This is turning my stomach

Shaggie,

While I agree with most of what you referenced, the constitution doesn't address most of those issues. It says that "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. " Maybe the key phrase is "a well regulated militia", and this is where they draw their laws upon.

If people are only talking to their lawyers on visiting days over this verbage, then there is a problem. I will own a firearm in any state that I shall live, and I will do so using the rights afforded to me by the constitution of the United States of America.

By the way, maybe it makes sense to have these laws in New York, as you are all crazy there!

Don in California

You'll get no argument from me, Don. I was just pointing out that at least in NC you can get legally obtain a handgun even if you do have a criminal record, that you don't have to have a "very clean criminal record" to get one.

I think I lost my license to kill when I left the military, and no I go by the code-name Kafertoys.

Mario kafer-toys 009 lol

When were you in the military ? Where were you stationed ?

Shouldn't be tough to answer those 2 questons.

Randy

Or should I have said

Toys, kafertoys 009

I believe in all our rights, not just the 2nd one. I would hate to live where I could not own my own guns as intended. Our rights have been slandered and our freedoms distorted by self serving political machines since they were given. This is one of the reasons I love my country and fight for all our civil guaranteed freedoms. If anyone else believes in our rights they should put their guts where their mouths are and fight for them. I have been a proud citizen and have been a member in good standing of the American Civil liberties Union fighting for our individual freedoms for decades. I have written thousands of letters to washington senators, congressmen and other officials every time I hear them slam our freedoms. I wrote my senator and told him to quit reading the 10 commandments and start reading the bill of rights. He still does not get it. Thank for the vent....Just my guaranteed opinion of course.

href="

What weapons did you qualify with ? What calibers ? What range ? What did you get for qualifying as an "expert" ?

Randy

stupid little pins to hang on my uniform

Mario

Dennis,

You make a very good point. Politicians will bend and break the laws for their own good. The first amendment does address the separation of church and state, but most politicians forget about it. In fact our own president said that he was told by god to go to war, not his father. Your use of the term "slander" is totally correct, and I agree with you that average citizens should write to their senators and congress people. After all, they are supposed to be representing us, and not a bunch of well paid lobbyist.

Don

You've said everything right..but that will not stop the motivated few from making sure that some people(like, people in Chicago, or DC) have NO rights to own a gun. How ironic that those same places get to boast another wonderful figure: the highest and 2nd highest murder rates per capita in the nation. Somehow they always manage to leave that part off though....

Personally, I don't leave home without mine. I even take it with me for a ride in the veedub on the weekends. Mr. Glock always calls shotgun :) Being in AZ, we are very fortunate to have the right to carry open, and obtain a concealed carry permit so long as you have never been convicted of a crime.

Chris

"A well regulated Militia..."

And yet there is now a professional army plus the national guard... the need for a Militia made up of regular civilians is as dated as the paper this phrase was written on and really doesn't apply today.

Besides, when is "Joe Shooter" with shotguns, pistols and a semi-automatic machine gun part of any "well regulated Militia"? That part is always ignored, it seems, when the "right to bear arms" argument comes up.

It's the fact that Joe is NOT regulated that there is the gun trouble these days... Sounds like the Constitution WANTS some form of gun control -- there's the word "regulated" right there in black and white... why not interpret it that way?

Alternately, everyone can "bear arms" but only as part of "a well regulated Militia"... so, my suggestion would be wide open gun ownership with the caveat of mandatory membership in the National Guard perhaps? Hmmm... how many would want to own guns if there was a chance of being asked to help out in IRAQ!

Just like most parts of the constitution, this amendment can be argued many ways. What is known is that our founding fathers wanted the average citizen to be able to bear arms to avoid the possibility of another tyrannous government.

So you fall into the camp that chooses to ignore the part about a "well regulated" Militia and only pays attention to the "bear arms" part.

From what evidence can you infer that the founding fathers wanted everyone to bear arms whether they were part of a "well regulated" militia or not? If they thought this way, why mention the "well regulated militia" part at all and just say "...right to bear arms" and leave it at that? Could it be they foresaw the need to make sure that only the truly responsible people had weapons? In other words, just the people that had been selected to form a "well regulated militia" but not every other Tom, Dick and Harry? It seems obvious to me that this was probably their actual intention...

Certainly US history bears out that even if this WAS their intention, it has been completely ignored. There might as well be another amendment to the constitution to "edit" that previous one to remove the reference to "well regulated militia"! Then there would be no hypocrisy and the status quo could be continued without discussion... not that the status quo is such a great situation.

Speaking of Smith & Wesson, here is a spoof S & W ad that someone did.

Bill Berckman

Anonymous,

First off, I think it is a fair assumption to say they were opposed to tyrannous governments as they were in fact involved in a rebellious act that lead to the writing of the constitution and fought a war to free themselves of such a government. The term "well regulated" is very subjective. What is "well regulated"? Is it a drafted GI, someone that registered for the militia, registered for gun ownership, or just is of the same political view as those whom are judging them? It reminds me of the term, "significant amount".....totally subjective. What is a significant amount of rain? In Vietnam it might differ from what is in Arizona. I don't ignore the term, I just can't attach a definitive value to it.

I don't think it is fair for you to make judgments on what I pay attention to and lump me into a "camp". When someone tells me it is really hot outside, I can't make a judgment on what the temperature is.

I made no judgment that the founding fathers wanted *everyone* to bear arms, only that they have the *right* to bear arms. What seems obvious to you, might not be their intentions. Hell, a "well regulated militia" could mean if they knew what the one light vs. the two lights meant.

When you can explain to me what a "well regulated militia" means as an objective term that most people can agree upon, then I can tell you what camp I fall into. Until then, don't try to classify me on a subjective term.

Other items of the Constitution have been completely ignored as well, but that doesn't mean they are correct. A reference to a god has no business being on our denominations, in our schools, or governments. But those references are there in contrast to the separation of church or state.

By the way, this has nothing to do with Bugs.

I would suggest that in the current times, the national guard that is in place is a "well regulated militia" and really ought to be sufficient to satisfy what was written in the constitutional amendment... I would also suggest that a majority of Americans would likely agree that the national guard "fits the bill" of a modern "well regulated militia". Is there really a risk of anarchy at the moment? Even in the foreseeable future? If not, wouldn't it be a less deadly society if just the national guard, police, armed forces, etc. were allowed to have the deadly stuff (excluding reasonable types of hunting guns -- the typical hunter doesn't need a machine gun, bazooka, baretta, etc.) If a hunter is going duck hunting, let him have his shotgun... deer hunting, a rifle... but handguns were designed for killing humans. Same for semi and fully automatic machine guns, etc.

The rest of the world has come to this very same sensible conclusion...

...and with the result that there are far fewer deaths by guns per capita in all those countries. Nobody can argue this... If everyone was on an equal footing with this issue, the society would be more secure, not less secure. Still worried about a home invasion? Call yourself a "duck hunter" and keep a shotgun. It's rather unlikely that a six year old is going to shoot his friend with a gun that he probably couldn't even lift. Besides, that shotgun is carefully locked in a gun cabinet, right?

I can't think of anything else to say about the subject and yes it isn't VW related... There should be "OT" in the subject and I'll add that now.

Thoughts of Massad Ayoob...

"Finally, there is the most logical answer, the short sound-bite answer that hits the hardest and is absolutely irrefutable. When someone with a non-existent to superficial understanding of constitutional law tells you that the Second Amendment speaks only to the National Guard (which did not even exist until long, long after the Bill of Rights went into effect), remind them of the following: At the time of the American Revolution, a "National Guard" would have been Tories loyal to King George."

"Any approach to obvious legislative intent applied to the Second Amendment has to come down in favor of it being an individual right. If one reads the entire document, every single element in the Bill of Rights speaks to the rights of each individual citizen. This document is one of the most thoroughly planned and carefully crafted in the history of the collective human experience. Are we to assume that the Framers tossed in an element of state's rights as an afterthought? Why, then, was it second on the list instead of last? Or should we assume that this braintrust of the most gifted, most eloquent, most insightful authorities of their time never noticed that state militias would come under states' rights and not individual rights?"

" History shows us that those who wrote the Bill of Rights pored scrupulously over the constitutions of each of the original thirteen states. It was from these sources that the often-mentioned rights to possess arms were drawn by those who wrote the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. A great many of them made it abundantly clear that the right of the citizen to protect himself and his family, individually, was at the core of the right to keep and bear arms. The ability of that citizen to become a citizen soldier and bear those arms in defense of his state was simply one more reason why the right to keep and bear arms served the common good of a free state."

Whole article here..

"Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens, and not just to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Amendment's preamble. "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote."

Jim

Well I am glad that you are confident to speak for most people. Your suggestion is based on an assumption that you can't back up. But that is ok.

I used to live in Yellowstone Park, from 1974-1976, and from what I saw, I support the right to arm bears.