Effects of a Democratic Congress?
 

Anyone else going to buy up a "scary" gun between now and Jan 20? While I have been mildly considering getting an AR-15 to compete in NRA Service Rifle competitions, the change in leadership in Washington has me more anxious to make the purchase. I feel like one of the first things Pelosi will do is dust off her A.R. ban and Brady Bill (she wrote the A.R. ban), it we will all be back to 10 round mags and no ARs.

Never in my life have I felt more threatened about losing my rights to bear arms, and it's a sad day when you will purchase a weapon that you wouldn't normally rush into, simply because you believe your right will be taken from you very soon.

Others feel this way?

The Dems will be sidetracked by the War and the mess the Republicans left behind. You'll probably be fine for at least the next 8-10 months.

Also, Magnum P.I. is going to be taking over for Heston, you really can't lose. Ferraris for everyone!!

1) can the color, it's hard to read ;)

2) how about letting us fuck up before you whine about it eh? It's not like the republicans did a great job. It's time to let someone else have a turn. The newly elected democrats (who were elected BECAUSE your side screwed things up so badly) haven't even taken office yet, and already you're complaining about them. That's absurd.

Oh and BTW, Will is right. We have a lot of work to do cleaning up your party's messes before we ever get around to worrying about assault weapon bans, but if it reaches the point where we have enough breathing room to look into it, I'll support it. You don't need an AK-47. I swear you guys are incredible. Ban nail clippers from airplanes, but submachine guns in suburbia is just fine? Sheesh.

I'm not saying that Nancy wouldn't want to ban it, but with the moderate democrats and Bush still in the White House, I don't think it will happen.

Are AR-15s really a problem? I don't hear about them being used in crimes very often. And there are plenty of people like me that don't own a gun, but have to hold it every time I go into Cabela's.

On a side note...I'm still pissed that I didn't get that free gun from that bank in Michael Moore's movie. I lived in Michigan and would have opened an account with them to get a gun.

Right now, I can't really justify buying a AR-15 either. But I want the option to.

This is my favorite military gun, but there is really no reason anyone in the general public would need one. If everything went to hell, and we had to stop an armed invasion, I want this gun. :D
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...round/m107.htm

There are already laws in place to strictly regulate the ownership of AK-47's. I have a lot of shit i don't need, many of them could be used to kill people if I were so inclined. Outlawing things because people don't need them is just fucking stupid.

Outlawing things becuase they have no reasonable use outside of shooting (i.e. seriously injuring or killing) another human being is smart. There is a reason that it's illegal to build, keep, or use a nuclear weapon in the US. That's why Democrats, after years and years of cleaning up the republimess, will probably turn their attention on certian guns. If you don't like it, vote Libertarian.

That's news to me. I better hide that centrifuge out back.

I can't believe that I can't have a nuclear arsenal to protect my house from a invading foreign country (surely it wouldn't be used in a US civil war).

:thumbsup: :lol:

Nuclear weapons and material isn't the same as assault rifles. However, I'm sure there are people out there that say that the public should have access to any weapon our military has, just in case we need to defend ourselves from them one day.

You're right.
On both counts.

So...where is the line drawn? Certainly no sane person believes that Joe P. Citizen should be allowed to have a nuclear warhead out in his backyard storage shed. Nor, I think, should he be able to own a tank, a bazooka, a grenade launcher, an aircraft carrier....and so on and so forth.

Look...I'm not in favor of gun control. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I am a hunter. I am a hunter safety instructor (NRA certified). I own guns. I own rifles. I own shotguns. I own handguns. I do not own an assault rifle. I don't see the point. Since I can't (for good reason) own one that fires on full auto, then the only other benefit to having one is...that it looks badass? I don't think so. I got enough of looking badass when I had to carry one in the military, thank you.

So, I really haven't made my mind up on the whole assault rifle ban...still. No one has yet to provide to me, a strong enough argument. One way...or the other.

The only reason I can think of to own an assault riffle would be entertainment (I'm assuming we're not talking about light assault rifles, like the Fedorov Avtomat...but more like modren, full assault rifles like he M16, SIG, or AK). It's major overkill for anything else: hunting (you'd have to pick pieces of the deer from a hundred yard radius), home protection (you're likely to bring down your house, and possibly a neighbors with a gun of that power...not to mention they'd have to do dental to ID what was left of the home invader), skeet (you could take down a plane right after atomizing a clay target or bird), that crazy biathalon event where you ski and shoot (you'd fall off your skiis, and that would mean that you'd be shooting out of control). So target practice is the only thing it's really slated for besides people killing. Maybe they should just be allowed on gun ranges.

If I see someone walking down the street with an assault rifle, I'm calling the police, and following them to make sure they don't kill anyone. It's a little more serious than a handgun because it's too powerful.

Every home should have at least one machine gun with 1,000 rounds, someone who's familiar with shooting it, and participate in weekly shoots to keep in practice in accordance with the militia act.

The Second Amendment has absolutely squat to do with hunting. It's about keeping the people in power over the government. The socialists of this country have done way too much damage to the 2nd Amendment, another attempted gun ban COULD be the match that lights the fire.

Even if I wanted to do this, I doubt I have the money to fire off that many rounds.

This argument is the sole reason I'm opposed to people owning assault weapons. Attitudes like this are insane. Sure, you have a machine gun. Great. One tank and your day is over. The only logical conclusion is either 1) we engage in a government / citizen arms race (government obviously wins since they can buy a lot more missiles than you can) or 2) we stop being ridiculous about insisting on gun ownership.


No one's trying to take your hunting rifles away, but really, do you really think that overall we'd be safer if everyone, including the idiots, had machine guns? That's just crazy.


And that worked great when the best weapon the government could obtain was a flintlock rifle. The citizens had a chance because their weapons were as good as the government's. Now, there's absolutely no chance for the ammendment to work as you say it's intended. I buy a machine gun, Bush buys a B-52. He wins. So since there's no way the citizenry is going to overcome the power of the government, that argument is null and void.

But if the citizenry really does want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, they should certainly buy a gun and join a well-regulated militia. Unless you're in a WELL REGULATED militia, the 2nd simply does not apply to you. Period.

Let's boil this down. A well regulated militia. We all know what a militia is, right? It's a civilian force that answeres to the government in a time of trouble. It's not a potential insurgent force, as an insurgent force does not answer to the government. The well regulated militia is ...*drumroll*... the National Guard! Te right of the civilians (read: people) to bear arms is protected. I'm not in the militia, so I don't have the constitutional right to bear arms.

I guess we're back to kicking that dead horse again.

Is it a problem for gun rights advocates that Bush just secretly signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which gives him right for to call up the National Guard of any state (with or without the approval of that state's governor) for purposes of "suppressing public disorder"?

If I were a gun advocate who was concerned about the public being able to overthrow the government if needed (versus just really liking noisy dangerous toys), I'd have a real problem with that.

ONLY because of current prohibition laws.

And this is where we let a cowardly group of people screw us. Posse Comitatus is SUPPOSED to ensure that the military would NEVER be used against the citizenry, but now all the gov has to do is make a claim of drugs being involved and BOOM, instant armored vehicles abound. I won't bother going over the people vs. military issue again since that would be beating the dead horse.


How many of those 'idiots' would walk out in public and start firing, KNOWING that everybody else has a machine gun and WILL be firing back? I don't think a whole lot will, in fact, do you know how many LEGALLY owned machine guns have been used in a crime? ONE, and that one was owned by a police officer.




dead horse.

Again, ALL of us are the well regulated militia, or at least we should be had the democrats not infringed on our rights to keep and bear arms. Well regulated does NOT mean government regulated. It also does not mean that you HAVE to be in the militia to keep and bear arms, since the militia act qualifies members of organized and unorganized militia as american citizens.

We are all the militia. one district court ruled that the militia was the national guard. This is incorrect insofar as it is only one part of the militia, the organized militia. Also, since the constitution prevents states from maintaining a standing army, the PEOPLE naturally make up the security of a free STATE by keeping and bearing arms equal to that of the standing federal army.

especially since the national guard, being federalized, is no longer a state militia, therefore, the people make up the actual militia and hence the individual right shall not be infringed.

For a better look at how congress has usurped power from the people, read my signature.

Uh, no, because ammo is expensive.

If the civilians attack the government, it is crazy to think the government will not respond with the tools available to them.

What? The ATF and the Marines are two seperate entities. . . .

And you don't have any logical arguments on that subject either. You can't. A rifle cannot beat a bomber.


Hell all you need is one nutcase to start something like that.

Next question: How many LEGALLY bought guns have been stolen and THEN used in crimes?


No, we're not well regulated. I don't have a commanding officer, and neither do you. We are, in fact, completely UNregulated.

It was unregulated before the democrats were democrats.

I know that. I'll settle for ANY regulation. Hint: When you're in a regulated organization, you generally attend at least one informational meeting in your lifetime. Funny, i don't recall going to any meetings of the militia.

The constitution supercedes any other act you can come up with. Unconstitutional laws are null and void.



Legal precedent.

Not according to the law it isn't.

Organized = regulated. Non-regulated militias do not fall under the 2nd.

Woah! I had no idea all the governors were breaking the law with the national guard!

So I CAN buy a nuclear weapon now. Excellent.

Your logic is breaking down bigtime



It can be both at once. And it is.

This is an illogical conclusion.

sorry shak, your reasoning, interpretation, and conclusions are wrong and illogical.

It should be interesting to you that it wasn't until 1905 that the first court determined specifically that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right, I guess that those first 125 years of our countries existence consisted of moronic judges who probably couldn't even name the signers of the declaration OR the constitution.

Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.

yes, they are. But just like YOU said that the government would use all of it's tools available, so they will shift military hardware (tanks) over to law enforcement agencies. They did it at waco.

to order such an attack would be COMPLETE political suicide. It will never happen.

He'd be dead pretty quick, wouldn't he. One nutcase gone from the gene pool. I would think that would make you MORE comfortable with less nuts having guns, after a time.

irrelevant because we're discussing machine guns.

regulated does NOT mean having a government run structure. YOU are a member of the unorganized militia, therefore YOU are part of the militia. IF you were to be called in to service, try to say you're NOT well regulated and see if that gets you out of it. It won't. Because you don't have a CO, you are part of the UNORGANIZED militia.

Do you have a good explanation WHY you aren't 'regulating' yoruself? It is YOUR responsibility to be well regulated...meaning you can shoot, maintain, and keep your weapon and follow basic orders.

Before 1903, they weren't. It was a ready reserve, meaning that they were NOT a standing army. The Dick Act federalized them, essentially making them available upon notice, turning them in to a standing army, hence they were no longer a state militia.

Strawman argument and you couldn't afford a nuke anyway, much less bear one. There is that political suicide thing also.

If it can now be called in to federal service, bypassing the governers authorization, they are no longer a state militia.

Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment. That is ok though, I understand not wanting to be wrong so badly that you'll not concede despite all historical evidence to the contrary.

which was contradicted in numerous higher court cases afterwards. no legal precedent.

You just said "all arms". You can't say "all arms", then get pissed when nukes get brought into the coversation. There absolutely, positively has to be a line drawn. I don't think anyone at all should have nuclear weapons, especially civilians. I feel the same way about all weapons, but for the sake of your statement, let's stick with serious weapons, as serious weapons like land-to-air missles, heavy, full auto machine guns, sniper rifles, and possibly nukes would be necessary in order to take the US military head on. In order for there to be the necessary force to deter the full power of the military, so as to protect us from the phantom menace of the marshal law, military police state. The current populace, including the uber-gun nuts, would be totally outguned in every way by the US military. Even if you managed to get together all of the former and retired military officers, you'd still have your ass handed to you.

Bottom line: any sane person can see that the right to bear arms has no real world connection with the responsibility of the public to keep the government in check. We have the reight to bear arms now, and I don't see one bullet being fired becuase of the loss of freedoms over the past 6 years. Not one shot rang out when we were wire tapped without a warrant. Not one bullet was fired when the Military Comissions Act of 2006 murdered Habeas Corpus. Not one shot rang out when the term "enemy combatent" was used to circumvent the Geneva Convention. Nothing. Nada. Until I see vigilantism on the rise among those who legally own weapons, I will not see the populace as a well regulated anything, and I will not support the arming of civilians. It's useless. Our military will prevent any kind of invasion, AND we have the National Guard in reserves...so that's out. If the government were to start turning on the populace, you wouldn't see lone gunmen or even organizaed terrorist cells work with any success. The only real success, as I've stated before, would come from domestic terrorism: independant terrorist bombers that have no connection to any kind of organization. That's the only way to fight the US military, and I don't see that happening until we're so far gone it may not make a difference.

That should effectively take the question or armed rebelion and well regulated militia out of your argument once and for all.

As far as nukes: all you need for a dirty bomb is some radioactive material, which is less guarded than bomb grade nuclear material.

I'm assuming you know the origianl text of the Second Ammendment:
The founding fathers wanted the second ammendment to be a barrier against a standing army. We fucked them in the ass when we let fear win over logic and created a perminant US military. See, the founding fathers understood that a standing army was a serious threat to democracy and civil liberties, so they wanted a militia: a military made up of volunteer civilians who trained for time of war, but were not full time soldiers.

The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted a perminant, federally controled military. They also didn't want a bill of rights.


BTW, San Francisco has been under the handgun ban for some time now, and crime rates have slowly dropped. Just an aside.

/threadjack

you know will, you're right. we're fucked. surrender all your freedom and work as a slave. we all shoud. we can't beat the government, you better do everything they tell you. freedom was just a dream. welcome to your new world order.

Aha! Now you know what it's been like to be a Democrat the last six years! Welcome to the revolution! :thumbsup:

I already explained the only real way to fight the US government and military:
With organization comes leadership, and with leadership comes targets of opportunity. Hierarchies have a fundamental flaw: they are dependant on leadership. Independant single person cells simply working off logic (would you bomb a DMV that keeps people in long lines fo hours at a time, or a Raytheon plant that builds missiles for the military?).

But moving back for a moment: have you shot anyone for the loss of your freedoms? No? Is that becuase I'm laying down for the NWO, or because you are laying down for the NWO? I've already explained that my best weapon is my big fat mouth. I tell people what's up, and a lot of people listen (the trick is a joke every now and again). You've made it clear that your weapon of choice has a barrel and launches little metal projectiles. My weapon is firing at a 300 words a minute. I'm doing everything I can, and you say, "welcome to your new world order."? I don't want to turn that argument around on you completly, so I suggest that we move on.

seeing no positive benefit from either republicans or democrats for the last 14 years, how do you think I feel?

I would think the argument could be made that the NRA could be a organized civilian force. I wouldn't be surprised if they have enough retired military in their ranks to give a challenge to the US military if they were to try and overthrow a extreme democrat government that wasn't doing their job right (and forced everyone to give up all guns).

Plus, having the majority republican military fighting the primarily republican NRA wouldn't sit well. There would be a lot of dissent in the military I would assume. (If your father was fighting for the NRA, and you were in the military, I couldn't imagine them shooting at each other) And you can't just nuke Birmingham and Charleston to wipe out the NRA either. They will blend into the general population. It would get ugly real fast.

When I read the second amendment, I take it to mean that if the government and military get too powerful and use their power for evil, the general population needs to be able to restore the government back to the constitution and hold new elections. The majority of people voted for the government we have, so if the majority of people want to kill some muslim religious extremists, the other 49% have to go along with it. If Bush would have blocked this election and made himself king, then there might have been a problem.

Well first it's 118 years because before 1787 we were under the Articles of Confederation (and judges between 1776 and 1787 would have been quite amazing if they had been able to name the signers of the constitution)

Second, I'm not sure what point you're driving at here. Want to elaborate?


OK. You first. Go buy a nuke. Have fun getting your hands on one. FYI it's gonna cost you several million so you might wanna polish off that platinum Visa. See, my point is that even if the 2nd meant what you think it means (it doesn't) it wouldn't matter because the people cannot financially keep and bear arms that equal the government's.


well I'm glad you brought that up! Waco is an excellent point. Koresh and his gang had one of the biggest civilian arsenals around, and what happened? They all died in a fire. They managed to drop a few ATF agents, and that's it. And that wasn't even a coordinated military assault. See my point here? You're not going to win if the government decides to get you, so why endanger the rest of the public with your fantasies about warding off an evil government with your rifle?


6 years ago I'd have said that to order a bullshit war in a foreign country would be complete political suicide after Vietnam, but Bush managed to get reelected.

And how many would die from him shooting them before he was dropped? How many would die in the crossfire as everyone around them whipped out their machine guns and started blasting away? You need to think these scenarios through. "Kill all them motherfuckers" is almost never the answer.

Bullshit. That's not irrelevant at all. You tried to slip an argument past me but it didn't work. You tried to suggest that legally posessed machine guns aren't used in crimes very much. Nice try, but if someone steals my machine gun that I bought legally, the machine gun is no longer legally owned and therefore drops off your narrow statistical analysis. As the old saying goes, figures may not lie, but liars can figure. Manipulating the statistics to try and prove a point that's broader than the statistics you limit yourself to is dishonest.


Yes, I know that. I've said that.

Great, and since an unorganized militia is unregulated, I don't have a 2nd amendment right to a gun.

I won't be.

Then if it's unorganized who the hell is going to be calling me into service?



Are you really suggesting that the constitution's framers considered a militia well regulated as long as it was composed of people who were supposed to control themselves? That's a bit of a kindergarten approach to it don't you think? And if I'm the one that's supposed to be regulating myself, who's basic orders are you suggesting I follow? Your arguments fail to stand up to even the lightest logical scrutiny.


1) The dick act is named for its sponsor, Senator Charles Dick, who was a republican. So quit blaming the democrats.

2) The states still have a well regulated, armed militia. They're called cops.


My point exactly. I can't afford a nuke. The government can.

If the government has turned totalitarian and is out to oppress us, they don't give a damn about political suicide, because you can't commit political suicide in a dictatorship. Do you think the Iraqis who were killed by Saddam's soldiers were tittering into their beards thinking "haha! He's committing political suicide!"

And btw Iraq was a society that DID have much more powerful weapons than American civilians had, and it STILL took an outside army to topple Saddam.



Their intent was to insure states had militias. Not to insure that hunters get a deer, or that you get to play with guns and pretend to be a freedom fighter.

Wow. So for you, all government boils down to the Second Amendment? If those bad Democrats try to take our guns away, we better have the good Republican populace be armed enough to overthrow them?

I've heard of single-issue voters, but that's just nuts.

The NRA isn't regulated at all. All you need is $35 for a membership. You don't even have to own a gun...so that thins out the ranks a bit. Even among those who own a gun, very few can shoot with the same proficiency as a freshly trained military officer, and many of the NRA members are getting on in age...so that thins out the ranks quite a bit more.

The NRA is great for lobying and fighting things like the New Orleans gun confiscations or SF's proposition H. They are not a body capable of any kind of military action.

Also, if this "extreme democrat government" forced everyone to give up their guns, what use would the NRA be at all?
That goes both ways. Some NRA members wouldn't be able to fire on US soldiers, having been soldiers themselves. Some would probably shit themselves.
The elections were both stolen, and no one did shit. Again, people love to talk big about insurection, but it's hot air. When push comes to shove, there will only be a few that stand...and in the instance of standing against the government, it's always the liberals that stand strong. The conservatives didn't burn draft cards and fight back against riot police.

I had always read the bill of rights inside their historical context and from that determined that the second Amendment:

meant that the people of this new nation would need to be prepared to take up arms in support of this nation at any time.

I personally have always believed that no person should be allowed to own a weapon that they did not know how to use and store safely. To that end I personally believe that we should require owners of guns to obtain a license, much like a drivers license. Yes I do know that you have to have a license to own a gun, but there is nothing in obtaining that license that says you have to know how to use it.

if anyone in this world has advanced the cause of gun control in America in the last 5 years it's been our nice Republican VP. See what happens when you put a gun in the hands of an idiot? Lawyers get shot.

On second thought maybe this isn't such a bad idea.

I will never understand why people will adamantly, and with fervent vigor, attack the slightest notion of losing their right to bear arms when so many other rights have been plucked away with hardly a word in opposition.

The last AWB turned out to be a political lead balloon. They won't risk it before the next big elections in 2008. Though I am sure a few will make token speaches about bringing back a ban before then.

After the 2008 presidential race, all bets are off. Nevermind that the world didn't end when the last AWB expired.



CHI: A lot of people do oppose the loss of those rights as well. But I can think of two reasons why any erosion of the second amendment is protested perhaps more vigorously than others: 1: You are losing something tangible. One day you can have something and the next you have to surrender it or put your name on a list. and 2: The second amendment was intended to be our last-ditch defence against a government turned bad. If you remove all other liberties except the second amendment, people may through force of arms reinstate a government that serves the people.

You might be right about the tangibility, but still...

This thread brings to mind my favorite verse from the Declaration of Independence:

I doubt we'll see much, at least right away. The Dem leadership seems silent on the issue, oddly enough. They could be planning something sneaky, like attatching a nasty bill to the Defense Appropriation as a rider, though, and I wouldn't put it past them.

Their big concern right now is '08. They want that ugly oversized house-trailer back -real- bad. The Military-Industrial-Banking Complex sees the advantages too, so they and their media mouthpieces are keeping shut.

As a consequence, I think Greg has it nailed. I don't expect anything to come of it for at least the next two years; the Dem's success this time around hinged on being able to woo moderate Republicans and Independants, who were fed up with Iraq and such. That support wouldn't survive another AWB, and the Dem leadership knows it. I think they'll keep gun-grabbing out of the headlines until '08, if they can.

you continue to support this notion of a state army and keeping the redneck idiots from running around with guns, yet I've seen zero historical evidence from you to support this ludicrous theory. You can't say 'but they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns' without producing anything to support it and expect anyone to believe it.


a group of nearly 100 held off two government branches with armored vehicles for over 50 days. Do you know why the FBI pushed for a final assault? They knew that it wouldn't be long before other armed groups of citizens came to help the davidians. I see you support the notion of it's preferable to live subservient to the government than to die free.


which should tell you that propaganda can go a long way to convincing alot of people, just like goering said. But it will always have its limits even though you say it doesn't.


Until you can change your perception of americans being idiots, nothing anyone says will ever change your stance. You CANNOT prevent idiocy in some people but such is the price of freedom. Apparently the price is too high for you.



pure obfuscation on your part. don't let your machine gun be stolen. pretty simple.


wrong and wrong.


Are you really suggesting that the constitution's framers considered a militia well regulated as long as it was composed of people who were supposed to control themselves? That's a bit of a kindergarten approach to it don't you think? And if I'm the one that's supposed to be regulating myself, who's basic orders are you suggesting I follow? Your arguments fail to stand up to even the lightest logical scrutiny.[/QUOTE] And yet, that is exactly what the framers thought and believed. But you're obviously a much more intelligent and wiser individual than those bumbling fools that created this republic, since those who believe in the individual rights theory are unreasonable and illogical, despite all the evidence they put forth. What is it like being such a genius?


One has nothing to do with the other.

wrong. cops are 'law enforcement', not the militia, but another dead horse with you.

WE are that militia, not a 'state' government run body of military members.

I wonder if you are really as smart as you think you are, since you apparently have very little understanding of the historical evolution and development of the constitution.

And so, the flame war begins...

I need to address some dead horseshit I saw in this thread:

1) Well-regulated militia does not mean government-regulated. Nowhere does it say "A government lapdog militia being necessary..." It means able-bodied adults.

2) Rifles can beat bombers, look at wars like Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afganistan(which I still can't spell), and to a certain(lesser) extent Iraq. This is especially true in numbers, such as... oh I dunno... a militia vastly outnumbering an army who would probably have a serious problem attacking its own country.


I also have to address the issue of gun crimes. Apart from what I hear on the news, once or twice a year, I hear many more stories of distant acquintances and friends of coworkers about people being stabbed or beaten. Gun crimes are a sensationalized myth. We learn this from television and movies: when somebody kills somebody, it means bang bang.

That's a really great way to enter a conversation. People really are more likely to listen to you if you call their points dead horseshit. I know it's put me in a great mood.
There are three types of militia in the US:
1) The Constitutional militia. This is an unorganizated militia that consists of all able bodies men (or now adults) from the age of 18-45 who can be called into active service by Congress. These would, of course, answer to executive power, and could be construed as "government lapdogs".
2) The State Select militia. This is the National Guard (also "government lapdogs").
3) Private militia. Mercenaries organizaed into private para-military organizations. These aren't government lapdogs, but they are usually considered to be extreemists, and are unlikely to be considered the "all able bodies adults" you speak of.
Bombers are the only effective weapon against military superpowers, and the past 10 years of history proves it. How effective were rifles against the Unibomber? How effective were rifles against the Oklahoma City bombing? The USS Cole? You can't fight what you can't see.
It was hardly sensationalized when my best firend was shot.

And of those militias, we are to report with our own arms.

Bombers are useless when there is nobody to fly them. guerilla tactics work wonders.

You'd report to the National Guard or the Senate in the case that the government were to turn on us?
Are we talking about bombers (airplanes with bombs to drop) or bombers (guys that covertly plant explosives)? I'm talking about the latter. I'm actually talking about the most basic of guerilla tactics.

Of course not. That would be the moment that those of us who form the community would band together and fight against the government.

my misunderstanding then. I thought you were talking about bombers as in B52's etc.

Ah, but that's not regulated in the least. The militia spoken of in the second ammendment is well regulated.

You keep supporting the idea that the 2nd lets anyone and everyone have a gun, yet I've seen zero logic from you as to why they would bother qualifying that with the well-regulated militia clause.

I, however, have pointed out that clause, which is what supports the idea that "they didn't really mean for everyone to have guns."



Because the government sat around doing nothing for 48 of those days. Don't delude yourself.


Bull. That is absolute bunk that you're making up as you go along. I challenge you to give me a reliable, trustworthy source that claims that. They raided when they did because Director Sessions was an idiot who was already in trouble for taking taxpayer funded personal trips all over the country, and was trying to show that he was tough so he could keep his job. Many of the field agents (Sessions didn't bother consulting the guys on the ground who knew what was going on) actually were in favor of pulling back a bit to de-escalate the situation and try to calm Koresh down.

I support the notion that it is better to live in a peaceful, democratic society than it is to hole myself up in a bunker cleaning the guns in my arsenal pretending the post-apocalyptic totalitarianism is here and coming to get me.


You're damn right it is. Unless the government is actually oppressing you, you don't need to run around claiming you and your gun is the only thing standing between us and government oppression. But random shootings can and should not be excused by claiming it's all part of the price of freedom.

Pure blindness on your part. Guns get stolen every day. Pretty simple.

So you think something that's unorganized is in fact regulated? Someone get this kid a dictionary.

No, they did not. They were not that stupid.

Ahh, more insults that add nothing to the argument. Keep it up sport.


Well according to you nothing can be a militia unless it's individuals running around without any regulation or training in the use of their weapons. Not much of a militia.



Pushing for another ban, are we?

What you mean to say is that I disagree with you and am therefore stupid. Just because my historical view of the constitution is not the same as yours does not mean that you are not the one who has no clue what he's talking about.

and well regulated means what to you? I know how jefferson and madison defined it, but how do YOU define it?

Because there is no 'qualifier'. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It does NOT say that the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

which is why T. Jefferson said that 'no freeman shall EVER be debarred the use of arms?

I'm in no way deluded. They sat around hoping that the davidians would surrender. When they wouldn't, the FBI said enough. People ARE going to come and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands.

And I suppose you wouldn't consider anything reliable unless it came from a congressional report, right? Sessions WAS an idiot, and I don't claim that what I said was the ONLY reason, it was just one of them.

Who said anything about living in a bunker? But if you can't see whats going on in the world, how do you expect anyone to take what you're preaching at face value? MOST of us gun owners would LOVE to live in a peaceful and FREE republic. The problem is that WE understand the price of that freedom, where others do not.


Can the government take your property for public use? Can the government take ALL of your money because you didn't pay enough taxes? Can the government raid your home with flashbangs, machine guns, and get away with murdering members of your family all on the basis of a criminal informant? All of the above is a huge resounding YES, yet you think this isn't opression to you. I feel very sad for you, for you obviously have no idea what freedom is supposed to be.


None of my guns has EVER been stolen. What have I done right that others haven't?

reg·u·late (rgy-lt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
Now, where does the 2nd Amendment say that a government regulated militia is the ONLY militia? It doesn't. Patrick Henry said 'We are the militia, all of us, save a few elected officials. PH was NOT a regular military member, a national guard member, NOR was he a cop. He was part of the militia. Just like YOU are.

And yet they wrote one of the most famous documents in the entire world. read your history again.

If I was insulting you I'd have said you were a complete dumbass making up history on the spot and tell you that you knew jackshit about the constitution and should get your money back from the university you're studying at. I didn't say that, I made a sarcastic remark, with little tact, saying that you're not as smart as you think you are.


I've consistently said that there are two types of militia, one is the organized and one is the unorganized. The organized IS/WAS the NG and the other one is the rest of us. Yes, the REST of us, meaning YOU and I, and anyone else that fits in the Militia Act. Again, read your history.



No, I don't MEAN to say anything of the sort. I've told you AND showed you that what you say is right (though you've shown ZERO historical documentation to prove your claim), is actually wrong. You STILL choose to believe differently, all the while saying that what I have produced as proof does not mean what the founders intended, even though it was said by the founders, and therefore I am the one that is wrong, illogical, and unreasoning. Therefore, I have to call in to question the education you've received. Too bad if you don't like the fact that I've shown you to be wrong time and again. THAT is not my problem, though it COULD be yours when you find yourself in courts pushing your incorrect ideology.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Would the job of securing a free state for the people of America, should the Government (or anyone else for that matter) bear arms against them, not fall at the feet of the international community? Given that the 2nd Amendment was written before the UN was formed, does the international community and it's commitment to protecting peace and democracy around the world not take the responsibility off the shoulder of the American public?

reg·u·late (rgy-lt) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "regulated" [P]
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

ah hell, I hit the wrong damn button. sorry about that.

I was trying to say that a regulated militia is a group of civilians taking up the role of soldier in times of need- and that that group must have, get this, you'll love it, RULES (cause that is what all that definition of regulation means)

I think that the term must adapt to the times, and it hasn't. I think that in keeping with a situation like we're in now, the National Guard should answer to the State alone, and everyone should serve at least in some way in either federal or state military so that if the need for domestic defence should arise, we'd be ready. The problem, of course, is that 1) people are massively lazy and 2) the federal and state governments are crap with the military. People now-a-days are happy to take from the government and piss but aren't willing to do anything in return. Meinwhile, everyone is satisfied with revolving door policies with weapons manufacturers and politicans and using our troops to enforce economic dominance over places we have no business being. The whole thing is a damn mess, and it would actually be easier at this point to start from scratch than to try and fix the sinking boat.

We couldn't have a real militia in the sense that is both in keeping with the minds of the framers and in keeping with modern times without massive reforms or revolution....so the ammendment has become vestigal; it's useless and meaningless. It's become so twisted that I could argue it gives me the right to bear arms (apendages of large mammals)
http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote...r/Beararms.jpg
as opposed to the right to bear arms (to hold and own weapons).

which really means that you believe that the constitution is a living document and MUST be adaptable to the times, right? So the war on drugs and terror can be interpreted to allow drug raids and terror raids on all the houses in your neighborhood because the times dictate so?

ANY standing army is inherently dangerous to freedom and liberty, according to the founders. Were they wrong?


so we should rewrite or erase any OTHER right that no longer suits its purpose that was originally intended?

I see other definitions other than 'rules'. Again, regulated does not mean 'government' regulated, otherwise we're not truly free, we're just another force for a government agenda.

All this venom, wow.

Can anybody name the last time a legaly owned machine gun was used in the commision of a crime?


Oh, and the archaic meaning of well-regulated (as enshrined in the Bill of Rights) is "well trained". But this is all elementary. If you don't like the second amendment, lobby to get rid of it. But I will tell you this, people will still own guns, it will just be the ones who don't give a damn for your rules (ie criminals).

Yes, I believe that the Constitution, including (read: ESPICALLY) the Bill of Rights, should be a living document that is always kept modern and appropriate based on the clear path set by the founding fathers for the benifit of all people. Drug raids for cocaine, heroin, etc. should be continued. Drug raids on marijuana are a waste of time and money, and an obvious move to distract people from the real problems. Terror raids will be the same thing at the present rate. I have to say, however, that if police or military storm a home because of drugs or terrorism and meet a man with a rifle, no good will come of the situation. Police, military, and civilians will die needlessly, and the real guilty, those who would manipulate us all, will become more powerful. I know you don't want that. No one but the manipulators want that. The real question is: how do you defeat the manipulators? That's where my weapon comes in, my big fat mouth. The more people know of and understand a deciet, the less power and influence it has. Every time I tell someone about Iraq and open their eyes for the first time, I weaken the Bush administration and strengthen the anti-war movement. Every time I explain how marijuana is less dangerous than drinking or smoking, I help another voter understand the anti-marijuana legislation.

If that's the case then why didn't they explain any other amendment? "a free and vigorous press being necessary to the security of a free state" would have been a great prefix to the 1st amendment. Your logic again does not make sense.


If you want to go based on the intent of T. Jefferson, that means no white landowner will be barred from having a gun.



Yes, you are. You claim they held off the government for 50 days. It's not hard to hold off the government if the government isn't shooting at you.


You seriously think that a responsible journalist considers a congressional report good primary source information? How about something from a newspaper or news magazine? Hell, find me ANY source to back up the outlandish claim you made up.

MOST of you gun owners don't harbor insane delusions that you can take on the military and win.


Yes, and they've done so many times. Why haven't you firebombed the whitehouse yet? I thought you were ready to defend our freedoms with your guns.

1) you're lucky
2) just because you know what you're doing with a gun, storing or shooting it, does not mean everyone else, or even a small majority of everyone else, will know what they are doing.



Hokay, time for some reading comprehension lessons. I have never said a well regulated militia must be a government regulated militia. It can be regulated by the RA in a college dorm for all I care, as long as it's REGULATED. A bunch of fools running around with assault rifles is NOT regulated at all.

Yes, we all know Patrick Henry wanted every man to have a gun. Of course, PH was trying to fight a revolution against an actual tyrannical government - not the one you're imagining. There IS a difference.
This doesn't even make sense in the context of what I wrote.


And you've been consistently wrong.

Considering I don't own a gun, and you say you want to fight the tyrannical government, I am guessing that of the two of us it is not I who needs to worry about being in court.

If you're going to debate with me, at least try to debate with the right person. I didn't write what these lines are in reply to.

No, they were absolutely right. ANY standing army is a insane mistake of global proportions. The military as it exists today is one of the -- if not the -- most dangerous forces in history. The thing is, the framers existed in a time before the industrial military complex had bought off politicans for decades in order to creat a perminant standing army in the US. Since that has already happened now, and unringing that bell would take a revolution, we have to work within the confines of reality. We have to work from inside the system we live in.

The use is gone. The words are very outdated, and as the Constitution is alive and growing, it should be made to be relevant again. We've already established that arming the public won't stop the government. We've already established that there already is an armed state militia under the control of the government. If you want an ammendment that gives you the right to rebel, go make one. This isn't it.

I don't know that I have a problem with a standing army. If we're attacked I'd much rather have a military full of people who've been training for years to defend us than a bunch of civilians who don't know how to load a rifle. I just have a problem with using that army for any reason other than defense.

The people of Iraq have stopped us cold with much less than what Americans have in thier gun safes.

Don't forget, the idea is not to be able to defeat the government, you could never predict that. It is to be a deterent to the government, just like an armed society is a deterent to criminals.

You can't, it's called the Posse Comitatus Act. While there are some exceptions, for the most part it forbids the use of federal troops in a law enforcement role.

As for the effects of a Democratic legislature, it won't be noticable. Many of the so-called democrats ran on pro-gun platforms. I don't see there being the votes to pass any more meaningless firearms legislation.

Why do you think this?


The right to rebel is meaningless without the ability.

Ah but that's the idea behind a perminant standing army. No one knows what to do in times of peace, and the pressure is always on to be in conflict with someone or something to justify it's existence, it's size, it's cost. For the last 50 years, it was the spread of Communism. Even though democracy and communism can very easily coexist in peace, both sides spun that the other was evil and godless and was an immediate threat....therefore we both became a threat to one another. Had the Soviet Union and the US been close allies instead of continued threats to one another, what reason would there have been for the building up military? Now that the Soviet Union has been collapsed for over a decade, the new threat is global muslim extreemism in the form of terrorism. Even though it's perfectly obvious to anyone who stops and thinks about it, the military will continue to grow and develop new and more powerful weapons to fight terrorism. Of course, we already know how effective conventional military is against terrorism: it's crap. We had fighters all over the US capable of supersonic speeds and blowing a flea off the side of a warship....but they couldn't get a few slow moving commercial liners. I mean the Pentagon, the center of all US inteligence, was hit with a commercial plane long after the WTC towers fell. It should have taken maybe 7-8 minutes to get over the Pentagon....but it they couldn't get there in over an hour. It was was silly. Assuming you don't subscribe to my conspiracy leanings, no military planes were sent up upon learning of a third hijacked plane, after 2 planes had hit the WTC. That means that we wer powerless against the greatest terrorist attack on US soil in history.
Let's say that you have the biggest, most powerful military in the world. Againt you, no conventional military could hope to stand. You could even take on the second, third, and fourth most powerful militaries in the world at once and win. Let's also say that this military is massively expensive. It's so powerful that it's bankrupting your country. Also, the military spending is involved in a revolving door policy between the weapons manufacturers and politicans. In order for the manufacturers, and thus the politicans, to get madly rich, they need to constantly be increasing spending. How coud they possibly justify this in a time of war? That's simple. We seek out enemies. We even create them. We are in a constant state of conflict. But what happens when everyone is subserviant? What happens when we eventually nuke the ME, and China, and Europe? The we turn on ourselves. There has always been healthy descent among Americans because of free speech. I can go out and say that the war in Iraq is wrong, and no one shoots me (yet). Of course, now that it's legal to break the Geneva Convention, Habaes Corpus, etc. What does that mean? I can be arrested for protesting, and they can use ridiculous military and/or police force to get me.

I think the interesting part is that the founders understood the dangers of a standing military hundreds of years ago. These were some amazingly brillient men.
As long as people can buy simple, household items, we will have the ability. Guns are hardly the only weapon of insurgency, and if the government already knows that you have some, you won't be able to do much.

Interesting, your dislike of the military seems to be based on it's effect on our government, rather than a fear of it being used against the citizenry. I had never looked at it from that perspective.
The government does not know that I own firearms, there is no registration where I live.

Also, refer to the my comments on deterence above. The fact that there are firearms owned is enough to keep the government honest.

I am 100% for a domestic military that consists of volunteers that have normal jobs and do military training on weekends and such. The National Guard is a really good idea, and I support it's existence...but yes, I am against the existence of a standing military because of the effects it has on government and polulace alike.
Fair enough on the registration point, but anyone who understands high school chemestry can build a home made bomb. I have no plans of ever blowing up anything for any reason, and yet I do own all the right elements to make a fairly powerful explosive. And even if you don't know hgow to make the stuff, there are movies that outline the creation exactly. Have you ever seen Terminator or Fight Club? That's all you really need...and I suspect that entertainment media will be legal long after free speech would be gone.

You don't really need guns to protect yourself from the military, and the second ammendment doesn't even cover rebelion.

This is more or less exactly what Eiserhower warned us about in his Farewell Address:

Oh, I know I love Eisenhower. Have you seen "Why We Fight"? It only scratches the surface, but it does a really good job as an intruduction to underastainding the military industrial complex.

I wish I could have met Eisenhower.

Title 10 U.S.C. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Want to rethink your position again?

The unorganizaed militia answers to the Senate.

They can be called in to service, they are still a seperate organization.

A seperate organization that answers to the senate and, ultimately, the US government and the laws it enacts.

Let's take a breif overview of the history involved:

The US hadn't created the National Guard until the Dick Act in 1903.
The National Guard is directly affiliated with the Government of the US.
Its safe to say the National Guard is an organized milita that answers to the Federal Gov.

Just to recap, Title 10 U.S.C. 311. Militia: composition and classes, states

The unorganized militia can be split into two subcatagories: constitutional militia (citizen groups who support the intent of the Founding Fathers in regard to the right to keep and bear arms), and private militia (a non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government). Both must adhere to the law. There are currently twelve (give or take) private militias in the US. Here's a list:

Colorado Minutemen
North Carolina Citizen's Militia
Militia of Montana
Michigan Militia
Indiana Militia Corps
Unorganized Militia of Champaign County (Ohio)
Unorganized Hawaii State Militia Hawaii
Terrain Militia 08th MS Team, Freeburg IL
The 51st Missouri Militia
Ranch Rescue
The Monroe Militia
The Black Panther Party

If you look at any of the websites for these militias you'll notice they use non-violent (oddly enough) protest to incite political change, and usually only take up arms for traditional reasons. However, these (the only private militias in the US) entities are in direct support of the Constitution and abide by the law. These private militias can only exist with consent from the government.

you'll have to show me where the constitution says that I report to the senate. Until then, I say not.

I'll admit the senate connection is vague, but you do have to report to the government.

Amendment XIV
You have to abide by the law, even in a militia.

Yeah. They got lucky. Don Rumsfeld was in charge and made a mess of everything. They managed to hold off a vastly undersized army that was lead by an idiot. Plus, they didn't exactly stop us cold. We were knocking on Saddam's palace door pretty damn quick after the start of the war. You forget the early days of the war when the air force was being used. The bombers, and the missiles, made hash out of that country's defenses. They folded like a card table.

Oh, and as to the bit about them having less than what Americans have in their gun safes, normal Americans have a rifle or three in there. They do not have improvised explosive devices, AK-47's, or rocket launchers.

Your entire statement falls apart.


What deterrant? The government wasn't deterred going into Iraq, which was able to put up a much greater defense than the civilians in our country ever could. If the government wants to get us, a few dinks with popguns isn't going to make them stop and think.

Only when called in to service.

Of course, so long as that law doesn't violate or run counter to the constitution.

A couple hundred people with guns doesn't mean much, 80 million is a bit different.

You forget Texas, but thats not a big deal. Militias have a lawful existence, apart from the government, not the consent of. The unorganized militia can be called upon for any of the lawful reasons stated in the laws and the constitution but it is also the check and balance against a government run amuck. Amok? however you spell that word.

You are required by the US government to abide by the law, and if those laws are ever unconstitutional the entity rebelling against the government will not be called a militia.

so if the US government makes a new law implementing slavery, you're required to abide by it? You are NOT required by the government to abide by the law. Marbury v. Madison, 'any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void.'
Remember, this country gives powers to the government, we are not subjects of the government. Too many 'statists' have elevated government in to the position of our overlords, and that's why we're in the situation we're in now.
although you're wrong, since the populace, or citizens, are the militia at all times, I'm curious as to what you would call that entity then?

The word you're looking for is "rebelion", and that term is not synonomous with "militia"; as a matter of fact, the terms are mutually exclusive. Also, the populace isn't the militia. A militia is a militia. I'm shit with firearms, so I wouldn't have a place in this militia you mention.

you still consider the government as the granter of all your rights and priviledges. Thats too bad. The populace IS the militia. Just because you're not efficient with a firearm does NOT exclude you from qualifications as to the militia code. Also, as an american citizen, you should WANT to be proficient with firearms for any eventuality. By not doing so, you're denying your responsibility to the security of a free state.

The government grants nothing. It enforces the Constitution, which secures my inaliable rights.
Okay, I'll admit that being unwilling to use firearms does not exclude me from being an active member in a rebelion. I'm very good at game theory, I can probably make bombs, and, again, people listen to me. Not only that, but I'm a pretty good martial atrist. That's all useless, of course, because I'm a pacifist. I cannot and will not fight because I understand that all this posturing and fighting and bullshit feeds itself. War begits war, and if no one is willing to say, "No", then it will continue and our posterity will have to deal with it. I'm not interested in handing war ideals down to my daughter's generation.

As for my responsibility to maintain a free state, I do a shitload. Again, I have a really big mouth. I'm like a politican without power or responsibility. A lot of people listen to me and take what I say very seriously. I'm vocal in my community, and I'm vocal internationaly. I'm one of those people that everyone likes (not because I'm fake, but because I'm as genuine as possible). Also, I'm humble. Heh. Seriously, though, Ghandi never used a weapon and he was one of the most important political figures of the past 100 years. I'm not equating myself with Ghandi, just following a good example.

Will,
Good to hear it; every voice helps.

Touching on your example of Ghandi, however; the only reason the British paid any attention to Ghandi is that they knew that, if they didn't, they'd have Nehru to deal with. And Nehru's people were certainly -not- pacifists, as the fighting which attended the partitioning of India showed. Non-violent protest only affects evil people when there is the understanding that, if non-violent means are ignored or repressed, violent means could potentially be employed. Non-violence works great...until the Gov't decides to simply crush you, ala Tienanmen Square. Once that line is crossed, only an overwhelmingly violent response on the part of the People can stop the Government's aggression; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it's certainly better than simply waiting to be shot, which -never- works.

Is THAT what you think the governments been doing for the last 75 years? :lol:
The government does NOT enforce the constitution, it's been finding ways to undermine it since the civil war. The constitution can only secure your rights as long as you're willing to fight to keep it in being. Otherwise it's just a damn piece of paper.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Ghandi

Ghandi is also known for answering a question from a highschool girl about what she should do if someone was pointing a gun at her, he said that if someone is pointing a gun at you, it would make sense to use a gun also to defend yourself.

Will, how long do you think you will be able to run your 'big mouth' if the government, with guns, wants to silence you?

You said that I consider the government a granter of rights. That's not true. I'm saying THE JOB of government is to enforece and protect the Constitution. You and I both know that not all elements of government do their job.
No one is perfect.
Until the day I die.

Well, somebody listened. I really doubt the points I ragged on are original to anyone on TFP, so I don't see the offense in this.

What some consider them changes nothing.

On the same token, how effective would a B-52 or nuke have been? It's widely known that airpower and wmd's can't conquer anything. Same for armor. You need guys on the ground with guns for that. A revolt or insurgency is a far different game than conquering a superpower.

I'm sorry about your friend. But you misunderstood me as denying the existence of gun violence. I'm saying it is blown out of proportion. The people I knew that died as a result of car accidents, fire, home/work accidents, and illness outnumber those that were shot by SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

Hell, more people die from falling (or drowning?) IN THEIR HOMES than from guns. However, I don't see any angry forum posts about those. This leads me to believe that the confiscation of guns is for a higher purpose than safety, which is the common reason... I fully support the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan, but what are US troops doing there? Disarming insurgents, that's what. That's the first step.

Treating someone like shit is offensive.
K, they ARE extreemists. Not only that, but, as pointed out by Ch'i, these independant organizations advocate non-violence (people after my won heart) to incite political change.
Again, by 'bomber' I mean someone who plants explosives, not an aircraft that drops bombs. Sorry for the confusion.
I recognize that I can't stop violence from fists, knives, or baseball bats. I can't stop car accedents or plane crashes. We need knives and hands and baseball (even though it's boring) and cars and planes. Guns don't really have a duplistic purpous, besides maybe hunting, and who uses assault rifles to hunt? Most of us get our meat from the store, and they get it from killing domesticated cattle and poultry and pork and lamb and fish without the use of a gun. The reason for a gun is to injure or kill another human being, and that's not a good enough reason, in my mind, for them to exist. I live about an hour and some change south of Oakland, so I know that not all gun violence is 'blown out of proportion'. I know it's easy for pro gun people to assume that gun violence statistics are padded or exaggerated, but reporting a shooting is reporting a shooting. When I watch the news report on a shooting, they aren't making it up.
I'm not as mad about water violence because we need water to survive, so we can't just get rid of it. The same cannot be said of guns. Water gives life, and guns take life. As for the wars of aggression and the continuing follies of the lame duck administration under the rule of President Genocide W. Bush, that's for another thread. I'd be glad to explain why the troops are really in Iraq elsewhere.

I believe there are at least 11,000 gun deaths a year in the US. That's over 30 a day. How many Americans die each year from terrorism? If numbers are so important, why are we fighting terrorism with such vigor when in the past 6 years we've lost 3,000 people to terrorism and 66,000 to gun violence? That means that terrorists only kill 4.5% of Americans that guns kill.

The reason for a gun is to stop an offensive threat by injuring or killing another human being, and that's a good enough reason, in my mind, for them to exist. I don't expect my 57 year old, 4', 11", 98 lb mother to use martial arts and fight off one attacker, let alone more. The same goes for myself. While I'm an average size man, there are particular reasons why I choose to carry a gun, or have one in my home, that make a gun better suited to defending myself or my family, than it would to 'put up my dukes and fight like a man'.

Your pacifism is admirable, but misguided, in my opinion, because you're misunderstanding the lesson of peace that Jesus tried to spread. If I were a more critical person, I'd tell you that you're disrespecting the gift that god gave you by refusing to use the force necessary to keep it.

Because gun violence didn't cause those deaths, violent criminals did. Just because they used a gun is irrelevant when you consider that there are as many, or more, crimes used with other weapons AND guns that don't result in deaths. The defensive uses of guns far exceeds the number of deaths that happen by criminal use of guns.

Well first, I hope your mom never has to be in a situation where she has to defend herself. How does she feel about tasers or mase? They don't have kickback that can cause you to miss your target if you have weak wrists, and they are very unlikely to kill anyone. They are effective as a deterrant, and are safer to carry. Also, I've never heard of a case of a child finding his father's mase and shooting himself dead.
I'm not convinced that Jesus was ever real, let alone a diety, so his lessons are more like fables to me than gospel. I do what I do and believe what I believe because it makes sense to me, personally, not because God told me to. God has his own stuff to deal with, if he exists, and shouldn't be bothered with whether I have a gun or not.

Yeah, let's not forget the thousands of lives that guns save each year. Sure guns are made for killing people, but that's necessary sometimes; sometimes moreso than a baseball bat or golf club. Bats and clubs really, truly have no purpose outside of sports. What I'm sure you, and most, anti-gun people are upset about is illegal use of guns. Forgive me for going Lewis Black here, but..... IT'S ALREADY FUCKING IILLEGAL TO KILL PEOPLE!!! :mad: So then why is every politician who is for gun control also against stricter punishment of gun crimes? Shouldn't we stop demonizing simple objects and focus on hanging criminals by their wieners?

Also, with advances in the nutritional sciences, forks and knives have become barbaric implements of yesteryear. On the other hand, nothing has yet made mankind peaceful, so guns still have a purpose for self defense. I'd find you that story of an 80 year-old gun store owner (ok fine, I'll give you that one, but any store owner could suffer the same) that drove off a car full of about 8 attackers with his AR-15 and several 30-round clips of ammo. Nobody was injured, he just turned their car into a colander. A single-use can of mace wouldn't have done jack shit. Sure, on average, you'll be fine with a pump shotgun to defend your crib, but some people are at more risk than others.

There is one elitist wacho I know that thinks that people who can't defend themselves are weak and shouldn't expect to survive. Never mind that this includes almost everybody who's female, younger than 15, or older than 60.

How can you prove a gun saved your life? I mean you could say that it potentially save a life, but how could you prove it? Also, do you have any statistics (not including military or police) that cover how many lives that guns 'save' a year?
That's completly wrong, and that fundanemntal philosophical difference between you and I is where our argument lies. I'm responsible for my life and my life alone. I'm responsible for the safety of others, but never with their lives. In order to take someone else's life, you take responsibility for their life and that's wrong. It's like the worst and most fundanemtnal kind of theft. They are responsible for their lives.
Defend the safety of the weak. Don't kill. Those two commandments can coexist, and that's where I stand.

Marijuana is illegal, and I see dozens of people smoke it every day.
And you think having guns around helps that goal of peace?
I'm curious, (other than hunting) have you ever been involved in a situation wherein the only answer was the use of an automatic rifle?
Why do you assume that violence must be used to keep the gift your God gave you? Does it not sound like somewhat of a contradiction to you that violence must be used at any cost to preserve peace?

The part that I bolded is completely and totally wrong. If I'm put in to a position where I have to take someones life before they can take mine, THEY take responsibility for their life, not me. THEY made a choice to assault or kill me.

USMC, 1984-1990. Yes, I've been in a situation where the only answer was an automatic rifle. I hope it never happens to me again, but if it does, I'd certainly like to have it as an option instead of having some elected representative make it illegal because my possession of an automatic weapon somehow affects interstate commerce.


I never said that violence must be used at ANY cost. I said that violence MUST be a viable option if you're left with no other choice to avoid death or serious bodily injury.

I don't know how much more clear I can make this. They aren't pulling the trigger. You are. They are tempting you to take their life, sure, but it's not like you don't have a choice. YOU pull the trigger. You always have a choice, and it's in that choice that you either take responsibility for their life or not. You make it seem as if you lose the ability to control yourself if threatened. If that's the case, you have no business with a weapon. If that's not the case, you're wrong and have proven my point.

And taking away the use of an automatic rifle deprives you of that option?

Will, now your pacifism is bordeline unrealistic. If bad guy is swinging a 6 inch knife towards my chest, I can make the choice to just stand there and die? Or take a greater risk of injury and use non-lethal self defense? I'm sorry my friend, but that's just plain lunacy. It's completely ridiculous to place the onus of their death on me because they tried to kill me first.

Taking away the use of ANY weapon deprives me of my choice for the best defensive weapon for any given situation.

There's no such thing as a 'bad guy'. There are people. If someone is swinging a 6 inch knife at your chest, you can stand still, fight, run, or you can shoot him. Those are your choices. What if, in yet another in the long line of hypothetical situations, there is an unknown accompliace with a gun? If you fight back, he's less likey to shoot to avoid friendly fire. If you run, you're not as much of a threat, AND you're a moving target. If you open fire, he shoots you and you die. 2 people die when no one needed to die. Stop trying to dodge the responsibility of owning and intending to use a gun, and stop pretending it's your only defence.

It's not an issue of clarity; I, for one, understand you very well. But if somebody attacks me with deadly force, they have made the choice for me. It's not my business to defend myself with inferior tools when they have thrust that choice upon me. When they do that, I no longer value their life, because it is clear that they do not value mine. At that point, the situation has ALREADY sunken to levels it should never reach, and it's the best I can to come out alive. Using non-lethal force, worrying about property damage, etc, etcis a luxury I don't have time to worry about when looking out for #1.

So yes, I pull the trigger. Yes, they tempt me. Let me repeat that; they tempt me to take their life, and I'm going to take them up on their offer. Simple as that. Whether it's a gun, a knife, my car, or anything else. That's secondary. If they survive, that's secondary as well, as long as I (and those I'm trying to protect) make it. The training for carrying concealed weapons usually involves applying force until the threat is gone. So no, the goal is not to kill or maim or injur. The goal is to STOP THE THREAT, and this is about where the discussion turns religious, so I'd rather just shake hands and call it good. We're not going to agree on whether it's right or wrong to take a life to save your own. We're not going to agree on whether non-lethal defense tools are effective or not.

30 years from now, when we have multi-shot taser guns with a range of 30 yards plus where you don't have to rewind the wires for every bad guy, things'll be different. Until you no longer have to squirt a puny stream of kitchen spices into an attacker's eyes, it'll be easier to pump him full of lead anywhere in his filthy carcass.

Dodge the blame all you like, you pull the trigger. You make the decision. Which is exactly why military grade weaponry should become readily available to citizens. If a host of people try to break into my house and kill me, I'd feel alot better knowing I have H&K GRM2 grenade rifle and a Mirage AT23 portable minisile launcher behind my couch. Right?

Ok.

1) you stand still = you die.
2) you fight (unarmed) = you die (especially if he has a 6" knife and an accomplice)
3) you run = a good plan most of the time
4) you shoot him = he dies (and you ONLY possibly die if he has an accomplice)


That's about how I see it. Now toss into that mix all the people who couldn't run. Your grandmother, kids, the disabled, hell even your mother. I can outrun my mother if I'm running backwards. Run those choices by them and see which is the better fit.:thumbsup:

Your making alot of assumptions.

NO, I do NOT!! I would avoid it if at all possible. It's NOT my choice to be attacked. Sure, it's my choice (nah, it's my human right, actually) to defend myself. And it IS your choice; nobody is forcing you to. If you want to carry around a shotgun filled with bean bag rounds, just try it.:lol:

Okay, let's break this down. Someone is coming at you with a knife. There are only a few reasons someone would do this: theft, feeling threatened, assault, and madness. The first two would mean that if you stood still, you'd be fine. The second and third would be toss ups, maybe you'd be fine, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, it's an option.
If the guy had several years of martial arts training and his buddy was a hell of a shot, maybe. If not, no way, Jose. I'd have no problem disarming most people, and at most might get a cut on my outer forearm. I take responsibility for myself by being trained in martial arts in case I ever need it. Odds are, I live.
I run, I LIVE, you mean.
What is it with you people and thinking it's okay to kill people? "Oh help me! My life is in danger! Whoa is me! I need a weapon of massive power to feel safe!" You don't need a gun to be safe. You need to feel safe without a gun to be reasonable.
All the people who can't run can have mase or a taser. Probem solved. Non-lethal weapons are legal pretty much everywhere and run an infantesimal risk of fatility.

You have just made it very clear that if your life is threatened, you will not look to an alternative to shooting someone. I mean why bother trying not to kill someone if you feel that you have no choice but to kill if you feel threatened? It's a way to release all guilt, but guilt is a necessary human emotion. It keeps you from commiting immoral acts.

I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to defend yourself. Neither is Ch'i. No one is. Defend yourself if you are in danger. Just don't go Rambo and kill everyone.

so I turn and run, he chases me down and STILL kills me, or I fight back and he STILL kills me. great choices. The gun is my BEST defense. Intending to USE it in defense is certainly not a responsibility i'm dodging.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

deciding to live is dodging blame?
sure, if you want to take your family out in the ensuing explosion. An automatic weapon, or shotgun, would be ideal though, especially if THEY had an illegal automatic. How many people, cops included, would have liked to have had an automatic weapon during the north hollywood shootout?

what a load of crap.
A gun doesn't make me feel safer, it is the BEST tool of self defense for me. Like it is for ALOT of people that aren't as good at hand to hand as YOU are.

Your gun if the BEST way to kill someone. Your best defence isn't an offence, it's a defence. We've covered this before. Killing someone is offensive.

Tear gas. Why do you always want to kill everyone?

you're wrong. I understand that this is your point of view, but it's wrong. sometimes you are left with absolutely no option.


Tear gas for the shootout? so instead of semi-controlled bursts of auto fire you want random, no damn idea where my bullets are going, shots going all over the place?

Or you turn to run and the killer is hit by a car, or your killer runs out of ammo, or you trip over a cat and chip your tooth. Stop speculating on what might happen.

Don't change the context. You were both arguing that someone attacking you leaves you no choice but to shoot them. That they deprive you of your choices and, therefor, make the decision for you. This is simply not true and is rejecting responsibility for your (yes your) decision to pull that trigger. You can't assume that not firing on someone to defend yourself equates to death.

No, you're wrong. See how pointless that is? In a debate you're supposed to prove why you're right.

How many North Hollywood Shootouts happen in your neighborhood?

There's always an option. I'm not saying one option is necessarily better than another, but there's always an option. I know people who would choose to die rather than kill someone who's attacking them. I'm not one of those people, but they exist.

Look: if attacked with lethal force in a circumstance where retreat was impossible, I would probably respond with the minimum force I deemed necessary to stop the attack, and I wouldn't be too concerned if that level of force was lethal. But to say that's not a choice on my part is just irresponsible. Nobody forced me to respond that way, not even the person who is attacking me. I always have the say over my actions, no matter what the circumstances are. I quit pretending that other people made me do things when I was 12 years old.

Many of you have made that choice in advance, and good for you. It's smart to have any qualms you have about that worked out before you find yourself in that situation. But let's not pretend that's not a choice you're making. In many cases, people in this thread have chosen that they will take another person's life. I'm not saying it's unjustified or wrong--just that you have to face and come to terms with the choice you're making there. Personally, I don't think I could choose that action in advance, but that's why I'm me and you're you.

I don't play the odds. If you threaten my life, or that of my family, you take yours into your own hands.

I did.

hopefully it will never happen, but i'm up a shit creek without a paddle if it ever does and I have nothing to use for defense, aren't I?

That sounds really cool in movies, but it has no real life meaning. Again (and again and again), they aren't pulling the trigger. You are. They are tempting you to take their life, sure, but it's not like you don't have a choice. YOU pull the trigger. You always have a choice, and it's in that choice that you either take responsibility for their life or not. You make it seem as if you lose the ability to control yourself if threatened. If that's the case, you have no business with a weapon. If that's not the case, you're wrong and have proven my point.

In conclusion, when you have a gun, you take other people's lives in to your hands, usually without permission. No one made you go buy a gun and carry the thing around (though a criminal making you buy a gun for defence at gunpoint would be very ironic).
Not hardly. You made a Rambo argument (the "don't fuck with me or I'll go midevil" argument), then you repeated it.
But what about bird flu? You're more likely to get bird flu than to be involved in or even be near a cop/criminal shootout of the kind that was at that Hollywood shootout, therefore you should be ready for bird flu, THEN you should be ready for a shootout (the "prioritize the most likely" argument).

dksuddeth, baring military service, you'll never be in a shootout. I can say that with certianty. The "but what if" arguments are so statistically improbable that they become laughable, espically those of the armed-home-invasion-when-you're-home or massive-drawn-out police/well-armed-criminal-shootout persuasion. You won't need your gun. I wouldn't need a gun if I had one. Ch'i wouldn't need a gun if he had one. Because you'll never need your gun, you'll want to use it to excuse your having it. That's kinda dangerous. Combine that with the Rambo mentality, and you've got a recipe for 'accedenal death', 'involuntary manslaughter', or 'criminal neglegence'.

No, it isn't. Guns are manufactured with one aim in mind. Killing. Motive is not considered at the factory. The designers don't sit around and say "I'm making a self defense tool that a good-hearted soul can use to stop the bad man from getting him." They think only about how to make the gun a better and more efficient killer. Period.

Nothing wrong with that - considering a gun is SUPPOSED to kill things, you'd expect the guy designing it to be thinking along those lines. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking guns are designed for self defense. They're not, any more than they're designed for murder. They're designed to kill. What, or who, the user decides to kill is immaterial as far as the "reason" for the gun.

I don't think anyone here has said guns should not or legally cannot exist (although wouldn't it be nice if there were NO guns ANYWHERE?) I certainly don't think anyone is foolish enough to think we can get rid of all the guns in the world. In fact, although I despise hunting, I have no problem with people having rifles and whatever else you're supposed to have when you kill Bambi. I don't even want to take your gun away.

But just because I don't want to take away your gun doesn't mean I think you have a *constitutionally guaranteed* right to it.

Why not? If she's like the average person she has just as much training in hand to hand combat as she does in armed combat. Namely, damn near none.

Lemme just ask you this question, from a self defense standpoint, all arguments about whether you have the right to a gun or not aside. Do you really think it's wise to rely so heavily on one weapon? Guns are not perfect. They do jam, misfire, etc. Is it really a good defense strategy to base your survival on the functioning of a gun?

I tend to tell my students to diversify. Carry the knife (if you know how to use it *and* keep the other guy from getting it, otherwise if you carry it you're a moron), but also be very well versed in empty hand.



couple of problems here. First off, eliminate those problems. Go learn how to fight. Second, if you're getting the crap kicked out of you by a guy who has no weapon, and you shoot him, you WILL go to jail, and it probably will be for a very long time. Are you willing to take that risk?


I don't think Jesus would advocate that everyone carry a gun.

And if we were more tactless we'd challenge your assumption that god even exists, and when you couldn't prove that we'd ask you to come up with a better argument.


I'd like to see some stats for that last sentence please. Also I'd like you to compare apples to apples here. The DEATHS from defensive use of guns as compared to the deaths that happen by criminal use of guns. No trying to exclude crooks who can't shoot. I feel I must point out that we WILL catch you when you try to jimmy with the statistical language.

And yes, the gun is quite relevant. You don't hear about a whole lot of drive by stabbings. The gun is relevant because it allows you to kill from a distance. The crook can be 10 feet away and still kill me. I'm not comfortable letting a potential enemy (or ally who's a crappy shot) get hold of a weapon that can kill from far enough away that I don't have a chance of stopping it.