The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Kondor3]

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

Doesn't matter. It could be a thousand, and it would still be chump-change... a flea... a gnat... a speck... a pimple... a nothing-burger.

oh it matters because it adds an unknown number

Once effective gun-control unfolds ( weapons classifications, licensing-by-class, registration, training, national databases, etc. ) the home-made stuff will have to be registered.

Once it's inspected for compliance with national gun-safety standards, that is, and, of course, if you're caught with an un-registered one, you get crucified at dawn.

That is committing the crime of ex post facto legislation.
It is not legal and the courts won't allow it since there are so many tens of millions of them.

{...
An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
...
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
...}
Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

That which was legal can not later be prosecuted.
It is illegal to confiscate all the tens of millions of assault weapons out there already, legally.
And it can never be illegal to build your own firearms.

Ex poste facto will be negated by virtue of a generous "turn-in" period for homemade and other un-register-able weapons.

They get 6, 12, 18 or 24 months... whatever... after that, if you haven't submitted the weapon for safety evaluation and stamping and registration, you're screwed.

Plenty of existing precedent for changing law that incorporates a grace-period, after which violation constitutes a "current" offense, not a past one.

And, of course, if we're dealing with a "current" offense rather than a "past" one, well... so much for ex poste facto...

-------

Next batter, please.

 

[Taz]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

Nukes are munitions, not arms.

Try again

So if bullets are munitions, then we can ban them. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Rustic]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles... End of story

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

OMG! Did you read what you just typed?

The Bill of Rights has no legal standing?

You are one idiotic piece of shit!

Your school should have their license revoked for unleashing that kind of stupidity on mankind with their stamp of approval!

Take 5 minutes and read up on the US Constitution so that you might actual realize what level of dumbass you just achieved!

No legal standing? You should be taken out and horse-whipped for being a self-inflicted, brain-damaged moron!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

One? There are about a couple hundred thousand, you idiot!

I am sorry that you are so fucking stupid. It really is criminal.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

My favorite of the Bill of Rights is the first, freedom of speech.

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia

{...
Contents

• 1The establishment of religion
  • 1.1Standing to sue
  • 1.2Tax exemption to religious institutions
  • 1.3Legislative chaplains
  • 1.4Government-sponsored religious displays
  • 1.5Religion in public education
    • 1.5.1Prayer in public schools
    • 1.5.2Teaching of creationism in public schools
  • 1.6Governmental aid to church-related schools
  • 1.7Blue laws
  • 1.8Religious institution functioning as a government agency
  • 1.9Unequal government treatment of religious groups
• 2The free exercise of religion
  • 2.1Polygamy
  • 2.2Religion and the right to work
  • 2.3Religious tests for public service or benefits
  • 2.4Free exercise and free speech
  • 2.5Free exercise and public education
  • 2.6Free Exercise and public property
  • 2.7Solicitation by religious groups
  • 2.8Free exercise and eminent domain
  • 2.9Ritual sacrifice of animals
  • 2.10Government intervention in church controversies
• 3Freedom of speech
  • 3.1Sedition and imminent danger
  • 3.2False speech
  • 3.3Fighting words and the heckler's veto
  • 3.4Freedom of assembly and public forums
    • 3.4.1Time, place and manner
  • 3.5Symbolic speech
  • 3.6Compelled speech
    • 3.6.1Compelled subsidy for speech of others
    • 3.6.2Loyalty oaths and affirmations
  • 3.7School speech
  • 3.8Obscenity
    • 3.8.1Generally
    • 3.8.2As criminal offense
    • 3.8.3Search, seizure and forfeiture
    • 3.8.4Civil and administrative regulation
    • 3.8.5Internet
  • 3.9Government-funded speech
  • 3.10Speech by public employees
    • 3.10.1Political activity and Hatch Act of 1939
  • 3.11Commercial speech
  • 3.12Official retaliation
• 4Freedom of the press
  • 4.1Prior restraints and censorship
  • 4.2Privacy
  • 4.3Taxation and privileges
  • 4.4Defamation
  • 4.5Broadcast media
  • 4.6Government speech
• 5Freedom of association
• 6Right to petition

...}

Is this guy an American?

I think he has suffered a traumatic brain injury from looking at himself in a mirror. Hardly anything else explains that level of stupid.

 

[Flash]

 

[Rigby5]

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

My favorite of the Bill of Rights is the first, freedom of speech.

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia

{...
Contents

• 1The establishment of religion
  • 1.1Standing to sue
  • 1.2Tax exemption to religious institutions
  • 1.3Legislative chaplains
  • 1.4Government-sponsored religious displays
  • 1.5Religion in public education
    • 1.5.1Prayer in public schools
    • 1.5.2Teaching of creationism in public schools
  • 1.6Governmental aid to church-related schools
  • 1.7Blue laws
  • 1.8Religious institution functioning as a government agency
  • 1.9Unequal government treatment of religious groups
• 2The free exercise of religion
  • 2.1Polygamy
  • 2.2Religion and the right to work
  • 2.3Religious tests for public service or benefits
  • 2.4Free exercise and free speech
  • 2.5Free exercise and public education
  • 2.6Free Exercise and public property
  • 2.7Solicitation by religious groups
  • 2.8Free exercise and eminent domain
  • 2.9Ritual sacrifice of animals
  • 2.10Government intervention in church controversies
• 3Freedom of speech
  • 3.1Sedition and imminent danger
  • 3.2False speech
  • 3.3Fighting words and the heckler's veto
  • 3.4Freedom of assembly and public forums
    • 3.4.1Time, place and manner
  • 3.5Symbolic speech
  • 3.6Compelled speech
    • 3.6.1Compelled subsidy for speech of others
    • 3.6.2Loyalty oaths and affirmations
  • 3.7School speech
  • 3.8Obscenity
    • 3.8.1Generally
    • 3.8.2As criminal offense
    • 3.8.3Search, seizure and forfeiture
    • 3.8.4Civil and administrative regulation
    • 3.8.5Internet
  • 3.9Government-funded speech
  • 3.10Speech by public employees
    • 3.10.1Political activity and Hatch Act of 1939
  • 3.11Commercial speech
  • 3.12Official retaliation
• 4Freedom of the press
  • 4.1Prior restraints and censorship
  • 4.2Privacy
  • 4.3Taxation and privileges
  • 4.4Defamation
  • 4.5Broadcast media
  • 4.6Government speech
• 5Freedom of association
• 6Right to petition

...}

Is this guy an American?

It is strange because he seems fairly intelligent and rational, but does come up with some very odd ideas.
One possibility is that he believes some very narrow sources?
Some of them are correct it turns out, and I was unaware of, such as some state joined the Union even before the Bill of Rights was finished. But it seems he believes the weirdest possible take on everything?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

 

[martybegan]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

Felons are not being infringed on. Being convicted in a court of law implies due process, which is the only method rights can be removed from a person.

 

[Taz]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

 

[Taz]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

Felons are not being infringed on. Being convicted in a court of law implies due process, which is the only method rights can be removed from a person.

That's a maybe, but what about age restrictions? Or restrictions on what you can buy? Like not being able to buy nukes... Waiting periods? Background checks? All infringements.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

 

[Taz]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Age restrictions or waiting periods, both infringements. As is not being able to buy all kinds of military grade weapons and bombs...

 

[Rigby5]

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

 

[progressive hunter]

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

If felons have paid their debt to society and have been released they should have all rights restored.

 

[Rustic]

Fact remains this country needs to be better armed...

 

[Rigby5]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Yes, now that we have McDonald vs Chicago firmly incorporating defense as an individual right, then convicted felons need to be re-examined. They do have the individual right of self defense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

No, you got it wrong.

The lowering price of firearms from 1500 on is what ended the monarchies.
It is what made average individuals equal to the best trained soldiers.
The result was French and American Revolutions, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Firearms equate to democracy and individual rights.

And no, Washington had it wrong and wanted smooth bore muskets because they had a more rapid rate of fire, due to quicker reloads.

{...
Brown Bess
The "Brown Bess" muzzleloading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.[1]

Charleville musket
Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

American-made muskets
Many muskets were produced locally by various gunsmiths in the colonies, often reusing parts from other weapons. These are known as "Committee of Safety" muskets, as they were funded by the fledgling local government. Because of the need to produce as many weapons as quick as possible, and also out of fear of prosecution by the British government, many of the muskets did not bear a maker's mark. Some were simply marked as property of a state, or "US," or U:STATES," or "UNITED STATES." [2]

Long rifles
Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. Drawbacks included the low rate of fire due to the complicated reloading process, the impossibility to fit it with a bayonet, the high cost, and lack of standardization that required extensive training with a particular rifle for a soldier to realize the weapon's full potential. Due to the drawbacks, George Washington argued for a limited role of rifles in the Colonial military, while Congress was more enthusiastic and authorized the raising of several companies of riflemen.[4] Long rifles played a significant part in the battles of Saratoga and New Orleans, where rifle units picked off officers to disrupt British command and control, but required support by units armed with smoothbore muskets or by artillery to prevent the riflemen from being overrun.
...}

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

Most of the Revolutionary war was won with captured muskets or domestic Kentucky Long Rifles make and owned by civilians.

Whether expensive or not, clearly the whole democratic republic is greatly enhanced by an armed population.

I quoted American History. You quote Wiki. If you believe the Americans needed the English to make guns, you would be wrong. America had it's premiere gun makers all along. Plus the foundries and materials. The Kentucky Rifle (misleading name as it was produced in Pennsylvania) was ALL American. At the beginning of the war, both sides used British flintlocks. The British stuck with their Brown Bess while the French started providing the Americans with the French Charleville musket which loaded faster than the brown bess. But the Kentucky Rifle was only used for sniping as it was too slow to reload, too long and just not suited for open fuild use. But in the hands of a sharp shooter, it was good out to as much as 300 yds meaning it was even out past the range of the canons. The Kentucky Rifle had nothing to do with Kentucky at all and wasn't something that anyone brought from home.

You misunderstand.
I agree it was the Kentucky Long Rifle, made in Pennsylvania, that made the difference.
And that was because civilians already were armed with them.
Washington used captures arms and French arms as well, but if the British had previously implemented gun control, clearly the revolution would have failed.
We must never make the mistake of allowing gun control prevent rebellion when necessary.
You are wrong when you say, "wasn't something that anyone brought from home".
All the Kentucky Long Rifles were brought from home.
There was no way to ramp up production that fast.
It was ONLY private rifle ownership that allow us to win the rebellion.

Britain already did start gun control. But not for the tories. I can't remember which but there were two major battle fought over 2 different Colonial Armories that the British needed to seize. Before the real confiscation could start of the private arms, the war had already begun.

Again, the system has grown where a Revolution is impossible to accomplish. In today's information age, very quickly, the Government will learn about the logistics, training, supply, etc. and put a stop to it. It happens every so many years. And the Federal Military has safety feature built in that NO President can use them for a military takeover. Nor can any General do a Coup. It's time to put away that fiction book, turn off the TV, put away that Video Game and turn off the DVD.

I disagree.
First of all, the government clearly is way more corrupt that we should tolerate.
Not only did it lie about Iraqi WMD, but it tortured, and murdered half a million innocent Iraqis with Shock and Awe, which was a war crime.
Second is that revolution not only is more possible than ever, but inevitable.
Neither political party is anything but crooks.
An Assault Weapon Ban is all it would take, as the first confiscation would lead to blood, and then even the police would mutiny.
The War on Drugs already made the US with the highest incarceration rate in the world.
It is a disgrace.
We likely should have rebelled decades ago.
The government can not stop any underground rebellion because you do not have to organize training.
The population has been in training from the beginning.

The last bunch that tried that left Georgia because Georgia would not tolerate their actions. They moved to a more tolerant state of New Mexico. In New Mexico they were all arrested by the Governor, tried and convicted, sent to prison, all of their equipment and possessions confiscated and that was the end of the rebellion. You seem to believe that the States will cooperate in your "Rebellion". They won't. Because you will be trying to take them over long before you go after the Feds which is a much more difficult thing. What tripped them up? Logistics and supply. A few hundred "Freedom Fighters" won't be enough. In order to get enough "Freedom Fighters" you are going to need thousands. And sooner than later, your logistics and supply will be noticed. You keep thinking the governments are all brain dead.