The Right To Bear Arms

[Lakhota]

 

[Ava]

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens as protection from runaway government such as we have in office today.

Read it.

 

[emptystep]

I think I should have one too.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.

 

[Ava]

Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[expatriate]

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.

Most would agree that a more accurate weapon that can fire more rounds per minute was, by its very nature, more dangerous.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[hazlnut]

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.

When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.

The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
​

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:

"to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."​

We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."

From the OP link.

I rest assured that even if you or any of your ilk read this entire primer, you will remain in favor of strict gun control. You are incorrigible.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens as protection from runaway government such as we have in office today.

Read it.

Typical bagger response, telling us to read a document they heard about once in high school, a document that is so over their head it's not even funny.

 

[expatriate]

I have to say your "rifling of gun barrels" was a pretty slick answer and more thought out than about 90% of anti-gun retorts. that said however, I am not certain that taking an existing smooth-bore arm and rifling the barrel to improve accuracy reduces the commonality.

The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew. At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal. I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens. And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.

I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment. The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.

In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required. Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Exactly. What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?

 

[asterism]

The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew. At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal. I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens. And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.

I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment. The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.

In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required. Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Exactly. What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?

Hard to say, actually. I think it's because they were classified as "machine guns" and therefore not considered small arms of the type intended by the founders.

 

[expatriate]

I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment. The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.

In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required. Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Exactly. What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?

Hard to say, actually. I think it's because they were classified as "machine guns" and therefore not considered small arms of the type intended by the founders.

I think it is presumptuous to imagine we could accurately state what the founders would have thought about full auto versus semi-auto modern weaponry and think that we can somehow definitively draw that line where we would like it to be and bless our parsing with the holy writ of the founder's pen, and simultaneously condemn others who would draw that line elsewhere.

 

[Dubya]

The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew. At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal. I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens. And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.

I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment. The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.

In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required. Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Exactly. What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?

The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.

If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.

As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.

You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.

Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry.

Categories of firearms regulated

Main article: Title II weapons

The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Silencers —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…” 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.

Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment. The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.

In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required. Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Exactly. What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?

The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.

If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.

As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.

You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.

Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry.

Categories of firearms regulated

Main article: Title II weapons

The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Silencers —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…” 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.

Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.

No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?

Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.

We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.

And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?

Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.

Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.

Most would agree that a more accurate weapon that can fire more rounds per minute was, by its very nature, more dangerous.

You could argue anything. Law = Law.

 

[expatriate]

Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.

Most would agree that a more accurate weapon that can fire more rounds per minute was, by its very nature, more dangerous.

You could argue anything. Law = Law.

So you would agree that the 2nd is not chiseled in stone but, like the rest of the document, has been and is open to judicial (and political) interpretation.

 

[Dubya]

Exactly. What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?

The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.

If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.

As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.

You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.

Categories of firearms regulated

Main article: Title II weapons

The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.

Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".

Silencers —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)

Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:

1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…” 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.

Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.

No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?

Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.

We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.

And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?

Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.

Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.

Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.

If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.

As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.

You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.





Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.

No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?

Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.

We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.

And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?

Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.

Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.

Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.

If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?

 

[Si modo]

You're a moron. Read DC v Heller. I know you won't, as you are willfully ignorant.

 

[Dubya]

No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?

Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.

We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.

And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?

Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.

Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.

Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.

If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?

It's called war and having a state of emergency.

Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.