What is the use for the right to bear arms?

[Jeneral2885]

In the modern context? in the early days i know it was to protect individuals and families when public protection was not formed. Now what is the use to carry heavy assault rifles? Would that deter burglars? Than what is the use of the police in America?

Asking this question as a non American.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zoeisright]

2. There is no use for it.

Of course, to go back to the original intent, everyone can have as many muzzleloading flintlock muskets as they want. PERIOD.

[chimpymustgo]

5. Especially if you're not a member of "a well regulated militia"

"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 courts have abused this amendment with its interpretation.

[Francis Marion]

95. To whom does THE RIGHT pertain?

The right of... the militia? Really?

Set aside bias and diagram the sentence.

Whose right is it?

[PavePusher]

26. Please repost this in the town square...

using only parchment and a quill pen.

Thanks, Cheers!

[TransitJohn]

3. Well, considering that the Framers were against the Federal Gov't having standing military

its use was civil defense.

[kestrel91316]

6. Yep, and civil defense today = NATIONAL GUARD and POLICE,

not private citizens with fully automatic weapons and bombs and missiles.

[slackmaster]

9. We also have the Unorganized Militia as a backup in case NG and police are overwhelmed

[Xenotime]

12. Where in the constitution is that?

[slackmaster]

17. The Unorganized Militias are defined in the United States Code and state laws

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[DissedByBush]

52. That's the well-regulated militia

That didn't refer to the Army, National Guard, or reserves.

It referred to the people, individually, every one of them, ready to take up arms if necessary in order to protect the country from foreign or domestic enemies.

[darkstar3]

66. And those people are "regulated" how?

[eqfan592]

69. They aren't, at least not in the governmental sense.

Nor were they ever intended to be.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[darkstar3]

71. That poorly written article dodges the point.

I wasn't talking about government regulation. We have the National Guard and the police for that. But regulation CLEARLY implies structure, leadership, rules, and even training for the people involved.

[jeepnstein]

102. No it doesn't.

It means that the civil population of the United States should be well armed for a fight. Obviously, the Founding Fathers had a deep trust in the ability of citizens to handle their freedom without government intervention.

[DissedByBush]

105. Read #90 n/t

[DissedByBush]

90. "Regulated" did not mean controlled by the government

In the meaning at the time of writing, and in that context, it meant trained and capable.

Separately from that right of the individual, Congress is given the power for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" the militia and for "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." Note no "regulating."

[oneshooter]

86. Full auto weapons are legal to own, but are VERY expensive to buy.....

Not to mention the anal background check, written permission from the Chief Law Officer of your county of residence,4-6 month wait, and the $200 tax on each transaction.

Bombs and missiles are not legal for private ownership AT ALL!

Please get a grip on reality, calm down, and learn about what you are writing about.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

93. It might have been simply to control their slaves since the framers were often slave owners.

That's why I crack up every time I read something the framers said about liberty/freedom when we know they went home a raped/beat their slaves.

Their supposed approach to guns -- at least as espoused by the gun-in-every-waistband crowd -- is similarly bogus.

[jeepnstein]

103. Jim Crow laws.

Most early attempts at gun control had more to do with keeping arms out of the hands of freed slaves and immigrants than anything else.

I firmly believe that lawful citizens should be free to arm themselves or not, according to their wishes. The overwhelming majority of Americans can handle it. It's the reactionaries and statists that get all bent out of shape when somebody, somewhere, is doing something they feel is wrong.

[Hoyt]

107. Guns at home are acceptable, but society does not benefit from armed folks walking around in public.

I think that should be the line with some special exceptions like rural areas. Just my opinion, of course.

I would, however, put some restrictions on the type of guns allowed at home. At some point, the type and number of guns one has is little different from having a bomb in the garage.

[jeepnstein]

111. Concealed means concealed.

A lawful citizen going about his business armed is really no threat to anyone not bent on doing him/her harm. Just because you choose to live in an urban environment doesn't mean you should have any fewer rights. And yes, with rights come responsibilities.

It's not the number or type of guns, it's the intention of the individual that makes all the difference. Lawful citizens shouldn't be burdened with intrusions from the state in their business unless their exercise of a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms somehow is causing harm.

[Hoyt]

115. I can tell you from personal experience, that folks who are obsessed with guns often have a problem.

The guns might just be a symptom, or it may actually propel/enable some to violence. Do we really want the Randy Weavers or Loughners of the world walking around in public with their symptoms/guns? Better left at home.

I just do not believe armed people should be allowed in public parks, nursery schools, Chuck E Cheeze, bars, churches, hospitals, or almost anywhere else where other people are going about their business. It's not necessary or worth the risk.

[jeepnstein]

116. I believe you are wrong.

Most Americans can handle the responsibility. We have laws for dealing with people who can't.

[spin]

117. Define "obsessed" ...

Does the fact that I own over 20 handguns, three rifles and a shotgun make me obsessed?

Does the fact that I have enjoyed target shooting for over 40 years make me obsessed?

Does the fact that I have reloaded ammunition make me obsessed.

Does the fact that I support the Second Amendment make me obsessed.

Many of the anti-RKBA posters here in the Gungeon would probably consider me obsessed. Do I fit the definition?

[Hoyt]

121. Depends on what kind of weapons you have, why, and/or whether you can walk out the door without one.

If one routinely leave them at home, they are probably not "obsessed" (unless they are preparing for the day when they might have to shoot their neighbor when food is scarce, or something).

Good luck to you.

[spin]

126. I am a "wheel gunner" ...

the majority of my firearms are S&W revolvers in different calibers including .22, .22 magnum, 9mm, .38, .357 magnum, .45acp and .44 magnum.

I also own three Colt .45 pistols and two .22 caliber pistols.

The majority of my firearms are designed for target shooting.

I do carry a firearm, a snub nosed .38 S&W Model 642. It's an extremely light weapon and I carry it in my front pants pocket in a pocket holster. I have no fear, nor do I expect to have any reason to use my weapon. If I thought that I would "need" to have a firearm with me if I planned to go somewhere, I would just avoid going there. The best way to win a gun fight is to not be in one.

I carry a firearm because I have no ability to predict the future. There's very little chance that I will ever need a firearm just as there is very little chance that I will ever win the lotto. I carry the weapon for the same reason as I buy a lotto ticket for every drawing.

[guitar man]

143. I walked out the door without one

One night about 25 years ago, left it at home. I wound up getting shot that night. If I had taken it with me, i'd lay 100-1 odds I wouldn't have this damn scar on my leg today and it wouldn't hurt like hell every time the weather gets cold and damp :(

[DonP]

123. Of course you are!

Since you don't agree with a poorly informed, (small i) ignorant view of established law and history you must be obsessed or, as another even less informed poster has referred to us, "Irrational".

They know nothing about guns, gun law or the existing restrictions, but they know what we don't need. Funny, when Bush started making noises about banning or restricting certain library books, I bet a lot of these same people went ape shit. But that's different I guess. Ignoring the constitution is fine - as long as it pertains to the 2nd amendment.

Accept the labels proudly, recognizing that all this sound and fury will ultimately signify nothing.

With the House and Senate we have, no new gun control bills will emerge from committee and all the new and re-tread ranters we have here now will all be "shocked" that for some odd reason there is a another run on guns and ammunition - that they caused by calling for bans on everything from specific brand names, capacity based magazine bans, selective gun colors etc. - and they will be angry over that too.

[kestrel91316]

The RW only wants them for killing brown people, political opposition, and elected leaders.

[PavePusher]

27. That's a pretty vile accusation, and mostly untrue.

So much for responsible rhetoric...

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pancho Sanza]

40. Rep. Giffords is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment...does that make her a RWer

?
:eyes:

[PavePusher]

60. Huh, guess I missed a DUzzy, eh? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. We've already had (and banned) a poster who was the Fred Phelps of Firearms here.

Seriously. They claimed "gun culture" was destroying America.

Change the object of his hatred and bigotry to guns and gun owners, and you would have sworn it was Westboro Fred himself...

[oneshooter]

87. You are confusing the Police of the Communist Chinese with the Police of America. n/t

[spin]

120. Not defending the right wing, but that statement is an example of what is wrong ...

today in our country.

It's just as wrong as Glenn Beck claiming that the Democrats want to trample our Constitution and turn us into a Socialist nation.

[slackmaster]

4. Personal self-defense, defense of home and family, defense of community

The same reasons as ever.

Than what is the use of the police in America?

Police serve to clean up the mess after a crime has already occurred.

[Old Codger]

45. You are correct

The police are historians, they can do nothing until a crime is committed then they come in and write a story about it and call it a report....
The courts have regularly ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone but themselves, if you are unable to help yourself you are up the creek....

[Hoyt]

94. In my community, I don't want some person obsessed with guns playing judge, jury and executioner.

Those who carry are not permitted to protect us. Personally, I don't want gun toters playing cowboy, police, God, etc. And I don't believe that is why most can't walk out the door into public without a gun.

[spin]

119. I have a concealed weapons permit but I am not a cop ...

nor do I consider myself a judge and I never want to be an executioner.

I would use my weapon ONLY in a situation where I, a member of my family, or an innocent person was being attacked in a manner that would lead to severe bodily injury or death.

Such an action is legal and justified in those situations.

[Hoyt]

122. If I am that "innocent person," please allow me or the police to handle it. You aren't trained to.

My neighbor, who can't walk to the mailbox without a gun, said the same thing. I told him not to shoot anyone on my property even if they have a gun on me. The guy ain't trained for it, and is basically a redneck just looking for an excuse to play cowboy. That might not be you, but I doubt you are trained for it even if you have watched several "training" videos and shot at hundreds of paper targets. Besides I suspect most shooters aren't going to be very accurate in a tense situation -- it's not like squeezing the trigger on the range.

I suspect a lot of others feel the same way.

[spin]

125. Don't expect me to step between you and someone else while you are fighting ...

If you're on the ground and your attacker is going to put a cap in the back of your head or has a concrete block in his hands preparing to turn your brains into mush, I may decide to save your life. If you don't appreciate it, I don't give a shit.

[Hoyt]

132. That cowboy -- save your life -- mentality is why guns need to be restricted in public.

[X_Digger]

133. We can't have people saving themselves.. oh no..

Then they'll begin to wonder why they should fund an armored personnel carrier for the local police department!

[Hoyt]

135. That's the police. You are not, and should not walk armed into public thinking you'll save the day.

[spin]

136. You have a great imagination ...

I doubt if any of those who post here and have concealed weapons permits ever think that they are going to save the day.

None of us put on a Super Man outfit under our street clothes.

[X_Digger]

137. Lighten up, Francis -- (Full Metal Jacket)

[spin]

134. Why do you feel that saving a person life is being a cowboy?...

It's merely what any rational and compassionate human being would do if possible.

Assume you could save a person from drowning by throwing him a life saver. Would you do it.



Why is it so different to save a person's life when that person is being attacked by a another individual who intends to kill him?

At least you appear to agree that I have a right to defend myself or members of my family from a violent attack that could lead to serious bodily injury or death. Or do you?

Lets find out exactly where you stand on the use of self defense for a person or his family.


Would you agree that I have the right to defend myself or my family from a deadly attack in my home using a baseball bat?

Would you agree that I have the right to defend myself or my family from a deadly attack in my home using martial arts?

Would you agree that I have the right to defend myself or my family from a deadly attack in my home using a firearm.

*****

Would you agree that I have the right to defend myself or my family in public from a deadly attack using a baseball bat?

Would you agree that I have the right to defend myself or my family in public from a deadly attack using martial arts?

Would you agree that I have the right to defend myself or my family in public from a deadly attack using a legally concealed firearm.

*****
Would you agree that I have the right to defend another person who was being attacked in a deadly manner by using a baseball bat?

Would you agree that I have the right to defend another person who was being attacked in a deadly manner by using martial arts?

Finally ...Would you agree that I have the right to defend another person who was being attacked in a deadly fashion using a legally concealed firearm.


Here's how the state of Florida looks at the use of deadly force.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[Hoyt]

140. We aren't talking about pulling someone out who is drowning, we are talking pulling a gun in a crowd

Highly unlikely you are ready for that. Even trained law enforcement would likely respond poorly. I certainly would not be.

If one believes otherwise, one is likely a COWBOY.

If you are in a crowd and something happens, let the little ole ladies -- like the little 61 year old in Arizona -- handle it.

So, again, if I'm in the crowd, don't try to "save" me. I will take care of myself, perhaps with the help of a little 61 year old lady. And, I don't need more bullets flying around.

[spin]

141. Well, if I knew it was you ...

I would abide by your wishes.

[Hoyt]

142. Let's be clear, I'd appreciate any help you can give as long as it doesn't involve shooting someone.

[rl6214]

146. Most cops shoot their weapons once a year

at their annual qualification. Most shooters put hundreds, or in my case thousands of rounds thru their weapons annually. I know my weapons and can handle my weapons better than most cops out there but you can wait for the cops to show up and maybe if the bad guy/guys have not been stopped the cop that shows up will get lucky and hit his target.

[slackmaster]

129. I think you have a distorted idea about the use of deadly force for self-defense

I suggest that you take a class in it some time. Any discipline - Firearm, edged weapon, or an empty-hand style of your choice.

[The Straight Story]

7. The second Amendment is there so we can protect the First

:)

[Xenotime]

11. Ah...ok?!?!

:eyes:

[Cleita]

8. I don't think the Second amendment was intended for

individuals unless maybe they were out in a homestead in the middle of nowhere where there is no law and order. It speaks of a militia, meaning a group trained to protect the citizenry, like the police, sheriffs, army, etc.. However, this is the argument and it isn't settled. Some day our legal system is going to have to define exactly what the Second Amendment means and covers unambiguously and no one wants to tackle it because fur is sure to fly.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. Check your calender, honey...

"Some day our legal system is going to have to define exactly what the Second Amendment means and covers unambiguously and no one wants to tackle it because fur is sure to fly."

That day has came and went. The Supreme Court, via the McDonald and Heller cases, has affirmed that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

For now, the argument is settled.

[Cleita]

35. Your's was the least rude of my replies, so I will

put my two cents worth in. First, I didn't know it was passed in June. I think it's a sad day that we are going to have an armed population of civilians with no good reason to own fire weapons. But that being said, I guess I will become armed myself. btw I'm a really bad shot and if you guys think someone like me should ever go near a gun, imagine how many others like me are out there and I'm not crazy. Add a dollop of craziness in there and you will see what has been wrought by this ruling.

[RSillsbee]

46. You're a really bad shot

So, you can't practice the fundamentals (breath, sight alignment and trigger squeeze) and improve?

Also the Heller decision held that the second protects an individual right not connected w/ service in a militia to own a firearm.

[Cleita]

48. The sight is the problem. I don't see well enough to

to hit a target even with corrective lenses. I have a limitation on my driver's license for that reason. If gun owners had to pass a simple test of gun basics and show that they can aim fairly well, and can SEE well enough not to shoot at what isn't a legitimate target, I would never get a license to own a gun and rightfully so. How many people are out there like me who shouldn't be near one? I wonder if a lot of these gun accidents you read about in the paper aren't just about that. I shouldn't be near one and I'm getting to the age that one of these days I shouldn't drive either. But I'm rational enough to know that. How many aren't? And when you are talking about the crazy, it's even more so.

[badtoworse]

101. You have those responsibilities regardless of what is required to purchase the weapon

Before you shoot at anything, you are responsibile to know what you are shooting at and what you will hit if you miss. That is basic gun safety. If you don't follow it, you may be criminally negligent and/or subject to civil penalties.

In your case, I would say that if you can drive with glasses, you are OK to use a firearm with glasses provided you've had the proper training. I believe that anyone who owns a firearm should at least be trained in basic gun safety, with additional training if you are going to carry the weapon.

[Cleita]

118. So you just made my argument.

If I'm a moron and don't meet those responsibilities, someone has to make me, and that's the law.

[jwirr]

51. You forgot the land on your ass in the dirt from the kick back. I am

the best shot in my family - the boys won't even compete with me anymore. However, I almost always landed on my backside after shooting.

[RSillsbee]

59. Just what were you shooting? NT

[spin]

124. Let me give you some advice on learning how to shoot ...

Do some research on shooting.

The internet has many good resources such as BUYING YOUR FIRST GUN AND LEARNING HOW TO SHOOT.
http://www.ocshooters.com/Hand/buyingyourfirstgun.htm

Or The Cornered Cat this site is directed primary towards women but has excellent info for all shooters
http://corneredcat.com/TOC.aspx

I personally would suggest you buy a good quality .22 caliber pistol with adjustable sights like this Ruger Mark III competition. (This weapon will probably cost a little less than $500.)



Go to a range and see who are the best shooters. Politely ask the range master and these good shooters for advice. Most shooters are very happy to welcome newbies to the sport.

After you master your grip, sight alignment, breath control and trigger pull you can consider moving up to a more powerful weapon.

.22 ammo is cheap and if you buy a good .22 handgun to learn how to shoot, the amount of money you will save as you practice with .22 ammo could finance your next handgun.

[PavePusher]

28. It also speaks of "the right of the people".

But I saw how you tried to ignore that part.

Don't think about pink elephants, eh?

[Pancho Sanza]

32. Welcome back, Madam Van Winkle!

:D

[MikeW]

75. then you need to go re-read it again, it speaks to individuals

read the WHOLE THING this time slowwwwwwly.

[Cleita]

79. Why me alone? Some law makers think the same thing.

Go read what they have to say about it.

[MikeW]

83. thats because they have agendas and only are interested in pandering to their constituents views

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Perhaps you missed Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs Chicago

Among other decisions.

You also missed about 30 - 35 state constitutions that specify an individual right.

Washingotn State, ratified in 1889, well after the advent of repeating arms:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

[Last_Stand]

10. Some of us...

don't want to be at the mercy of criminals and police forces/military forces controlled by corporate entities.

People who look at atrocities all around the world and throughout history and say "that could never happen here" aren't paying much attention.

[darkstar3]

24. And you think that with the arms you can legally purchase

you could hold your own against any major police or military force?

That mindset has never ended well for its proponents.

[PavePusher]

30. You're right.

No insurgent force in the world ever had any military success. Ever.

Oh, wait...

[darkstar3]

63. 3 guys with shotguns in a Durango hardly constitute an insurgent force.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. Well, the most powerful army in the world has been kicking around the middle east for a decade now

and unable to actually defeat a bunch of cave-dwelling fundamentalists with AK-47 rifles.

The prblem is logistics. Without the use weapons of mass destruction, combat and "winning" becomes a numbers game. For the record, US gun-owners outnumbers the US armed forces approximately 22.7 to 1. Keep in mind... that Aircraft Carriers, Submarines, and atom bombs aren't very effective in a mainland US civil war. ;)

[darkstar3]

62. Caves are one thing.

Your hometown main street is something else entirely.

Aside from the sheer bravado and lunacy of thinking that you can win against a full battalion of Marines with air support, consider this: In what possible future scenario do you believe that the US military will willingly assault your home?

[Pancho Sanza]

44. That obviously explains how the ragtag Afghanis defeated the Soviet Union

a couple decades ago...uh huh.

[darkstar3]

61. The Afghanis were using US made automatic weapons, explosives, RPGs, etc.

If you have any of those I'm sure the ATF would love to talk with you.

[PavePusher]

74. If the Second American Civil War ever kicks off (Ghu forbid)....

those weapons will be plentiful on both sides, and the ATF will be washed away like dirt in a flood.

[darkstar3]

76. And when are you predicting that will be? n/t

[PavePusher]

78. Hopefully on the far side of never.

I've seen Civil War up close and personnal, I surely don't wish it on anyone, least of all my home nation.

[Euromutt]

98. Not US-made, just US-funded

The CIA bought the weapons and ammunition from the Chinese, and funneled them to the Afghans via the Pakistani "Inter-Services Intelligence" (ISI). This was partly to provide deniability, but mostly to provide compatibility with ammunition captured from the Sovs. As long as the weapons won't end up being used against them, the Chinese really don't give a damn who they sell to.

[Flyboy_451]

50. Actually....yes

In this image, you can see about 1/3 of my firearms vault. There are over 250 various types of guns, including full autos in calibers up to .50BMG. Also included are long range precision rifles, short barreled shotguns, full auto pistols, and various guns with suppressors attached. These are all private property, all legally purchased and owned and not one of them has ever been used in any sort of crime at all.

Not only do I own a significant collection, the US Military was kind enough to provide me with training in unconventional warfare and send me overseas for five years to practice this particular skill. They have been kind enough to do this with a large number of American soldiers over the years, and a small group of these men can reek havoc on a sizable military unit because of a knowledge of military tactics, troop deployment and movement and a myriad of other bits of information that allow unconventional tactics to hold superior forces in true awe and fear.

And we have not even gotten into the discussion of the number of troops that will not fight against their own countrymen, or law enforcement officers that will refuse to engage in similar activities.

For those who are not familiar with me, I happen to be a 14 year veteran police officer, and probably have a little more first hand knowledge about that particular group of people than the average poster here.

JW

[darkstar3]

64. You just made my point from #62,

in that many military personnel, if not all who consider their oaths to cover the protection of civilians, will refuse to come after you in your home.

And should the ambiguous civil war people seem to fear ever actually happen, it's not going to matter how many guns you own, but how many you can carry on the run.

[Flyboy_451]

70. i do not completly disagree with you...

Nor completely agree. While I believe it to be very likely that military troops would refuse such orders (particularly the officer cadre) I also think that there are a certain number that will "follow orders". I think this group is likely to be small but to exist none the less.

My original post was simply answering the stated question, and made prior to your post #62. My personal opinion is that the 2nd acts more as a deterent than anything else. It is in place to remind our government that they are the servants of the people, not the other way around. It is also my belief that our government should indeed fear the people, but not due to the possibility of violence. They should fear the people because they are subordinate to and answer to the people at the polls.

As a peaceful man, sworn to uphold our constitution, and as a law enforcement officer, sworn to serve the general public in accordance with my duties, I distrust any government that does not have a healthy respect for the citizenry. Politicians should be watched carefully and reminded that it is not their power, but that of the people that rules the land. They are simply hired help, in all practical terms.

Jw

[one-eyed fat man]

82. Question 46, again................

Back in 1994, while conducting research for his Master's Thesis, a Naval Officer conducted a survey of combat Marines, in ranks from private to major, stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms. While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey's final question generated an enormous amount of attention:

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion.

In one of the footnotes appearing in the thesis, comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question are quoted:

"What about the damn Second Amendment? .... I feel this is a first in communism! .... Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov't when or if the people think the gov't is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don't shine! .... It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, the author concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

In other words, there would be mutiny!

The last time push came to shove the President of the United States offered command of all Federal Armies to a general who, as a matter of conscience, turned him down.

Today, we are still using his front lawn for a graveyard.



Each soldier will make his own choice as to which side is the enemy of the Constitution he swore to uphold. And when he does he will bring his rifle, tank, attack helicopter or fighter jet with him.

[darkstar3]

84. And there you go, "they" will not be coming for us,

and I hope everyone realizes that.

I do find one problematic statement in those Marine comments, though: "The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov't when or if the people think the gov't is too powerful." Um, no.

[one-eyed fat man]

89. The last time around, it was quite problematic

Not 20 miles from where I sit, Abraham Lincoln was born. His grandmother is buried in a cemetery that is on present day Fort Knox.

In 1856, Benjamin Hardin Helm married Emilie Todd, the half-sister of Mary Todd Lincoln. As Kentucky's status in the American Civil War remained neutral in 1861, Helm was offered the job of Union Army paymaster by his brother-in-law, President Abraham Lincoln. He declined the job, instead returning to Kentucky to raise the 1st Kentucky Cavalry for the Confederacy. He fell at the battle of Chickamauga on September 20, 1863 and is buried in the family cemetery



A short distance away, in Fairview, Kentucky not far from the present day Fort Campbell is a surprising 351-foot-tall obelisk (fifth tallest cast-concrete monument in America) marking the birthplace of the first President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis



Divisions ran deep, evidence by the history in just this state.

"They are not coming for us?"

On the Fourth of July, 1863, General Grant accepted the surrender of Vicksburg. There was not another Fourth of July celebration in that city until well into World War Two.

Things worth remembering, so the bitter lessons are not lost.

[darkstar3]

91. If we remember the Civil War, perhaps we will not be doomed to repeat it.

Furthermore, it might be useful for those who believe civil war is possible today to realize that the US isn't remotely bifurcated like it was in 1860.

[roninjedi]

131. Unfortunately, yes.

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46

(W)hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
---Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790)


Remember, our Constitution was written by a pack of libertarian paranoids with a deep-seated distrust of centralized government. They conceived the "well regulated militia" to be every able-bodied (white) male between certain age ranges and expected those individuals to have custody over their weapons, and not a state armory that could lock them out any time it wanted. I seem to recall that, even today, when the state militias are federalized as the National Guard, many states (including Texas, where I live) considers all able-bodied adults 18-45 to be part of the "unorganized militia".

Immediately after the Civil War would've been the perfect time to repeal the Second Amendment as dangerous to the authority of any centralized governments. Considering what we'd just gone through with a huge insurrection, it would have been understandable. They still didn't repeal it, though. I find that telling.

As a personal aside, I am a large black man living in Texas. The fact that we have concealed carry laws in this state increases my personal risk of being gunned down in a parking lot some night by a panicky housewife with a .38 stuffed in her purse. Despite the presence of firearms all around me, I am perfectly comfortable living in a place with an armed populace. Heck, I have a gun myself, although I don't choose to get a license and carry it anywhere. I'm just glad I have the option.

Why hasn't there been more investigation about why Canada, with high firearms ownership rates, has a lower gun violence rate? If it were only the presence guns, that shouldn't be the case. Something else is at work in the American psyche that makes us so dangerous to each other (and everyone else).

[table1]

72. omg

thats just beautiful !!!!

[Flyboy_451]

80. since there is no sarcasm tag...

I will take your comment at face value. Thanks! A lot of effort went into making that vault a reality!

Jw

[table1]

139. no sarcasm intended

i have collected what i can for years. i have nothing like that

[Flyboy_451]

145. all it takes is money...

oh yea, and a VERY UNDERSTANDING wife. Seriously though, I acquired them slowly as part of a business that grew and has become less of a sideline than I ever thought it would. What started out as a one man rodeo has grown into multiple employees and a second full time job for me.

I will never quit being a cop, but there are times I wish I could focus more on my training business.

Jw

[Last_Stand]

57. Did I say that I believed that anywhere in my reply?

When you stand up to a bigger, stronger bully, you're probably going to get your ass handed to you...

but the fact remains that you stood up to him.

[darkstar3]

65. You specifically referenced police and military forces,

so yes, you implied that you believed that.

Now the question is: What makes you think this so-called bully will ever put you in a situation where you NEED to stand up to him? Do you think "they" are coming for you?

[Last_Stand]

67. I'm afraid you're wrong...

I never implied that I could withstand an attack by police/military forces...that is what you inferred.

I really don't think you're interested in a serious debate here, so I think I'll respectfully move on.

[darkstar3]

68. You are now backpedaling

What I'm interested in is the mindset of people who post on a liberal board and somehow believe that they may one day have to stand up to a police or military assault, like the one you directly implied in #10.

[jwirr]

53. Yes, with everyone talking collapse my family considers the gun

a part of what we may need in an emergency, if not for hunting, then God forbid to protect us from possible threats from the outside. I once told my daughter why I encourage our neighbors to plant and grow a garden - because it is pretty hard to survive in a neighborhood where all our neighbors are starving. Collapse will almost certainly bring anarchy with it. There may be no law enforcement officers on our side. Yeah - I know I am paranoid. Sorry about that, it is par for the course now a days.

[NightWatcher]

13. Tank tops?

Oh, bear, not bare

[jeepnstein]

104. Those should be licensed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. It was a political statement, at the time

the English Bill of Rights of 1689 declared "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".

The American Bill of Rights modified this earlier formulation by removing the religious and social limitations on the bearing of arms ("suitable to their conditions" referred to social status; only a gentleman could carry a sword, for instance). So the American right to bear arms was a fairly radical political statement of social equality for the late 18th century, in context.

[Upton]

15. I live out in the country..

there are no cops out here. I own a rifle for varmints and a shotgun for home defense. If somebody comes around looking to do harm to me or my family (my SO and animals), I'm not going to be cowering in a corner whining about the need for more gun control..

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Nowdays... generally sport or individual and home protection.

To answer your queries in order:

Nowdays, the right to bear arms is generally used for sporting (hunting/target/competition) or individual and home protection. I don't think modern people are expected to contriute to national defense, generally speaking (as you mentioned was the historical use).

I don't see people carrying "heavy assault rifles" around almost anywhere. Infact, crime committed with any kinds of rifles or shotguns is extremely low - around 3% if I remember correctly... so I'm not that's really an area for concern. Sure, people have them... but rarely are they toted around. Not to mention that finding legally possesed true assault rifles are exceedingly rare in America.

I'd like to think that if I were a burgler, and still had some sense, that I would avoid people I thought were armed or able to defend themsalves. So I imagine that burglurs do consider, at least minimally that people may be armed. Who knows?

Police in America exist to help keep the peace. They do what they can... but it often boils down to cleaning up messes and responding to incidents long after they've occurred. Unfortunately, there are so few officers in comparison to people that expecting police to PREVENT crime is like expecting school janitors to PREVENT messes. :(

[Mark Maker]

18. Than what is the use of the police in America?

In America we call the police after a crime has been committed not prior to it. I only carry a weapon when it's too inconvenient to carry a cop on my back.

[Edweird]

21. LOL, but even then, the cop isn't required to protect you.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. I don't know... if a cop is ON your back, I think you'd be considered to be in custody.

[Edweird]

49. I was thinking cop-in-a-snugli. If you were face down with the cop's knee on your neck,

I guess you'd be right.

[sadbear]

19. I'm sure a lot of the reasons the pro-gun folk are giving can be found on NRA.org

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. And I'm sure the GOP is in agreement that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4...

What's your point?

[sadbear]

22. I think you just made it

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. So we are in agreement that facts are acceptable facts, despite whose in agreement?

Because to argue otherwise would be a logical fallacy, right?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

[PavePusher]

33. So refute them, if you can.

Or do you rely on insinuation and ad hominem?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The police arrive after the crime to draw the chalk outlines.

The police are NOT your personal 24/7 bodyguards, unless you are somebody really, really, important.

[PavePusher]

34. Like a gun-banning mayor... n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. Here's a good analogy:

There are so few officers in comparison to people that expecting police to PREVENT crime is like expecting school janitors to PREVENT messes.

[Pancho Sanza]

29. Police in the U.S.A. have neither the ability nor legal obligation to "protect" citizens.

It's virtually impossible for them to respond in time to prevent a crime unless it's a robbery in a doughnut shop.
Nobody I ever met or know in my 60+years of owning guns and many other similar gun owners has ever carried a "heavy assault rifle" whatever the hell -that- is outside a military deployment. But the question doesn't really make much sense anyway, I don't have any duty to produce a "use" or "need" for my Constitutional rights!

[one-eyed fat man]

37. Make reports; call someone to clean up the mess.

Just like the police almost everywhere else in the world.

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

"Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first." And unlike the police, the victim does not have to resolve the ambiguity of who is the bad guy.

Do you believe that you have no need to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional fire fighters may own a fire extinguisher. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

Assuming some yob sticks a weapon in your face and demands what's in your wallet will you assume you are in a credit card commercial? Exactly how are you obliged to treat him as if he has instituted a new social compact, "Give me what I want and maybe I won't hurt you?"

Are you willing to just tell him to, "Piss off!"

What if he doesn't? How exactly does being "civilized" obligate you to making his criminal career less stressful?

[RSillsbee]

42. Would that deter burglars?

Would you break into a home where you knew the home owner was armed w/ an AR 15? Or armed at all?

[X_Digger]

43. Actually, the US courts have held that the police have no duty to protect you.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/X_Digger/1

[RoccoR5955]

47. So if the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms...

...how about nuclear arms? I want a shoulder mounted nuclear device. Shouldn't the 2nd amendment cover that?

It would be technologically the same as a Glock is compared to the weapons of the 18th century.

[killer angel]

54. It would be technologically the same as a Glock is compared to the weapons of the 18th century.

You lose credibility with statements equating a semi-automatic pistol to a nuclear weapon.

Just sayin'..........

[RoccoR5955]

81. Just checking for trolls

That's all. I know it's absurd, but so are some of the gun advocates who state that they *NEED* a 30 shot clip.

[bossy22]

56. not necessarily

nuclear arms, bombs, etc....those are not considered arms- but ordinance. Courts have consistently heald that "arms" found in constitutional amendments do include artillary and that stuff. Like any right there are limits. The first amendment doesnt allow me to directly incite violence on people or scream fire in a crowded theatre, so neither is the second amendment absolute. We have laws that strictly regulate possession of ordinance and automatic weapons (the National Firearms Act of 1934).

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. No, too indiscriminate and the Feds own all weapons grade plutonium.

Any lesser explosives (anything much bigger than an M-80) are considered destructive devices and you must have a license to possess.


And BTW:

Your computer and modem are technologically the same as a Glock is to the quill pens, hand-cranked presses and flintlocks of the

18th century.


Are you sure you want to use that metric for Constitutional acceptability?

[slackmaster]

85. The line between civilian and military arms was drawn clearly in 1934

Look up the National Firearms Act.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. You are confused about the meaning of Arms vs Ordnance.

You also misunderestimate the technology of the age. The Austrians had a 20 shot 'assault rifle' in 1791. Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Called the Girandoni Repeating Rifle.

[benEzra]

73. What country do you reside in, out of curiousity?

If you're in Europe, odds are pretty good that so-called "assault weapons" are legal in your country as well, as they are popular in European IPSC sanctioned matches.

I'm not sure what you have in mind by the term "heavy assault weapon", but in this country "assault weapon" is a scare term for popular non-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling or a quasi-military "look". They are not military weapons, are generally toward the low end of the rifle power spectrum (.223 Remington, 7.62x39mm), and generally trade lower power for higher capacity compared to older, higher-powered rifles.

What are they used for? Well, as in Europe, they are common in IPSC competitive shooting (called USPSA here; I compete myself) and similar dynamic shooting competitions (3-gun, IDPA, etc.; there are numerous governing bodies). Set up with long-range optics, they are popular for extended-range target shooting, and some are appropriate for hunting, although most are too small a caliber for deer and such. The most common sporting use in terms of numbers is recreational target shooting.

As far as defensive utility, here in the United States it is quite common to keep a shotgun or carbine for defensive purposes inside the home. .223 Remington (5.56mm) semiautomatic carbines are a very good alternative to the traditional 12-gauge (.729/18.5mm) shotgun for in-home use; appropriate civilian ammunition penetrates less in building materials than pistol ammunition or heavy buckshot does, recoil is much less than a shotgun, ammunition capacity is better, and they are more easily fitted with lights.

Most states in the USA allow individuals to obtain state licenses to carry a firearm concealed on their person (here in North Carolina, obtaining my carry license required Federal and state background and fingerprint checks, a mental health records check, a class on self-defense law, and a demonstration of proficiency with a handgun). Pistols are the most commonly carried, although some carry revolvers. Rifles and shotguns are not concealable or portable and are not practical for carry, if that's what you're asking.

As to the role of the police? The job of the police is to investigate crimes and apprehend the people who commit them, and to stop crimes in progress if they should happen to be able to arrive quickly enough to do so.

[Xela]

110. Yeah. I second that. Curious minds would like to know.

I'm first generation American. Of Mexican origin.

Xela

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. In a legal sense, the use is any purpose the owner sees fit.

The court has decided that the first thirteen words of the second amendment are irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States#District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I think they're wrong, but so what?

Like most of what the court does, they just put words together to get whatever results they want.

"The preface is an indication of the founders purpose, but doesn't effect on the declaratory clause. It might as well say 'The moon, being made of green cheese, The rights of the people..."
"... but that doesn't mean we're throwing out prohibitions on certain types of guns or laws that disallow felons"

The two are impossible to reconcile. Either "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abriged." OR the legislative act of abridging that right (sawed off shotguns or automatic weapons or the prohibition of felons from owning weapons) must have some legal basis.

[X_Digger]

88. In a historical sense, 'the people' didn't include felons.. why?

Because the main punishment for a felony was death or banishment.

[Statistical]

92. All rights can be infringed with due process.

There is no limits on any of the rights. The question of when/where/how rights can be infringed is a matter of scrutiny.

Just because the govt CAN infringe doesn't mean it is lawful to infringe.

So legal mecahnism you are looking for is strict scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

To infringe upon a right the government must satisfy three tests.

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

Anyone can challenge the infrignement and can show it to be Uconstitutional by showing the government fails to meet the burden for any of the three tests. The courts have found prohibitions on felons and owning of weapons of mass destruction to meet the scrutiny required for infringement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. Thanks for this.

"The courts have found prohibitions on felons and owning of weapons of mass destruction to meet the scrutiny required for infringement."

Prior to DC v Heller, prohibitions on certain types of weapons (eg sawed-off shotguns) were based on their "reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" - not strict scrutiny.

Apparently the courts will now have to apply your three tests to every existing gun law.

[Statistical]

138. The reason is that prior to Heller SCOTUS hadn't ruled that the 2A protected an individual right.

Thus you would have no basis to sue for Constitutional relief. Kinda getting the horse before the cart (need to show that an individual protection exists before suing for relief under that protection).

No protected right = no need for strict scrutiny. For example if the govt wanted to ban toasters they wouldn't need to apply strict Scrutiny. You have no Constitutional right to make toast.

Prior to Heller although many of us felt the 2A protected an individual right it wasn't settled law. Lastly I can't take credit for the 3 pronged test. That precedent comes from a prior Supreme Court decision dealing with Constitutional protections United States v. Carolene Products (1938).

The first notable case that used it as precedent was Korematsu v. United States (1944).

[Jeneral2885]

99. I still dont see and answer

At all. other societies have higher standards or living and less crime rates than ?America and do not give citizens the right to own guns.

[Xela]

109. Citizens in other countries have a high price to pay...

They sacrifice liberty for security.

Bottom line, look at it with a historical context. The US has a long tradition of the use of personal weapons for defense, hunting, entertainment, etc. It's part of the national fabric.

I don't agree with the BBC regarding gun control, but this article summarizes the issue briefly enough:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12158148

Xela

[Jeneral2885]

112. what price

There are polcies forces all over the world. Dont tell me citizens in America are taxed less than every other country because they dont need police protection

[Xela]

114. Like I said, the price is Liberty

Also, would you mind sharing your country of origin? Perhaps knowing this will help us in our exchange of ideas.

Xela

[Jeneral2885]

128. I rather not

But what is liberty? Will arming yourself with M4s or worse be better? Then why are there police in America? You could disband the force and get thme to serve say in the military. Thne you could win Afghanistan quicker

[Xela]

130. As it has been already stated and made clear....

The police in the US have no obligation to protect us. So this is where the Constitution helps us, so that we as citizens can pick-up where their limitations stop them.

It's a shame you will not, or can not, disclose your origin, but I can respect that. I simply thought sharing it would help the group to better put the issue into a context that could help you better understand. No disrepect intended.

On the other hand, I can see other DU posters have responded quite comprehensively to your original question. So, I feel can't add more than what already has been said. And I'm sorry you have not been able to see the issue from our point of view.

Don't give up though, hang around. There could be still lots more to learn.

Kind regards,

Xela

[Jeneral2885]

147. So again why is there a police?

and check out this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#41067100

What is the usa for archaic laws in modern times.

As I said you should thne disband the police and policemen can join the military. Solves the numbers. If you did that during Vietnam, you wouldnt have needed the draft

[Xela]

148. Deterrence, social control, traffic control, law enforcement, and general public service

They exist to serve the public in many capacities, not only to carry firearms or for security.

Xela

[slackmaster]

113. Our Bill of Rights has a preamble that explains its purpose. Many people haven't read it.

Here it is:

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[snot]

100. It seems to me that ALL the amendments are intended

for the protection of the people from the government; and it also seems to me that the Second Amendment's position as second only after freedom of speech and religion may indicate the relative importance the Founders attributed to it.

And I think they were right to do so.

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
– James Madison, Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788, The Federalist

The people must have sufficient power to serve as a check on their government. That power can take various forms: knowledge, money, weapons.

[jeepnstein]

106. The 2nd is a statement of trust.

It puts the power of the citizens on a level playing field with the Government. It also puts the monkey on the backs of the regular citizen to provide for his own security.

These days some of us have abdicated that responsibility to the point where we don't even pay attention to problems close to home. I'm thinking of things like a son with mental problems and a gun, for example.

[Atypical Liberal]

127. Please see my post here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=542709&mesg_id=542810

[Hoopla Phil]

144. Civil unrest and natural disasters come to mind.

They become very effective and necessary when lawlessness breaks out from the above mentioned reasons. You may want to do some youtube research for videos of people defending themselves and their property with just such weapons during the Rodney King riots.