The Case FOR Guns

[MountainDon]

I thought there was already a thread regarding this, but doing a search I realized the idea came up as offshoots on other topics.

This caught my eye in this mornings ABQ Journal

Praise The Lord and Pass the Ammunition!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/12/13/praise_the_lord_and_pass_the_ammunition

[benevolance]

Don if nobody had guns nobody would die from them.... People who want a gun will make any arguement. Like I need to protect my house the criminals have them... they deter violence or crime.... blah blah blah...

Getting rid of guns (or the nasty ones in my opinion) does not encourage crime or reduce safety at all... I look at the constitution and think that the guns they had 230 years ago would suffice today for hunting and protecting our homes... laser sighted automatic weapons that fire 100 rounds in 10 seconds are not needed to fulfill the requirements of freedom under the constitution.

[ScottA]

Maybe it's just me but the constitution says ARMS not guns. To me arms includes all wepons not just muskets. Where does one draw the line and why? To say that the constitution grants us the right to own a Remington 30-06 bolt action and not the right to own M16 or an Abrams tank is quite a leap in my opinion. Either it grants the people the right to own arms or it doesn't. Nit picking over which arms is nothing more than rewriting the constitution. My personal opinion is that it garantees the rights of the states to form their own malitias independent  from the federal government and that members of those malitias shall have the right to keep and bare what ever arms that malitia uses. All adult citizens should be considered members of the state malitias. So bottom line is the states have the right to decide which wepons we can have not the federal government.
This is all my opinion ofcourse yours may differ.
Scott

[peternap]

Hmmm......The 2end amendment was enacted to keep the Government and the people equal. You have to realize that without state of the art weapons (for the day) we would be drinking Taxed Tea and singing God save the Queen.

The same constitution that gives you the right of free speech, is the same one that gives me the right to own arms. I will fight for the right of free speech, no matter how much I disagree with what you say, just as hard as I will to keep my guns.

[MountainDon]

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

"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."

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

"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."

"...the right of the People" seems pretty clear to me. I am one.

"...shall not be infringed."   Period. That doesn't state that 'this group' or 'that group' can infringe the right, but that 'other group' over there can not.

[MountainDon]

Don if nobody had guns nobody would die from them....

       That cat's been let out of the bag so to speak.  No we'd be bludgeoned with blunt instruments instead. Or stabbed with sharp ones. Or garroted with ropes or wires. Or...

Check the latest figures on the UK and Australia to see if taking away their citizens right to own firearms made them any safer. They are not. They have more gun related violence being perpetrated by criminals. Criminals don't obey laws... that's by definition... (n) criminal, felon, crook, outlaw, malefactor (someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=criminal

[benevolance]

Well We could debate this... But if I send you a reply you do not like I am sure you would just delete it... So we might as well drop it... you win might administrator

[MountainDon]

Peter, if you remain civil and in good taste nothing you say/type will get deleted.

[benevolance]

whatever you say, oh mighty administraitor

[Homegrown Tomatoes]

While I agree that we have the right to bear arms, I don't think anyone needs assault rifles and some of the weapons available that are really made for no other purpose than killing humans...However, I think it should be a matter of common sense, not legislation.  I do not own a gun currently.  If we ever move back to a rural place, we will have one.  I used to have a gun rack in my truck.  We always had guns when I was a kid, and we knew beyond any exception, we were not to touch them without permission.  My grandpa kept a loaded revolver in the nightstand and a loaded .22 standing in the other corner behind the bedroom door.  Twice, he used the guns to keep people from breaking into the house through the garage (there was actually a guy picking the lock between the garage and my bedroom one time!)  I used one when I was about 15 and alone on the farm to get rid of a couple of guys who didn't want to pay for peaches.  More than once, Grandpa shot dogs who were killing our calves.  Guns are useful. 

[williet]

I've always thought it wasn't the right of a citizen to keep arms, but the DUTY. IF people today were to study the Constitution/Bill of Rights in the context in which it was penned, they would understand the reason for an armed body of citizens is to protect the country from those who would steal power and control from INSIDE Washington and not from without.

This has been tried before and is being tried again, right now. Several things have to happen for it to be accomplished...Fear in the people...the military serving the Commander in Chief over the people of the Nation...unarming of the common citizen....government control of the free press.....Executive Branch usurping power from the Legislative and Judicial...Lincolon did it and Bush seeks repeat it.

Many of these are being attempted today. The question is not is it being done, or will it continue to be done...but at what point will American citizens regain enough backbone to stop it....or IF the citizens of this country will just sit by and watch while our country is pissed away by the greedy, power hungry sickos we have in our capitol.

[glenn kangiser]

Gov. is planning on the people getting fed up.  They have already prepared the concentration camps.  Search Haliburton US concentration Camps for info.

Blackwater - recently nearly getting kicked out of Iraq for murder and abuse recently stated that they are wanting to cut back on their overseas deployments (read getting kicked out) and concentrate on domestic security -- read - protect  scared gov officials against citizens.  Boy - If these guys weren't religious buddies of Bush I'd be worried about them.  Remember - they were already deployed in New Orleans after Katrina to keep the blacks from trying to go home and other such crimes.

[benevolance]

peg,

not to start WWIII here But if the public are armed to the teeth as is the case in America...How is it that the government have systematically removed our freedoms and enacted illegal laws that rape us financially with taxes for wars and  the funding of our allies like Israel?

Wouldn't by your own beliefs and arguement an armed population prevent the government from even attempting to make a mockery of our freedoms and constitution?

[williet]

Yep, I fear that Blackwater is the SS of the Administrative Branch. They are a threat to our nation and NOT a help.

BUT, as I said....what can be done. Short of armed confrontation, I can't see a fix. I would rather we had a strong leader who would return the country to the Constitution, but other than the two I've mentioned before (Paul or Biden) there's none to pick from. I really believe either of these men would repeal some of the illegal power of the executive in favor of the powers granted by the Constitution, but any of the others...pick one...will just be another power maniac, Dictator wanna be.

Lincoln usurped power and every President who's followed him has tried to add to the power base of the executive branch .... We, the people, can't focus on REAL issues for worring about gay marriage or taxin churches....While we fight over this nonsense...the Executive becomes more and more powerful....

Maybe most Americans had rather follow a Dictator? It sure is lookin that way

[glenn kangiser]

It will probably have to get a lot worse before it gets better.  That could happen quickly.

Small uprisings will likely be put down with massive force so the armed public won't be able to do much of anything to stop the creeping cancer that is Washington DC and the slimeballs who are in power.

Americans follow a dictator?  Most will if their unelected president tells them it is best for them.  They only want to be taken care of.  Shrub has said more than once that a dictatorship is OK if he is the dictator.  Is he leaving?  Maybe if someone worse can be "elected".  Funny how that word is similar to enacted.

[Sassy]

WND Exclusive WEAPONS OF CHOICE
National firearms ban 'reasonable'?
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment
Posted: January 19, 2008

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A Second Amendment advocacy organization is asking the Bush administration to withdraw a legal brief that leaders fear could be used to support "any gun ban – no matter how sweeping," as long as some court somewhere determines it is "reasonable."

The concern comes from Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, whose group is pleading with the Bush administration to withdraw an anti-gun brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General in a Supreme Court case regarding a District of Columbia ban on handguns.

Paul Clement

The document from U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement noted since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the Second Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions.

His brief suggests gun rights are limited and since they are subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote in the brief.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59770

[MountainDon]

D.C. Court of Appeals Blocks Reckless Lawsuit

Friday, January 11, 2008

On January 10, the District Columbia Court of Appeals found that the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA) blocked lawsuits under D.C.'s "Strict Liability Act." (The court is a local body equivalent to a state supreme court, and different from the U.S. Court of Appeals that overturned the D.C. gun ban last year.)

D.C.' s law had tried to make manufacturers, importers, and dealers liable "without regard to fault or proof of defect" for illegal use of guns¾a principle rejected by nearly all courts that have ever looked at the issue.  In this case (District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.), the D.C. government tried to sue to recover health care and emergency services costs supposedly created by criminal gun use in the District.

Calling the District's arguments "imaginative," the court found that D.C.'s lawsuit didn't fall within any of the PLCAA's exceptions for legitimate suits, and that allowing the suit would "frustrate Congress's clear intention" in passing the PLCAA.  The court also found that the PLCAA is constitutional, both in terms of separation of powers and due process.

The case is a major win for the firearms industry.  It's not yet known if there will be any further appeals.  As always, we'll keep you posted.

Copied from the NRA

[MountainDon]

DC again... a real hotbed of anti gun activity

D.C. Files Brief in Heller Case

Friday, January 11, 2008

On January 4, the District of Columbia filed its brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The District is appealing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling that found D.C.'s bans on handguns, on having any gun assembled for use within the home, and on carrying a firearm within the home without a permit, violate the Second Amendment.

In March 2007, the Court of Appeals ruled that the amendment protects a "pre-existing right to keep and bear arms . . . premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes [including self-defense], in addition to whatever militia service they would be obligated to perform for the state." And it found that handguns are the kinds of "arms" the ownership of which the amendment protects. 

The District wrongly contended that the amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia," and that James Madison and others responsible for the amendment considered that "keep," "bear" and "arms" referred to the maintenance and use of firearms for militia purposes alone.

The District claimed that "keep" means either for an individual to possess guns only for militia purposes, or for a state to "keep up" a militia, a theory the Court of Appeals said "mocks usage, syntax, and common sense." The Court of Appeals added, "Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of 'keep' strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory."

The District furthered argued that it is not subject to the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois (1886) that the amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government" and, according to the District, does not limit the states. The District, despite its longstanding wish to the contrary, is not a state, and is therefore obviously subject to the amendment. The District also ignores the Supreme Court's comment in Presser that because "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States," the states "cannot ... prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security ...."  (The application of the amendment to actual states, rather than would-be states, is not an issue in this case.)   

The District noted that the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Miller (1939), suggested that the amendment protects arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment," but apparently failed to comprehend that modern handguns are commonly issued to military personnel and are also useful for another of the potential duties of the militia, namely, law enforcement. 

As if looking for even more ways to undercut its case, the District also claimed that in the mid-1970s it "sensibly concluded" that gun bans would make the city safer. Of course, as is well known, the city's murder rate tripled within 15 years after D.C. imposed the ban.
Briefs by those challenging D.C.'s laws, and "friends of the court" supporting them, will be submitted over the next several weeks, with oral arguments expected in March.  Keep watching this alert for the latest news on this historic case.

From NRA

[MountainDon]

Leading Democratic Candidates Call for Severe Restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights

Friday, January 18, 2008

With the Presidential nominating season in full swing, trying to pin down the various candidates' unequivocal stance on issues of import can often be difficult, if not impossible.  Amidst their political posturing and refining of positions at the recent Las Vegas Caucus, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), were asked a series of questions about the gun issue.  All called for severe restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.   
To view a video of the exchange, please visit our NRA-Political Victory Fund website (www.nrapvf.org) and click on the video feed in the center of the page.

...above from NRA

[MountainDon]

Poll Finds 66% of Voters Want No New Gun Laws
...from NRA report, page bottom...

A recent Zogby International poll conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public rejects the idea that new gun control laws are needed.

The poll asked: "Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime. Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control."

Conversely, the poll found that just 31% of the American public thinks new and tougher gun control laws are needed, and that voters who support better enforcement of existing gun laws are found across virtually all demographic groups, and in all regions of the country.

...and as reported by CNN...

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released Sunday.

In all, 65 percent said they thought the Constitution ensures that right, and 31 percent said it did not. The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 points.

Men and people living in rural areas were most likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun.

Nearly three quarters of men (72 percent) said they believed so, versus 26 percent who did not. More than half (58 percent) of women said they believed so, versus slightly more than a third (35 percent) who did not.

That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 4.5 points.

Among rural dwellers, 73 percent said they agreed, versus 64 percent and only half (50 percent) of city dwellers who thought the same.

That question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 7 points.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says: "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."
advertisement

Some have interpreted those words to mean that everyone has a right to own a gun; others say the amendment protects only the right of citizens to form a militia.

[MountainDon]

Leader of anti-gang group was selling guns

The director of the antigang organization No Guns, which the city of Los Angeles once paid $1.5 million to steer Latino youths away from a life of crime, pleaded guilty Thursday to illegally selling assault weapons to federal undercover officers.

full article in the LA Times

[StinkerBell]

Anyone else get the same visual?



"The Right to Bear Arms"


Ok I am picturing everyone with the arm of a bear and using it as club. Thus making an early statement true that if we didn't have guns we would find other ways to beat each other.....


Now I hope I gave you all a visual on the Right to Bear Arms......

[ScottA]

If they could ban alcohol thay can ban anything. Never mind the fact that if you go strictly by the constitution none of the senetors legaly holds office at this time. By the way DC is not the only city that bans handguns so does Denver.

[glenn kangiser]

Careful, Stink, or I'll have to tell my firearm joke again.

http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=1720.msg15677#msg15677  for those who haven't had the privilege.

[StinkerBell]

I just couldn't help myself...I went and read it ****groan*****