The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Rigby5]

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...

Age restriction are valid because the parents can buy for them, so there is no infringement.
Waiting periods are an infringement because if someone threatens you, you need immediate defense.
And you have always been able to buy any kinds of military grade weapons and bombs.
You might just have to fill out a form over need, location of use, storage inspection, pay tax stamp, etc., so that you do not put neighbors at needless risk.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

The right to a fair and speedy trial

Written in the Constitution and ratified 2 years before the Bill of Rights. When anyone gets popped for violating that, it's always under the Constitution. The phrase is "That's Unconstitutional" not "That's Unbill of rightable".

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

I don't think so.

First of all, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture back then, and did not live in cities. Therefore they would have no police, telephones, or automobiles. So then guns were essentially ubiquitous. I know this from direct discussions with relatives who were alive back then.
And what estimates I have seen from others, historic accounts, etc., all tend to agree that all households had the obligatory shotgun or rifle over the fireplace mantle, as well as more firearms for hunting and defense.
I have been in discussion with my parents who claim that elementary school students would take firearms with the to school, so that the might have the opportunity shoot dinner on the way home. The turn of the century was very poor on the farm in this country.
Guns were not only extremely important, but vital.
There was likely hardly a single family without at least one firearm.
The other means of verification that most US families were rural and armed, comes from stories of WWI, where the vast majority of US soldiers were already very familiar with firearms, and that is why they did so well in WWI. The Sargent York stories.
There is no way anyone would have lived in rural USA without a phone or car, and not be armed.
In fact, there were not even any significant number of police around the turn of the century.
And I think you are wrong about the number of pistols because anyone riding a horse would be much better off with a pistol than a bulky rifle.

You go ahead and think like that. The Movies agree with you. But I come from a family that first crossed the Mississippi in 1793. And yes, they went armed with a flintlock. During the time we are discussing, they lived on a Cattle/Sheep Ranch in the Rockies. They owned ONE shotgun and ONE single shot rifle for the family. Horses were the primary mode of transportation since there were no roads. In order to go any distance at all one took the Denver Rio Grande. Handguns were not owned since they had NO function.

The problem with something like the SA Colt or Remington, a Cowboy made a dollar a day and found. The cost of a SA Colt or Remington was about 30 dollars. 30 dollars doesn't sound like a lot but that would be equivalent to paying about 2000 bucks today for something you would have limited use for. If you are going to go for that kind of investment, the Rifle or Shotgun could be had for about the same of 30 bucks in those days and were many times more versatile. Even today, the Shotgun makes a better home defense weapon than the handgun. Just the racking of a pump action shotgun is a sound that makes everything come to a screeching halt.

Quite literally hundreds of books and thousands of personal frontier accounts disagree with you.

I won't even bother to point out that in the frontier era you were either a "sheepman" or a "cattleman" (I suggest you look up Pleasant Valley War for the reason why) but your "family history " is extremely suspect.

But that aside, EVERY cowboy carried a handgun. If you lived in the frontier while the Native American population was still hostile, and you didn't carry your handgun, you were not going to survive.

There are historical plaques in a few places that describe the families who were wiped out. Were your claim factual there would be a lot more.

The fact that they are few and far between is evidence that handguns were carried. If you don't believe me travel to Edison Kansas where one of those plaques resides.

And I just love Penny Dreadfuls that recorded the history of the old West. They were the 19th century answer to the National Enquirer.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

You are wrong.
The group in Georgia that moved to New Mexico were not political, but Islamic.
And they were not arrested for fomenting rebellion, but child abuse.

Nor were any of their possession confiscated, as the females and relatives retained them,

I do not believe the States will cooperate with a popular rebellion that starts when and if an Assault Weapons Ban starts to confiscate. I am simply saying that Assault Weapons Bans are not popular at all with police or anyone who knows anything at all about firearms, so they will not cooperate once a state or fed murders someone.

And again, there are over 30 million assault weapons owners out there, not a one of whom will cooperate with any assault weapons ban confiscation attempt.

You keep thinking some sort of logistics and supplies will be needed, as if holding territory, and that is wrong.
Its the other way around. All territory will be against any small group of confiscators, and the confiscators will be attacked, ambushed, hunted down, wiped out, etc. The majority of the police will not support illegal confiscation.

 

[danielpalos]

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...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

 

[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.

The right to a fair and speedy trial

Written in the Constitution and ratified 2 years before the Bill of Rights. When anyone gets popped for violating that, it's always under the Constitution. The phrase is "That's Unconstitutional" not "That's Unbill of rightable".

Are you ignoring the fact the Bill of Rights are also the first 10 amendments?
What about the rest of the amendments, like the 14th?
Without the 14th, then we do not have individual rights necessarily.
The amendments are essential to the Constitution as a whole.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Oh, I agree. We are too flabby. I suggest if you want to be better armed, go join a Gym.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

That is a state decision.

 

[Rigby5]

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

I don't think so.

First of all, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture back then, and did not live in cities. Therefore they would have no police, telephones, or automobiles. So then guns were essentially ubiquitous. I know this from direct discussions with relatives who were alive back then.
And what estimates I have seen from others, historic accounts, etc., all tend to agree that all households had the obligatory shotgun or rifle over the fireplace mantle, as well as more firearms for hunting and defense.
I have been in discussion with my parents who claim that elementary school students would take firearms with the to school, so that the might have the opportunity shoot dinner on the way home. The turn of the century was very poor on the farm in this country.
Guns were not only extremely important, but vital.
There was likely hardly a single family without at least one firearm.
The other means of verification that most US families were rural and armed, comes from stories of WWI, where the vast majority of US soldiers were already very familiar with firearms, and that is why they did so well in WWI. The Sargent York stories.
There is no way anyone would have lived in rural USA without a phone or car, and not be armed.
In fact, there were not even any significant number of police around the turn of the century.
And I think you are wrong about the number of pistols because anyone riding a horse would be much better off with a pistol than a bulky rifle.

You go ahead and think like that. The Movies agree with you. But I come from a family that first crossed the Mississippi in 1793. And yes, they went armed with a flintlock. During the time we are discussing, they lived on a Cattle/Sheep Ranch in the Rockies. They owned ONE shotgun and ONE single shot rifle for the family. Horses were the primary mode of transportation since there were no roads. In order to go any distance at all one took the Denver Rio Grande. Handguns were not owned since they had NO function.

The problem with something like the SA Colt or Remington, a Cowboy made a dollar a day and found. The cost of a SA Colt or Remington was about 30 dollars. 30 dollars doesn't sound like a lot but that would be equivalent to paying about 2000 bucks today for something you would have limited use for. If you are going to go for that kind of investment, the Rifle or Shotgun could be had for about the same of 30 bucks in those days and were many times more versatile. Even today, the Shotgun makes a better home defense weapon than the handgun. Just the racking of a pump action shotgun is a sound that makes everything come to a screeching halt.

Quite literally hundreds of books and thousands of personal frontier accounts disagree with you.

I won't even bother to point out that in the frontier era you were either a "sheepman" or a "cattleman" (I suggest you look up Pleasant Valley War for the reason why) but your "family history " is extremely suspect.

But that aside, EVERY cowboy carried a handgun. If you lived in the frontier while the Native American population was still hostile, and you didn't carry your handgun, you were not going to survive.

There are historical plaques in a few places that describe the families who were wiped out. Were your claim factual there would be a lot more.

The fact that they are few and far between is evidence that handguns were carried. If you don't believe me travel to Edison Kansas where one of those plaques resides.

And I just love Penny Dreadfuls that recorded the history of the old West. They were the 19th century answer to the National Enquirer.

Sure they can be exaggerated, but you have to be wrong about cowboys not having pistols.
Pistols cost much less than rifles, besides being lighter and smaller.
Cowboys would have to deal with wolves, robbers, snakes, natives, Mexican bandits, etc., so would have to be armed.
And we have verified accounts from cities like Abilene, Deadwood, Tuscon, etc., that cowboys were a problem because they were all armed.

There is absolutely no accounts that claim cowboys were not armed continually.

 

[Rigby5]

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...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

You are wrong.
The group in Georgia that moved to New Mexico were not political, but Islamic.
And they were not arrested for fomenting rebellion, but child abuse.

Nor were any of their possession confiscated, as the females and relatives retained them,

I do not believe the States will cooperate with a popular rebellion that starts when and if an Assault Weapons Ban starts to confiscate. I am simply saying that Assault Weapons Bans are not popular at all with police or anyone who knows anything at all about firearms, so they will not cooperate once a state or fed murders someone.

And again, there are over 30 million assault weapons owners out there, not a one of whom will cooperate with any assault weapons ban confiscation attempt.

You keep thinking some sort of logistics and supplies will be needed, as if holding territory, and that is wrong.
Its the other way around. All territory will be against any small group of confiscators, and the confiscators will be attacked, ambushed, hunted down, wiped out, etc. The majority of the police will not support illegal confiscation.

Did I say anything about religion? An armed rebellion is an armed rebellion no matter what religion you are. Does it make it okay if it's a bunch of whacko Southern Baptists? Of do those restrictions only apply to other religions. The Authorities had to have something as a premise to begin the actual investigation and infiltration of the group. So they used what they had to use and got the results they were after. The entire group was busted, convicted and gone. Problem solved.

You use the word "Assault Weapon". I don't I use the legal term of "Ar-15 and it's various clones". All of a sudden, that number is reduced dramatically. And the definition changes dramatically. And your argument gets much more weaker.

 

[danielpalos]

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...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

The police power must have some effect. States have it and so does the federal government in the federal districts.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

The right to a fair and speedy trial

Written in the Constitution and ratified 2 years before the Bill of Rights. When anyone gets popped for violating that, it's always under the Constitution. The phrase is "That's Unconstitutional" not "That's Unbill of rightable".

Are you ignoring the fact the Bill of Rights are also the first 10 amendments?
What about the rest of the amendments, like the 14th?
Without the 14th, then we do not have individual rights necessarily.
The amendments are essential to the Constitution as a whole.

We weren't discussing the other Amendments, were we. You clowns call me UnAmerican because I don't believe the Bill of Rights has any legal weight. But I do follow the US Constitution that does. That means, I follow ALL of it, not just the parts that agree with me. This includes the 1, 2, 4, 10 and 14th amendment and all the rest. Do I agree with it all? No, but I follow it like every law abiding US Citizen in America today. From what I see, your bunch doesn't. Now, who is unAmerican?

 

[Dick Foster]

You live in a nation that protects liberty, including the right to arms.

You can:

1. Arm yourselves;
2. Shut the fuck up; or
3. GET THE FUCK OUT

.

.

Liberty. That includes the liberty to amend the constitution at any time to fit the current needs of society if need be. You can still arm yourself with a shotgun or an air rifle if you pass the test and background checks listed. The test and background checks are for everyone's safety. You don't want civilians running around with any old weapon. That's dangerous for public safety.

Besides, current shotguns and air rifles allow for much better shooting than the average musket in 1789 where a shooter could only load in fire three aimed shots in one minute at best. Accurate range in 1789 was also less than 100 meters when the 2nd amendment was passed.

I think you would be much happier living elsewhere. How about China or North Korea where you won't have so many choices to confuse and cluter your feeble mind?

 

[Taz]

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

Ya, hunting humans.

 

[progressive hunter]

of cour

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...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

of course it has to say why,,,

and it does,,,THE PEOPLE,,,
and no one else,,,

 

[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.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

 

[Taz]

Black people should be disqualified from having guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.