My two cents (if anyone gives a sh**……)
(If any of this has been gone over, forgive me.)

First, the second amendment was specific in stating:

“A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

By definition, ‘well regulated’ was a term used to mean a well trained and well kept. Not the common and contemporary definition of regulation by government. “…being necessary for the security of a free state..” was specific to the concept that if we were invaded by Britain, or anyone else (i.e. foreign invaders) that we had the ability to fend them off.

The Third amendment was suppose to be a compendium to the second, where as solders could not be quartered in someone’s home without the express permission of the home owner.

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Both were written because the founding fathers feared a standing army, or “An army of the United States”. This was also the concept behind Posse Comitatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

In addition, the founders also feared the government becoming too powerful, and wanted to give the people a way to fight off any possible power grab.

The concept that the Second amendment never stated anything about hand guns is about as logical as saying the First amendment doesn’t cover the internet. The reality is that the concept of the Constitution was not the modern interpretation of a ‘living breathing document’ but instead a ROCK SOLID unmoving FOUNDATION for the creation of government of the US. This is an argument to try and change the foundation of the Constitution so those who wish to destroy it will have the ability to do so.

The creation of the National Guard was an attempt by the government to nationalize the state militias for the specific purpose of eliminating the concept of a “State militia”. The National Guard was created in 1916. The troops who were apart of the American expeditionary force sent to Europe in WWI were originally State Militias conscripted into national service. Thus, the Second Amendment NEVER referred to the National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard


In the 1939 case that was stated about sawed off shotguns, the court had ruled that the shotgun had not received a tax stamp from the federal government, and thus was illegal.
What wasn’t mentioned was the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
http://www.gunlawnews.org/NFA-34.html

In this act, the gun laws had been imposed as a result of the Gang wars of Chicago and New York with such characters as John Dillinger, Bugsy Malone, Bumpy Johnson, and of course Al Capone who favored the famous ‘Chicago Chopper’ otherwise known as the Thomson Machinegun. The argument was to “do something” about the massive gang lance murders that took place at that time. What personified all of this was the Valentine’s Day Massacre. Because of this act, the shotgun mentioned was thus illegal.
For purposes of clarity, the primary reason (by theory) that the Supreme Court has not ruled on such a case is because (again according to theory) that the members of the court do not want to place massive amounts of power that they know would be instantly resisted by the populace. Thus, incremental gun control is the concept. Just a little more here, and a little more there type thing.

The creation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 68) was another attempt to do this.

This was the argument used in the creation of the Super omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994 that had the infamous assault weapons ban.

As for the Patriot act, here is a link to the full text: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

As a photographer, I was greatly concerned over the act in regards to my rights to photograph anything. There is NOTHING in it that refers to abridgment of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Amendments, or anything else, but does hit hard on money transfers, etc.
Don’t believe me, read it. (Yes I know it’s long and dry.)

To sum this all up, most of the arguments for and against I think are mostly conjecture.
I am proud to live in this country, faults and all. I will take the mayhem over government control any day. That means we are free. Not controlled. Personally, I believe that if we didn’t have the Second Amendment, this country would have fallen a very long time ago.
Those who see peace without a sward believe in utopia. That will only come after Rapture.

 

darn it, i was hoping this was a gun thread where i could post pictues of my guns.

oh well.

i am all for gun ownership, and i used to argue it until i was blue in the face, but i found out it did no good. if you are pro-gun, then so be it, and if you are anti-gun, then so be it. i love guns and i own lots of them, and that's my right and my priviledge. i carry a concealed weapon 24/7 because it is my right, and my duty to protect myself and those i love.

and besides...if they outlaw guns, only criminals will have them...

 

Armed Amish

If the Amish had guns then there would only be one dead idiot! You take away the right to bare arms, you take away the ability of lawabiding people to protect themselves from criminals and Liberal politicians. Communism begins by disarming the public. Look it up. Lennon said it and Stalin did it! And how can you forget Hitler who disarmed Germany leading up to World War 2. Milions of people have died at the hands of government!

 

...not 'John Lennon' surely......oh yes....

"happiness is a warm gun.....bang bang shoot shoot"

 

I do kind of have to agree with the john lennon.

 

Damn! I thought this thread was gonna be about gun fetishes!

 

.I do kind of have to agree with the john lennon.


...actually, when John Lennon wrote this song, he got the quote from an NRA magazine. Thinking that it was hilarious he wrote a song with that title but made the lyrics sexual........it was nothing to do with guns.......

.....or Lenin for that matter!

 

I spent 20 years as an expat and lived in some of the most wonderful places on earth. Then I came back to the UK and occasionally wonder why, then I read threads like this.

 

Being a southern gal and having to work where I do and getting off late at night.. I would not be with out my Snub nosed 38 . To dangerous getting to the car at night. I think if the girls in your country Trumpet, that have been murdered. had carried and knew how to use the weapon for what it was mean't for, might still be alive. and your Bobbies would not be looking for this serial killer. He'd already be in the morgue. "Case closed"

 

It even says in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that it's not only a need to have a militia or somebody throw off corrupted government, but it was a responsibility.

Sorry it's like two months late, but yes, that's all true.

Except the very beginning, the Army of the Republic that you speak about is a non-existent army. At that time, the government was not a Republic or a Democracy. It was just an area of an empire or kingdom, I guess, throwing off its shackles. Thus, Colonial Army.

I also can't believe that this one is still going on. Oh well. Good times.

 

a comment

hi, im from canada and i took a police foundations course in college, and one thing that was brought to my attention is that alot of murder weapons are actually stolen from law abiding people, if your going to kill someone, stealing is really insignificant.

 

To get back to the original question:

OK, I'm not American and I don't have your cultural baggage but when you see things like the Amish Schoolhouse shooting how can you think that a handgun ban wouldn't help?

Someone please explain this to me because I'm thinking:
Guns=bad
No guns=not so bad.

One of the biggest (and dare I say intentional miss conceptions on this whole issue)
Is the concept that by not having something there, i.e. a gun, that there would be no crime. Or in the case of this question, …how can you think that a handgun ban wouldn’t help?
The fundamental point is that a ban of anything wont stop behavior of depraved minds. You cannot stop motivation of someone who is intent on doing harm.

Let us suppose a handgun ban was in place. Ok, the problem with the premise is that the shooter (or in this scenario) the killer was not motivated by having the gun, but by his own personal demons. Who is to say he couldn’t throw a Molotov cocktail, or make a propane bomb? Drive a tractor or truck into the school house. Or use any variety of any other means to kill. The guns are not the issue here. Just the focus because of the hatred of guns by politicians and others.

To deal with the problem does not take gun bans, but dealing with (dare I say it on this forum) society’s perverted ways, and its absolute lack of respect for life.

As for the second point:

Someone please explain this to me because I'm thinking:
Guns=bad
No guns=not so bad.

Its not that guns are bad or not bad. It still goes back to the above point of an intimate object cannot decide its own use. It is not alive or self aware. It is a tool. Tools can be abused. As for No guns=not so bad just remember this. The old favorite of the NRA and others:

What do the following countries all have in common?
China, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Rwanda, South Africa, Cambodia, Indonesia, Former Eastern Block?

All had gun control, and all had horrendous slaughter of people who were UNARMED!

 

There are some here whom mentioned owning guns and or carrying guns around for protection. Statistically more people die from gun shots via accident, a domestic dispute, suicide than are people dying from gun shot via a stranger.

Statistically more people are killed by police officers than are killed by strangers.

Also it seems that those that are pro gun argue their side of the issue via buzzwords such as rights, privilege blah blah. Well I want the right to be warned by making it a law that each gun nut has to wear a sign around their neck saying, "Warning I'm a gun nut." In that way I can stear clear of these wackos.

Personal incident. A woman and I have been good friends since we were both five years old. One day she brought a boyfriend over to my place. Her and I started playing around like we always do and she began to draw a caricature of me. This bf got jealous and pulled a gun on me. She ran into the bathroom he ran after her and pleaded for her to come out. Bad mistake on his part because I was able to take the gun away from him and dispose of it permanently. Therefore I hate guns with a passion.

 

I have mixed emotions on this. On one hand, I think our society and especially many youth have grown out of control with guns. (Almost afraid to piss people off, nowadays). At the same time, even if you ban them, they are not CLOSE to going away, here, and I feel like I should have the right to have them, as criminals will STILL have them, and the police often take too long to arrive.

Thinking they will go away, is just unrealistic liberal sentimentality.

 

I seriously thinking about getting a gun a blowing my brains out. Fuck... I can't do that, then I wouldn't be able to contribute to this forum. Hell, I guess I'll have to be content with just blowing my load.

 

Rofl. I like how people try to take our guns from the people who like guns, and when we try to defend our rights, we're laughed at. I laugh at you for speaking your mind, saying you're absolutely right, and you have the constitutional right to disagree and tell others that they're wrong.

Where the fuck are my constitutional rights to own guns? If my guns are taken away because some dipshit lobbyists get what they want, I'm leaving this already bunk country.

 

I gues I started this whole thing off (on here at least), but I really did think it had gone away a long time ago (on here at least!).

1) It's the "right to BEAR arms". Like, to carry them. Not the "right to bare arms", which is the right to wear a sleeveless top! When are you people going to learn? I only point this out because an earlier poster said that the only people who sohouldn't be allowed to have guns are the stupid people, and I'm seeing a lot of people claiming their constitutional rights who have a pretty poor grasp of the English language.

2) Surely the bit about the militia indicates to people that your foounding fathers had a very different view of why people needed guns. The world they lived in had no police force, no standing army, and a colonial power that wanted it's cash cow back. Not quite the current situation in the USA.

3) I agree that the wackos who do the shooting like the Amish thing that started this off are sick in the head. But if there were less guns around they'd find it harder to do what they do. OK, they might try it with a knife but it's a lot easier to run from a man with a knife than to outrun the bullets.

OK. I'm out of here. I guess the earlier poster who said the argument was pointless because most people have already made up their minds probably had a point.

Take care and try not to get shot, folks.

 

If you ban guns then only criminals will have guns. Anyone that wants something illegal can get it if they try hard enough.
We have made big business on the war on drugs. Drugs are illegal has anyone seen them disappear?

 

Your war on drugs is a fallacy put out by the right to justify imperiallist actions in the nations where drugs are grown, and to justify punitive laws and law enforcement in some of your inner cities.

If the government really wanted to stop drugs being a problem for youor society they could do it. They just don't want to.

 

OMG - you cannot seriously believe that you are safer carrying around a snub nosed pistol - would you really be prepared to shoot somebody who approached you - what what you feel if you missed and hit a kid?