact that the NRA is made up of fearmongering liars.

[mikenold]

You didn't read any of the links you posted. The senate vote you reference that was supposedly taking away most forms of ammunition does nothing of the sort. The bill's intent was actually to keep ammunition manufacturers from being held liable when their products were misused, and the amendment clarifies what hollow-point ammunition is.

Your first reference shows nothing but a check mark in a box next to Obama's name and accuses him of voting for a 'poorly crafted' bill that fearmongers worried could apply to them, instead of semi-auto assault weapon owners.

It's rhetoric only because I'm loathe to call it BS.

My final word on this subject - if anyone in an official capacity asks you to turn in or hand over a gun because of new legislation enacted while Obama is in office, I will give you $50. I'm willing to stake my money on the fact that the NRA is made up of fearmongering liars.

Does the official have to ask me personally or could it be any law abiding American Citizen? :)

[dave338]

Does the official have to ask me personally or could it be any law abiding American Citizen? :)

You, since we know you're law abiding. If they're coming after law-abiding gun owners, they'll come after you. I would expand it to all law-abiding individuals if I thought it would be possibly to agree on who's following the law or not. If they're asking for your guns, I have to assume they're doing it because you're breaking the law, but as I stated - I will give you a pass.

[mikenold]

You, since we know you're law abiding. If they're coming after law-abiding gun owners, they'll come after you. I would expand it to all law-abiding individuals if I thought it would be possibly to agree on who's following the law or not. If they're asking for your guns, I have to assume they're doing it because you're breaking the law, but as I stated - I will give you a pass.

I don't own pistols or semi-automatic weapons and these will be the first to go. So, I ask again, any law abiding American citizen?

[dave338]

I don't own pistols or semi-automatic weapons and these will be the first to go. So, I ask again, any law abiding American citizen?

If I could vouch for their current law-abiding status, sure. If you hear of someone having their pistol taken away, let me know.

If you hear of someone getting their semi-auto taken away, screw them. As far as I'm concerned, nobody has a valid reason to own a semi-automatic weapon as a non-military, non-law enforcement individual.

Oops - I was thinking of automatic weapons, not semi-auto.

Then yes - let me know when you hear of it happening.

[Save Us]

If I could vouch for their current law-abiding status, sure. If you hear of someone having their pistol taken away, let me know.

If you hear of someone getting their semi-auto taken away, screw them. As far as I'm concerned, nobody has a valid reason to own a semi-automatic weapon as a non-military, non-law enforcement individual.

Oops - I was thinking of automatic weapons, not semi-auto.

Then yes - let me know when you hear of it happening.


read the book, or watch the pbs special ,, guns germs and steel.

what is the problem with semi automatic weapons.. they are not automatic.
many hunting arms are semi automatic..

I have a remington 1100 semi auto 12 guage.

if you mean assualt rifles well......the kentucky rifle was an assault rifle in 1776, and many redcoats were at the business end of it.

[dave338]

read the book, or watch the pbs special ,, guns germs and steel.

what is the problem with semi automatic weapons.. they are not automatic.
many hunting arms are semi automatic..

I have a remington 1100 semi auto 12 guage.

if you mean assualt rifles well......the kentucky rifle was an assault rifle in 1776, and many redcoats were at the business end of it.

I did mean automatic - went back to edit the post and made things less clear instead.

[MoreOfTheSame]

If you hear of someone getting their semi-auto taken away, screw them. As far as I'm concerned, nobody has a valid reason to own a semi-automatic weapon as a non-military, non-law enforcement individual.


Huh? Why does it matter what a type of rifle or other firearm a regular law abiding citizen who is not a felon has in their closet?

[dave338]

Huh? Why does it matter what a type of rifle or other firearm a regular law abiding citizen who is not a felon has in their closet?

As I said in my post, I meant to say fully automatic weapon. To some people, I guess there's a reason a law abiding regular person would have one. I personally wouldn't want to know that person.

[raoul duke]

A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------ --------- ---------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- ------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated

------------ --------- ---------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- -------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- --------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------ --------- ---------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

We must keep the right to bear arms.
HAH. Seriously. HAH. Forgetting that most of that post is rehashed, twisted and/or long debunked drivel from widely circulated fwds and shrill NRA press releases: You completely missed one point and make doing so ironic with your last sentence. Not that you'll figure it out, or anything.

[TOOLBAGS]

As I said in my post, I meant to say fully automatic weapon. To some people, I guess there's a reason a law abiding regular person would have one. I personally wouldn't want to know that person.

As a gun owner and and NOT a member of the NRA, I own several guns. Hand guns, shotguns, assault rifles...I just about own one of everything I can legally own. Why? Because I enjoy them. I enjoy target shooting, I enjoy collecting (there is some good history lessons behind guns), I expecially enjoy my right to own firearms...(bet you wouldnt even know im a gun owner if you met me). Its not somthing I walk around announcing. I dont have stickers on my car saying "look at me I have guns." (Never understood why somebody needs a NRA sticker on their car, they are just looking for trouble, IMO).
I also dont believe the government will EVER knock on my doors with a warrant to take my guns....It just wont happen. They may add more restrictions, etc but they wont take what good citizens already have. On that note, there are A LOT of idiots who should be no where near a gun. There needs to be somthing in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands...but lets face it, if somebody wants a gun, they will get one. All the laws in the world wont prevent that. So....where does that leave us?

[Save Us]

As a gun owner and and NOT a member of the NRA, I own several guns. Hand guns, shotguns, assault rifles...I just about own one of everything I can legally own. Why? Because I enjoy them. I enjoy target shooting, I enjoy collecting (there is some good history lessons behind guns), I expecially enjoy my right to own firearms...(bet you wouldnt even know im a gun owner if you met me). Its not somthing I walk around announcing. I dont have stickers on my car saying "look at me I have guns." (Never understood why somebody needs a NRA sticker on their car, they are just looking for trouble, IMO).
I also dont believe the government will EVER knock on my doors with a warrant to take my guns....It just wont happen. They may add more restrictions, etc but they wont take what good citizens already have. On that note, there are A LOT of idiots who should be no where near a gun. There needs to be somthing in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands...but lets face it, if somebody wants a gun, they will get one. All the laws in the world wont prevent that. So....where does that leave us?


ditto

[BuffaloTransplant]

I for one will not comply. But this would be a real test for our Country, its constitution, and its people.

If you have any one Article in the Bill of Rights which protects all the others, Article II is it. Stop and think about it.

[mikenold]

If you have any one Article in the Bill of Rights which protects all the others, Article II is it. Stop and think about it.

One only has to look to our founding fathers. They ended the tyranny of England and they had to do it by force. Mark it down. Obama is going to try to take away guns from the citizens of our country. It will start by erosion of little rights first off. Maybe raising the tax on ammunition, making it difficult to buy or possess ammunition. Making laws that severely limit one's ability to quickly get to and use our pistols or rifles effectively. Making it very difficult to own guns by making high cost insurance necessary to own a gun. Watch for these small changes to bring about the last change which will be an order for all citizens to turn in their guns. Not me for one.

[FMD]

Heres my problem with gun control.

Ill use the USSA since thats where we all live.

Our govt, is willing, and has done so on thousands of occasions, put young, 18-25 year olds in command of tanks that can level a city by itself. Same with fighter jets, and all sorts of death and destruction' type weaponry.

They even give you a fully automatic assualt rifle, and a hand gun, and grenades.

Yet the PEOPLE who fund these military operations thruogh their stolen money, are not allowed to own such things?

Talk about a double standard.

It has been shown, time and again, thruogh out history, that a population that is disarmed is much easier to control than one bearing weapons of equal firepower of the oppressors.

Our govt feels that law abiding citizens cant be trusted with a gun, yet 99% of gun related crimes are comitted by people who dont legally own a gun.

Plus, I always have found it rather 'silly' that if you are registered, and licensed, to carry a pistol, on your person, any sort of 'run in' with the police, and thats the FIRST thing they do, confiscate your fire arm.

Now that you are severe disadvantage, then and only then do they want to talk to you. Or deal with you in a civil fashion. If you refuse to give up your gun then they get nasty and attempt to 'scare' you into submission.

Fact is, we as amaericans lose our rights to hold on to our guns, and the LAST line of defense against our already oppresive govt is gone.

[run4it]

If you have any one Article in the Bill of Rights which protects all the others, Article II is it. Stop and think about it.

Why is it that any time someone chooses to use the 2nd Amendment, they almost invariable ignore half of it? Here, I'll give it to you:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

Now listen carefully. The 'well regulated militia' has become today's national guard (and to some extent, the regular military). 'Necessary to the security of a free state' has NOTHING to do with protection against one's own government. IT HAS TO DO WITH REPELLING INVADING COUNTRIES!!!

The second amendment allows that the citizenry should be able to keep weapons in case someone...say Canada...invades and the general citizenry has to act as the de facto military to repel such invaders. It ASSUMES that these citizens who own arms will be ordered and trained in the fashion of our current Nat'l Guard and other military, and ANSWERABLE to at least local authority.

If you want to argue that guns are not harmful, ok. If you want to argue that they keep you safe, fine. If you like to have the argument that general ideals of 'liberty' mean that you should be able to own whatever you like, from a bow and arrow to an Abrams tank, it's a valid point. BUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RANDOM AND ARBITRARY GUN OWNERSHIP OR PROTECTION AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE US GOVERNMENT!!! READ THE FREAKING THING!!!

[MoreOfTheSame]

Why is it that any time someone chooses to use the 2nd Amendment, they almost invariable ignore half of it? Here, I'll give it to you:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

Now listen carefully. The 'well regulated militia' has become today's national guard (and to some extent, the regular military). 'Necessary to the security of a free state' has NOTHING to do with protection against one's own government. IT HAS TO DO WITH REPELLING INVADING COUNTRIES!!!

T


Somebody hasn't read DC V. Heller (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf).


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-
ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

[MarkLV]

Now listen carefully. The 'well regulated militia' has become today's National Guard (and to some extent, the regular military). 'Necessary to the security of a free state' has NOTHING to do with protection against one's own government. IT HAS TO DO WITH REPELLING INVADING COUNTRIES!!!


You need to first understand what the purpose of the National Guard is.

While yes, it does pertain to defense against any invading foreign army or Indian tribe, it also has to do with defending against our own citizens in times of an uprising. Here, this is a description of the 1792 Militia Act:



First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". (This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion in opposition to the judicial collection of debts and taxes.)


Now before you start saying "Look, it says right there that the "militia" is only used to defend the US goverment, not to fight against it!", you need to read the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 put into law 6 days later:



Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


So by the legal definition set forth by our own goverment, every citizen is required to be a member of the militia.

{Well, back then, only white males were allowed, but since then, the acts have been ammended to include females and non-whites as well. Same goes for congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen;)}


So the 2nd Amendment clearly indicates (actually, almost demands!) that every citizen of the United States is in effect, a member of the Militia. And also that they each need to be armed with the most common, up-to-date firearm available at the time, by their own expense.

Could it be any clearer that all Americans are meant to be armed with modern firearms, than these 2 laws explain?

[MoreOfTheSame]

You need to first understand what the purpose of the National Guard is.

While yes, it does pertain to defense against any invading foreign army or Indian tribe, it also has to do with defending against our own citizens in times of an uprising. Here, this is a description of the 1792 Militia Act:



First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". (This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion in opposition to the judicial collection of debts and taxes.)


Now before you start saying "Look, it says right there that the "militia" is only used to defend the US goverment, not to fight against it!", you need to read the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 put into law 6 days later:



Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


So by the legal definition set forth by our own goverment, every citizen is required to be a member of the militia.

{Well, back then, only white males were allowed, but since then, the acts have been ammended to include females and non-whites as well. Same goes for congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen;)}


So the 2nd Amendment clearly indicates (actually, almost demands!) that every citizen of the United States is in effect, a member of the Militia. And also that they each need to be armed with the most common, up-to-date firearm available at the time, by their own expense.

Could it be any clearer that all Americans are meant to be armed with modern firearms, than these 2 laws explain?

Agreed. While I don't think we should prepare for rebellion against the government (that is a dumb idea, people who talk about violent revolution nowadays are idiots) it is obvious that the founding fathers (again, see DCvHeller) thought Americans should have a right to be armed.

Now, I'd disagree if anybody said such a thing should be mandatory. I don't think people should be forced by their government (or anybody else) to purchase, carry or use a gun. In my opinion laws stating that are morally just as bad as those that seek to ban firearms ownership (DC, chicago ban, etc).

But that is just my opinion. :)

[MarkLV]

Now, I'd disagree if anybody said such a thing should be mandatory. I don't think people should be forced by their government (or anybody else) to purchase, carry or use a gun.

Counterpoint to that is the country of Switzerland, one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world, lowest suicide rate, lowest gun crimes, etc...

But Switzerland not only requires every male to spend one year of conscription in their army, they also are required to keep a fully automatic machine-gun with ammunition in their homes at all times! Is there a direct correlation between gun control/availability of guns in that country when compared to others? Would seem to be so, yes!

[MoreOfTheSame]

Counterpoint to that is the country of Switzerland, one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world, lowest suicide rate, lowest gun crimes, etc...

But Switzerland not only requires every male to spend one year of conscription in their army, they also are required to keep a fully automatic machine-gun with ammunition in their homes at all times! Is there a direct correlation between gun control/availability of guns in that country when compared to others? Would seem to be so, yes!

I respect what Switzerland is doing and it is obvious that more guns in the hands of legal owners is a good thing that makes the area safer. But I feel that the draft is morally wrong (in the face of a just war citizens will rise up to defend their country) and I disagree that the government has the right to order their citizens to keep weapons in the home. How is that any better than the government telling people they can't legally own weapons? We're all for smaller government and more liberty, but what use is that if we're then using that power to enforce our will on other people?

[mikenold]

Counterpoint to that is the country of Switzerland, one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world, lowest suicide rate, lowest gun crimes, etc...

But Switzerland not only requires every male to spend one year of conscription in their army, they also are required to keep a fully automatic machine-gun with ammunition in their homes at all times! Is there a direct correlation between gun control/availability of guns in that country when compared to others? Would seem to be so, yes!

In most cases a crimminal will not come to your house to rob you if he thinks you have guns and will defend yourself. ;)

<img src=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3411/3445428878_6949e9dbb8_m.jpg>

[Dumbfounded]

What should pro-gun Americans do?
They can talk about Switzerland, but they cannot expect to win the American gun argument with the Swiss example.

Analysis of Switzerland does demolish the simplistic notion "more guns, more gun crime." More important than the number of guns is their cultural context. In Switzerland, guns are an important element of a cohesive social structure that keeps crime low.

America does not have the stable, integrated community structures of Switzerland. Thus, the American government must take a more coercive, authoritarian role in controlling prisoners, to make up for the lack of community controls.

Thus, American gun owners must win the gun control argument based on conditions in America, not conditions in Switzerland.

The implicit argument of most American gun controllers is that while the Swiss may be responsible enough to own even the deadliest guns, Americans are not.

America obviously has a large criminal class of gun abusers, and Switzerland does not.

The Swiss do not have the harsh penal system the U.S. has with most crimes requiring ONE YEAR OR LESS and most sentences are "time served"

Regular American citizens do not shoot each other in moments of passion; The vast majority of such shootings are perpetrated by thugs with a record of violence and substance abuse.

And contrary to the claims of the anti-gun lobby, Americans are not so careless that they cannot be trusted with potentially dangerous objects like guns.
Gun accidents account for less than 2% of the nation's 92,000 accidental deaths annually.

Suicides have little to do with gun availability.
Japan has no guns, while Switzerland is deluged with every gun in the book, and both nations have the same suicide rate.

Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful governments can be in promoting responsible gun use.

[Dumbfounded]

The Swiss seem to get by on much fewer gun laws than we do. Why?

I read most of this article and Switzerland grew very slowly starting in the 1200's (or so) with very old close famalies and has one of the weakest governmnets in the world and judges who are ELECTED not appointed.




And from what I can gather, the Swiss are no where NEAR as MENTAL as Americans are per capita
AND
For some darned reason firearms keep getting back into the hands of our worst criminals (once they leave prison).


Is it possible that our gun problem in America can be directly traced to a number industrial scum--- making tons of money while bribing politicians to create laughable laws and "look the other way" while the penal system, another THRIVING business (biggest in the WORLD) makes money by having more convicts-And ya got the NRA who take NO responsiblity for the obvious AND the major pharmaceuticals whose SSRIs and other psychiatric medications have DIRECTLY been linked to single and mass shootings.

So all the "good citizens" are getting RICH in America!!!
I can ONLY see the GREED angle being responsible for


"Hey! Yeah, YOU, Dumbfounded! If ya don't like the way America lets people kill each other with guns, then move to Somalia if ya like that communist hippie country so much!!!"

[Save Us]

The Swiss seem to get by on much fewer gun laws than we do. Why?

I read most of this article and Switzerland grew very slowly starting in the 1200's (or so) with very old close famalies and has one of the weakest governmnets in the world and judges who are ELECTED not appointed.




And from what I can gather, the Swiss are no where NEAR as MENTAL as Americans are per capita
AND
For some darned reason firearms keep getting back into the hands of our worst criminals (once they leave prison).


Is it possible that our gun problem in America can be directly traced to a number industrial scum--- making tons of money while bribing politicians to create laughable laws and "look the other way" while the penal system, another THRIVING business (biggest in the WORLD) makes money by having more convicts-And ya got the NRA who take NO responsiblity for the obvious AND the major pharmaceuticals whose SSRIs and other psychiatric medications have DIRECTLY been linked to single and mass shootings.

So all the "good citizens" are getting RICH in America!!!
I can ONLY see the GREED angle being responsible for


"Hey! Yeah, YOU, Dumbfounded! If ya don't like the way America lets people kill each other with guns, then move to Somalia if ya like that communist hippie country so much!!!"

Hey! Yeah, YOU, Dumbfounded! If ya don't like the way America lets people kill each other with guns, then move to Somalia if ya like that communist hippie country so much!!!"

[run4it]

You're right, I hadn't read Heller. And I don't necessarily disagree with the ultimate ruling. However, I was speaking to the purpose behind the original amendment. That purpose is illuminated by the first half of the Amendment. Realize it was added to a document which provided that no standing army should be kept at all, and such militia were the only viable answer to public emergencies (especially military ones). That this has so drastically changed actually makes the whole Amendment somewhat anachronistic.

As I mentioned...there are quite a few viable arguments for preserving the right of our citizenry to own guns. The arguments that the 2nd Amendment is meant "to protect the rest of the Amendments" or "as a guard against the tyranny of our government" are simply not true.

[MarkLV]

As I mentioned...there are quite a few viable arguments for preserving the right of our citizenry to own guns. The arguments that the 2nd Amendment is meant "to protect the rest of the Amendments" or "as a guard against the tyranny of our government" are simply not true.

Look at it from this point of view:

The Founding Fathers (Paine, both of the Adams , Henry, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lee, Mason, Madison, et al) were some of the most educated and knowledgable noblemen of their time. When they wrote that the American citizens had an individual right to arm themselves to protect life and property, they meant what they said.

Truth be told, of the thousands and thousands of pages written prior to the ratification of the B.O.R., very little content was actually argued regarding the 2nd Amendment. The scholarly thought on this fact is that an almost unanimous point of view was held by all.

I wont get into minutia like the fact that no regular police force existed in Colonial times, or that almost every male was also a hunter who owned firearms. But the bottom line is that the FF's intended that every man should be armed.

[raoul duke]

A Little Gun History Lesson

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------ --------- ---------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------ --------- ------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated

------------ --------- ---------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- -------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------ --------- ---------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------ --------- --------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------ --------- ---------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

We must keep the right to bear arms.
No person or political party is threatening the Second Amendment. It's a made up fanatasy of the NRA - as it has been for almost four decades. Get over it. No one cares and most of us laugh and question the overall intelligence of people who believe such a thing. Really, HAH!

Besides, since when did conservatives, especially 2nd Amendment advocates, make political arguments directly related to alleged rights enshrined by the Constitution by citing foreign sources? The last time the Supreme Court referenced an international precedent, you guys had a conniption fit over it. Which way do you folks want it?

Cognitive dissonance or just plain 'don't know what you're talking about' or both?

[MarkLV]

No person or political party is threatening the Second Amendment. It's a made up fanatasy of the NRA - as it has been for almost four decades. Get over it. No one cares and most of us laugh and question the overall intelligence of people who believe such a thing. Really, HAH!

Besides, since when did conservatives, especially 2nd Amendment advocates, make political arguments directly related to alleged rights enshrined by the Constitution by citing foreign sources? The last time the Supreme Court referenced an international precedent, you guys had a conniption fit over it. Which way do you folks want it?

Cognitive dissonance or just plain 'don't know what you're talking about' or both?

My, thats a rather impish view!

But I will give you props for useage of a five dollar phrase like "cognitive dissonance"! Almost makes you sound like you know what your talking about.

However, those of us with even a sliver of insight know that every time another restriction or firearms' law gets put on the books, it slowly erodes our Second Amendment right just a little more. Is any person or political party outright attempting to eliminate the Second Amendment? Of course not. And good luck trying if someone is idiot enough to think they could! But little by little, continously adding useless and "feel good" legislation that ultimately has no impact on crime or violence, is just the same.

[mikenold]

No person or political party is threatening the Second Amendment. It's a made up fanatasy of the NRA - as it has been for almost four decades. Get over it. No one cares and most of us laugh and question the overall intelligence of people who believe such a thing. Really, HAH!

Besides, since when did conservatives, especially 2nd Amendment advocates, make political arguments directly related to alleged rights enshrined by the Constitution by citing foreign sources? The last time the Supreme Court referenced an international precedent, you guys had a conniption fit over it. Which way do you folks want it?

Cognitive dissonance or just plain 'don't know what you're talking about' or both?

Have you noticed the increase in gun legislation just in the last couple months? I have. These people will never just come out and take the guns, they will erode the laws and chip away at the freedom first just like what has happened with abortion and gay rights.