CDZ Should Americans be allowed to own military sniper rifles and military door buster guns?

[Uncensored2008]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.

These is no good reason for a person to give their opinion if he isn't a reporter of government official....

 

[Uncensored2008]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.

I can think of a couple...

You can see where JoeB would beg to differ in that scenario....

 

[Uncensored2008]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

What?

Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?

Stop lying, seriously.

 

[peacefan]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

For us gun ownership is an unalienable Right. That is to say the Right was given by our Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be) and the Right is above the reach of government. The United States is the only country that guarantees unalienable Rights in its Constitution. Our country was founded by freemen with weapons, taking on the world's superpower in order to secure our Liberty.

 

[Picaro]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

What?

Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?

Stop lying, seriously.

You ask: "Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?"

And the answer is Lon Horiuchi. It became part of a $3 million dollar shot that illustrates the need for the people to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Spoken like a true juvenile. Well done.

When you can have a conversation on the issue that does not involve your fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, or dishonesty, let us know.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

What?

Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?

Stop lying, seriously.

You ask: "Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?"

And the answer is Lon Horiuchi. It became part of a $3 million dollar shot that illustrates the need for the people to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Good answer, but not correct. Lon Horiuchi, FBI assassin, murdered Viki Weaver as she held her infant child, but he did not shoot the child.

Now US Marshall William Degan murdered a child, but he used a shotgun to kill 14 year old Sammy Weaver. Kevin Harris fired back and killed the murdering son of a bitch Degan.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

What?

Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?

Stop lying, seriously.

You ask: "Who has EVER shot little children with a high tech sniper rifle ?"

And the answer is Lon Horiuchi. It became part of a $3 million dollar shot that illustrates the need for the people to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms.

Good answer, but not correct. Lon Horiuchi, FBI assassin, murdered Viki Weaver as she held her infant child, but he did not shoot the child.

Now US Marshall William Degan murdered a child, but he used a shotgun to kill 14 year old Sammy Weaver. Kevin Harris fired back and killed the murdering son of a bitch Degan.

My bad. And I know Randy Weaver personally... presuming he's still alive. But Sammy was killed with a shotgun and it was Vicki that was murdered as she held her child. Glad you accept it as point taken. What happened to that family is what sparked interest in civilian militias and people standing up, unified, against a tyrannical government that was not above murdering the citizenry without just cause. It gave the Second Amendment a reason for being studied and people developing the idea that maybe we do need to hold government accountable and not forfeit the Right to keep and bear Arms.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Every U.S. citizen, regardless of age, religion, criminal background, or anything else, should be able to purchase, on the spot, any weapon, military or otherwise. If a citizen, who is Muslim, and who has a fascination with ISIS, jihad, etc, and is freshly out of prison for violent crimes., wants to buy an FN SCAR, he should be able to.

That is kind of irresponsible at one level. Then again, Muslims have no business in the United States. We've been at war with them since before the U.S. was a country.

No person should be let of jail or prison until they have been rehabilitated and people who have been adjudged to be mentally incompetent should be held in a mental facility and / or under constant supervision.

I think you don't really feel that way, but the left has been programmed to think we will have total gun control or else everyone in America will get a weapon, regardless of their propensity for violence.

Unfortunately, gun owners are not proactive. They are reactionaries, so actual measures that would prevent most firearm shootings is never pursued.

Whether or not somebody should be denied existence in the country due to the religion or whether somebody should be released out of prison, is completely irrelevant to the topic, which is adherence to the 2nd Amendment. 2A puts no restrictions. In fact, it specifically denies restrictions. Anybody denying these groups of people access to the weapons of their choice is not a true believer in the 2nd.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

I am a firm believer in the Constitution. Every U.S. citizen, regardless of age, religion, criminal background, or anything else, should be able to purchase, on the spot, any weapon, military or otherwise. If a citizen, who is Muslim, and who has a fascination with ISIS, jihad, etc, and is freshly out of prison for violent crimes., wants to buy an FN SCAR, he should be able to.

That is kind of irresponsible at one level. Then again, Muslims have no business in the United States. We've been at war with them since before the U.S. was a country.

No person should be let of jail or prison until they have been rehabilitated and people who have been adjudged to be mentally incompetent should be held in a mental facility and / or under constant supervision.

I think you don't really feel that way, but the left has been programmed to think we will have total gun control or else everyone in America will get a weapon, regardless of their propensity for violence.

Unfortunately, gun owners are not proactive. They are reactionaries, so actual measures that would prevent most firearm shootings is never pursued.

Whether or not somebody should be denied existence in the country due to the religion or whether somebody should be released out of prison, is completely irrelevant to the topic, which is adherence to the 2nd Amendment. 2A puts no restrictions. In fact, it specifically denies restrictions. Anybody denying these groups of people access to the weapons of their choice is not a true believer in the 2nd.

Did you miss the part where I continue to say the Right is unalienable? Your post sounds like you are challenging me in some way. Our forefathers fought a war to establish independence predicated upon the idea that every human being is born with Rights that transcend the power of government.

I believe that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Then they are judged by a jury of their peers and sentenced. IF our system were doing its job, they would have three basic objectives to meet: punishment, rehabilitation, and restitution to victims. Once a person is incarcerated and done those things, they then should return to society as free men / women with the same Rights they had going in since unalienable Rights transcend the powers of government. Our problem is, gun owners sit on their ass and don't do squat to be proactive - you know, like pushing legislation requiring that criminals be sentenced to rehabilitation to go along with a term of years. For example, if a person is sentenced to ten years in prison, they can sit on their hind quarters and let a decade go by OR they can submit to rehabilitation, earning an early release. You could take two years off if they get a GED, another two years off for a college degree and one year off if they undergo drug rehabilitation (if it's a drug offense) and / or anger management if it were a violent crime. You get the picture.

If you are not sending violent criminals back into society, you have no pretext to lobby for gun control. If you want to realize our version of utopia, you have to become proactive and eliminate the left's pretexts. It's that simple. You may have missed post # 207. If America lets violent people into the United States, it's their own damn fault. The right wanted the so - called "Patriot Act," National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring of every aspect of one's life, armed drones flying over our heads,the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, etc., etc. ad infinitum. If someone hails from a country at war with the United States, deny them entry. Don't punish the people here by infringing on unalienable Rights. I'm bolding these concepts for a reason.

Don't worry. You will never see the day when I am not more committed to the Right to keep and bear Arms than any person on the face of this planet. Throughout my life I've been required to back that up with my Liberty and sometimes my very Life at stake. The older I get, the more committed I become. But, the right must, of necessity, become proactive. The guy who lands the first punch generally has the advantage in a fight. The right allows the anti-gunners throw punches; the right does nothing to mitigate the damage and, predictably, gun control is foisted on us incrementally.

 

[IM2]

No.

 

[Picaro]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

A lot of noise, that says very little. As I've said for years on this forum, I'm all for private gun ownership, I'm all for concealed carry. The fact is it's the weirdo cultists nobody thinks are sane, and they obsess over hardware far beyond what most people consider sane, they are in fact nutjobs, and they are the worst enemies of the 2nd A.

And, the 2nd A doesn't do what you keep claiming it does; the Founders left it vague enough to let the states handle their own definitions of who or what is legal. Anybody doubts this they visit Clayton Cramer's detailed history of gun laws in the U.S. Nowhere has it ever been common for any idiot to by rockets or grenades at the local 7-11, or stockpile nuclear warheads or any other silly ridiculous claims that the 2nd allows anybody to own anything they want, and nobody needs nutjobs playing Dress Up walking around showing off their firearms collection everywhere; concealed carry works just fine, thank you.

 

[2aguy]

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

A lot of noise, that says very little. As I've said for years on this forum, I'm all for private gun ownership, I'm all for concealed carry. The fact is it's the weirdo cultists nobody thinks are sane, and they obsess over hardware far beyond what most people consider sane, they are in fact nutjobs, and they are the worst enemies of the 2nd A.

And, the 2nd A doesn't do what you keep claiming it does; the Founders left it vague enough to let the states handle their own definitions of who or what is legal. Anybody doubts this they visit Clayton Cramer's detailed history of gun laws in the U.S. Nowhere has it ever been common for any idiot to by rockets or grenades at the local 7-11, or stockpile nuclear warheads or any other silly ridiculous claims that the 2nd allows anybody to own anything they want, and nobody needs nutjobs playing Dress Up walking around showing off their firearms collection everywhere; concealed carry works just fine, thank you.

Rockets and Grenades fit the dangerous and unusual definition from Heller...since they are unusual, not used for personal defense, and they are area effect weapons......so you have not point.....

You guys always throw out the most extreme example, to justify your anti-gun extremism...........

It is weak and lazy on your part.

Show us where the AR-15 can be banned.....using the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

A lot of noise, that says very little. As I've said for years on this forum, I'm all for private gun ownership, I'm all for concealed carry. The fact is it's the weirdo cultists nobody thinks are sane, and they obsess over hardware far beyond what most people consider sane, they are in fact nutjobs, and they are the worst enemies of the 2nd A.

And, the 2nd A doesn't do what you keep claiming it does; the Founders left it vague enough to let the states handle their own definitions of who or what is legal. Anybody doubts this they visit Clayton Cramer's detailed history of gun laws in the U.S. Nowhere has it ever been common for any idiot to by rockets or grenades at the local 7-11, or stockpile nuclear warheads or any other silly ridiculous claims that the 2nd allows anybody to own anything they want, and nobody needs nutjobs playing Dress Up walking around showing off their firearms collection everywhere; concealed carry works just fine, thank you.

The Second Amendment is unequivocal in its meaning. I don't know what Clayton Cramer's research shows, but I have roughly 5,000 or so pages of briefs and court case transcripts of how the Second Amendment was interpreted, starting with the United States Supreme Court Justices that were nominated by the framers when they were elected to the presidency.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

A lot of noise, that says very little. As I've said for years on this forum, I'm all for private gun ownership, I'm all for concealed carry. The fact is it's the weirdo cultists nobody thinks are sane, and they obsess over hardware far beyond what most people consider sane, they are in fact nutjobs, and they are the worst enemies of the 2nd A.

And, the 2nd A doesn't do what you keep claiming it does; the Founders left it vague enough to let the states handle their own definitions of who or what is legal. Anybody doubts this they visit Clayton Cramer's detailed history of gun laws in the U.S. Nowhere has it ever been common for any idiot to by rockets or grenades at the local 7-11, or stockpile nuclear warheads or any other silly ridiculous claims that the 2nd allows anybody to own anything they want, and nobody needs nutjobs playing Dress Up walking around showing off their firearms collection everywhere; concealed carry works just fine, thank you.

Rockets and Grenades fit the dangerous and unusual definition from Heller...since they are unusual, not used for personal defense, and they are area effect weapons......so you have not point.....

You guys always throw out the most extreme example, to justify your anti-gun extremism...........

It is weak and lazy on your part.

Show us where the AR-15 can be banned.....using the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court rulings.

As stated, there is NOBODY on the face of this earth that is more pro-gun than I am. The problem with this subject is that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that's never been told before. I'd like to say a couple of things first about the Right to keep and bear Arms. William Blackstone wrote:

"The defence of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray. For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society..."

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III; 1768

* In a position paper by Albert S. Miles, David L. Dagley and Christina H. Yau The University of Alabama, they had this to say regarding Blackstone and his Commentaries:

"The Commentaries, published from 1765- 1769, quickly came to influence American law, including the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
...Blackstone affected American law not only in the writing of the U.S. Constitution, but also in legal practice. ...‘The law of nature is a supreme, unvariable and uncontrollable rule of conduct to all men’ (Vol. 1, p. 39). He stated that, ‘the law of nature, being co-eval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times’ (Vol. 1, p. 41). Professor Duncan Kennedy noted that Blackstone ‘affirmed the congruence of the natural law and the law of England, so that there never was a need for the judge to choose between the two’ (Kennedy, 1979, p. 241)"

https://www.anzela.edu.au/assets/anzjle_5.2_-_4_albert_s_miles,_david_l_dagley__christina_h_yau.pdf

These are the roots (the genesis) of our Second Amendment. George Mason ( delegate to the Constitutional Convention who refused to sign the Constitution without the Bill of Rights) stated:

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty..."

It don't take long to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the unalienable Rights our forefathers fought to secure in the Declaration of Independence are, in fact, codified in the Bill of Rights. Period. James Madison, who is the father of the Constitution AND wrote the Bill of Rights wrote:

"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 of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Madison nominated Justice Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court. Story wrote:

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789

The Second Amendment clearly and unequivocally states the "Right of the people shall not be infringed."

An infringement is a limitation. And the founders / framers did not like usurpations of power.

Now, having said all of that, the government IS banning firearms on the installment plan. It is unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, reprehensible, indefensible, unlawful, and a usurpation of power that compels EVERY constitutionalist to find out why. My posts on this are a bit wordy, but if you really, really want to know I can break it down so you can see how the law was perverted - and unconstitutionally changed. But, in response to your post, the government has the power to outlaw firearms and they are doing it. Government does not have the authority, so we need to become fully informed and begin challenging these acts that have put the United States Supreme Court at the head of legislation, followed by the president and the body with least amount of power is the legislative branch of government - so much for that three co - equal branches of government crap we got fed in school. Do you want the rest of the story?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

NO, they shouldn't.

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

He excels at that,denigrating people when he cant counter facts

 

[2aguy]

Are you one of those who thinks they know what he /she thinks my life is worth?

No. And sorry. I'm Dutch, and i realize now that i shouldn't be speaking on gun control measures in the US at all.

No problem; the U.S. interferes in other countries' politics all the time, every country interferes, and offering opinions is also fine. With some of these posters, you're just annoying cranks and loons anyway, so no problem. We have a small minority of sociopaths who want to carry their toys around everywhere, they crave the attention, even though we all know they're full of crap and aren't going to deter anything from happening; they just want to play Dress Up!!! like many 8-9 year old girls do, only they want accessorize by carrying 3 or 4 assorted rifles, 5 or 6 handguns, a few big ass knives they saw on TV , stuff like that, and try to look like some idiot from a Hollywood action movie, and give each other woodies when they meet in stores and posture for each other n stuff.

Picaro,

I want to say something to you personally.

You've denigrated a lot of people here with your comments. Admittedly, there are people who get into the whole culture of putting junk on their rifles. Some even have a light, laser, scope, tritium sights, sling, vertical grip and a magnifier mounted on a rifle and the goodies weigh more than the weapon. Some of it is redundant. For instance, I don't see a reason for mounting a laser on a rifle that is equipped with night scope capabilities, but it's none of my business. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the people who drink themselves into a drunken stupor and then get behind the wheel of an automobile and put people in imminent danger. Gun owners are no more a "loon" than the guy who smokes cigarettes... which take over 450,000 lives per year. As a nonsmoker, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke are FIVE TIMES greater than being killed by a firearm!

I'm sure this has all been pointed out to you. Just thought I'd recap it so you don't lose sight of the foundational principle upon which America was founded: LIBERTY.

Having Liberty means we assume risks. We could outlaw cigarettes and booze, potentially saving a half million lives per year using your logic. But, as a society, we choose to accept risks for the luxury of Liberty. Then, the founders / framers understood the cost of Liberty. They toyed with the idea of having civilian militias, but they couldn't get them to muster on a regular basis. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence proclaims:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

When Alexander Hamilton figured out how impossible it was to get the citizenry to show up and drill on a regular basis, he got flustered and made a comment that was really poignant and revealing. He said:

" The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers # 29

Well, today, with 350 + million people, that is an impossible task. We could never get people to assemble. So what was aimed at was to be properly armed and equipped. And so the Second Amendment guaranteed a preexisting Right - the right to keep and bear Arms both as an extension of your Right to Life AND to insure the security of a free State. Having served in a civilian militia (the oldest and most continuous) since 1987, I appeared exactly twice in public wearing a militia uniform. Once was in 1998 (IIRC) at an event billed as a Survival Expo where most state militias were present and recruiting / selling their wares to finance their training. The next time would be at a Ryan's Steakhouse in the banquet room where we held monthly meetings to recruit, educate, and plan FTXs (field training exercises.) The reason for wearing the uniforms was due to the fact that it was a recruitment drive where the public could come in - eat, meet and greet (in our case retreat.) Additionally, they were new uniforms that we had voted on, so six officers wore new uniforms for the benefit of existing members and we thought it would help in recruitment. Other than that, none of us (under the elected leadership or the real organization) have ever appeared in public nor posted pictures or videos. We decided it was more of a photo op for the left and the alphabet agencies than anything else.

I just want you to know that gun owners, in general, are not what you portray. That is why there are over 400 million weapons in the United States and only a fraction of 1 percent are ever used in a crime. There is this daily back and forth between gun owners and anti-gun types and I'm ashamed that the right is more reactionary than anything else. The left is pro-active and I wish the right would adopt that trait as I could cut the numbers of mass shootings down by 90 percent without gun control, without infringing on anyone else's Rights, without new taxes, and without creating a huge bureaucracy. At the same time, I have a problem with the left always playing statistical prestidigitation with numbers to create this narrative that adopting socialism will make Americans safe. Yeah, we have guns and more people die from guns than most other places on the map. Notice, however, I said die by guns. But, when the left cites places like Japan (a common comparison), the left ignores the fact that Japan exceeds our suicide rate by leaps and bounds on a per capita scale. People die by poison, knives, swords, gangs with a lot of fists and foreign objects, etc. At the end of the day, dead is dead. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I have a God given, absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, irrevocable, and preexisting Right to keep and bear Arms that is above the reach of lawful government in our constitutional Republic. Unless I jeopardize your Rights, you nor any government acting on your behalf can legitimately take my weapon. I, like MILLIONS of people, carry a weapon every day. You don't see it, but it's there - since the late 1970s mine has been there with me. And if your life needed defending, I'd probably come to your defense (instinctively due to training.) OTOH, since weapons offend you, I'd suggest that if you find yourself in the midst of people shooting, you start yelling that you are anti-gun. That way, no gun owner will offend you by saving you from a shooter. I'm armed to defend my own life and to insure the security of a free State. That isn't possible with a flintlock or a musket. So, you can rant against firearms all day long. People today can build what they need and you can't turn back the clock on technology. In other words, you're pissing in the wind. IF you want to abandon your gun control fight and join me in the real world - saving lives, I'm only a PM away... but, you and I know the real objective is control, so I won't be receiving a PM from you. Knowing that, we are on an equal footing with the balance of this thread.

A lot of noise, that says very little. As I've said for years on this forum, I'm all for private gun ownership, I'm all for concealed carry. The fact is it's the weirdo cultists nobody thinks are sane, and they obsess over hardware far beyond what most people consider sane, they are in fact nutjobs, and they are the worst enemies of the 2nd A.

And, the 2nd A doesn't do what you keep claiming it does; the Founders left it vague enough to let the states handle their own definitions of who or what is legal. Anybody doubts this they visit Clayton Cramer's detailed history of gun laws in the U.S. Nowhere has it ever been common for any idiot to by rockets or grenades at the local 7-11, or stockpile nuclear warheads or any other silly ridiculous claims that the 2nd allows anybody to own anything they want, and nobody needs nutjobs playing Dress Up walking around showing off their firearms collection everywhere; concealed carry works just fine, thank you.

Rockets and Grenades fit the dangerous and unusual definition from Heller...since they are unusual, not used for personal defense, and they are area effect weapons......so you have not point.....

You guys always throw out the most extreme example, to justify your anti-gun extremism...........

It is weak and lazy on your part.

Show us where the AR-15 can be banned.....using the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court rulings.

As stated, there is NOBODY on the face of this earth that is more pro-gun than I am. The problem with this subject is that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that's never been told before. I'd like to say a couple of things first about the Right to keep and bear Arms. William Blackstone wrote:

"The defence of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affray. For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society..."

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III; 1768

* In a position paper by Albert S. Miles, David L. Dagley and Christina H. Yau The University of Alabama, they had this to say regarding Blackstone and his Commentaries:

"The Commentaries, published from 1765- 1769, quickly came to influence American law, including the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
...Blackstone affected American law not only in the writing of the U.S. Constitution, but also in legal practice. ...‘The law of nature is a supreme, unvariable and uncontrollable rule of conduct to all men’ (Vol. 1, p. 39). He stated that, ‘the law of nature, being co-eval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times’ (Vol. 1, p. 41). Professor Duncan Kennedy noted that Blackstone ‘affirmed the congruence of the natural law and the law of England, so that there never was a need for the judge to choose between the two’ (Kennedy, 1979, p. 241)"

https://www.anzela.edu.au/assets/anzjle_5.2_-_4_albert_s_miles,_david_l_dagley__christina_h_yau.pdf

These are the roots (the genesis) of our Second Amendment. George Mason ( delegate to the Constitutional Convention who refused to sign the Constitution without the Bill of Rights) stated:

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty..."

It don't take long to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the unalienable Rights our forefathers fought to secure in the Declaration of Independence are, in fact, codified in the Bill of Rights. Period. James Madison, who is the father of the Constitution AND wrote the Bill of Rights wrote:

"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 of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Madison nominated Justice Joseph Story to the United States Supreme Court. Story wrote:

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789

The Second Amendment clearly and unequivocally states the "Right of the people shall not be infringed."

An infringement is a limitation. And the founders / framers did not like usurpations of power.

Now, having said all of that, the government IS banning firearms on the installment plan. It is unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, reprehensible, indefensible, unlawful, and a usurpation of power that compels EVERY constitutionalist to find out why. My posts on this are a bit wordy, but if you really, really want to know I can break it down so you can see how the law was perverted - and unconstitutionally changed. But, in response to your post, the government has the power to outlaw firearms and they are doing it. Government does not have the authority, so we need to become fully informed and begin challenging these acts that have put the United States Supreme Court at the head of legislation, followed by the president and the body with least amount of power is the legislative branch of government - so much for that three co - equal branches of government crap we got fed in school. Do you want the rest of the story?

Thank you......excellent post on the subject......