Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by newsgatherer
Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."
Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.
Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.
You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.
A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.
The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.
Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.
If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Christian-news-in-maine.com ...
What is the definition of "regulated" ?
Agreed. Furthermore, Miller was deliberately "wrongly" decided. How can I prove this? Easily...
The "arm" in contention in the Miller case was a sawed-off shotgun, was it not? The contention was that a sawed-off shotgun had absolutely no use on the battlefield, which was patently untrue, at the time Miller was decided.
This was during the period between WW1 and WW2, and during the trench warfare of WW1, it was discovered that the "standard" infantry rifles of the day (of all belligerent nations in the conflict), with bayonet affixed, were too unwieldy within the close confines of the defensive trenches used extensively in WW1. This led to wild melees with hand to hand weapons, for the most part, until the AEF entered the fray in 1917. Unlike their European counterparts on either side, the AEF came equipped with a fair number of shotguns (mostly Winchester Model 97's, a goodly number of which were "modified" by good old Yankee ingenuity to serve in these same trenches.)
The aftermath of WW1 saw the invention, across the board (from all the belligerents in WW1, and other nations as well), of a "suitable replacement" for the sawed-off shotguns used by US doughboys in the trenches of the Western Front, as the weapon had only been previously known as an arm of bandits and bravos, neither fitting, nor suitable for soldiers, even though it had proved effective. That "suitable replacement" was the submachinegun, or machine pistol.
I find it difficult, if not outright impossible to believe that the Justices which heard Miller, nor the attorneys which argued it, were unaware of the facts, as many of them either were, or had relatives who were, combat veterans of the AEF and knew the real truth...
the infowarrior
Why are we still free...the Second Amendment to the Constitution of these here United States, and the dedication of the People there in to use their God given right to defend, and preserve their rights, their Republic, and their families. Take the second from us and everything falls to the slavemaster. I won't live that way, I don't know about you.
It is my understanding that only the prosecution was represented at the Supreme Court hearing.--The Supremes said there was "no judicial notice", meaning as has been posted sometime, that it wasn't told to the court, so the court couldn't say it.
Maybe someone has a better interpretaion -- it's on the internet somewhere.
Largely because by the time it was decided, Miller himself had already passed away. The entire thing was a setup from the word go, an entirely "fixed" case, with a predetermined outcome, much like Roe v Wade...
the infowarrior
True, as long as you kept them in port or dry dock you could certainly own them.
But all armed merchant ships- not just warships- were so heavily regulated by the federal government because of how much trouble they could cause in foreign affairs that it doesn't seem the Second Amendment was considered to apply to them.
"...SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That after notice of this act, at the several custom-houses, no armed merchant vessel of the United States shall receive a clearance or permit, or shall be suffered to depart therefrom, unless the owner or owners, and the master or commander of such vessel for the intended voyage, shall give bond, to the use of the United States, in a sum equal to double the value of such vessel, with condition, that such vessel shall not make or commit any depredation, outrage, unlawful assault, or unprovoked violence upon the high seas, against the vessel of any nation in amity with the United States; and that the guns, arms and ammunition of such vessel shall be returned within the United States, or otherwise accounted for, and shall not be sold or disposed of in any foreign port or place; and that such owner or owners, and the commander and crew of such merchant vessel, shall, in all things, observe and perform such further instructions in the premises, as the President of the United States shall establish and order, for the better government of the armed merchant vessels of the United States.
Many smokeless powder cartridge rifles are unregulated by the ATF as well. In fact any rifle with a receiver manufactured prior to 1898 is considered an 'antique' and doesn't require a federal firearms license (01 or 03 FFL) for interstate transfer.
The gun control advocates are people that are afraid of citizens having guns. I feel that the type of person that constitutes liberalism today is very aware that they will bungle in the use of their current power status. In the main the so called liberal does not even belong to our society-for various reasons; and they know this. An armed citizen that has been grossly misgoverned-which these people will do- is potentially dangerous to the bungler.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.
If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny.
The leftists have plans for you, and you being able to defend yourself from their plans disturbs them.
=====
Hiya Metal ----
Well, I do get the big plan. The Clinton reign of terror was the first real taste of, and attempt at, total control and absolute power. I, for one, did and do not take it lightly. That is why I will always fight the election of a Marxist President -- Kerry down, but looks like Hitlery will be next. They are all anti-American, but more seriously, anti-Constitution!! -- for a group of reasons.
We get it, I hope more do before 2008.
To believe what the liberals do means you have to believe that the founding fathers sat down and wrote the amendments to the Constitution that enumerate 9 cases where the people had rights that the state could not take away, and one case of the government's limiting the people, and then calling it the "Bill of Rights."
Regulating the "militia" as it were. If a ships Captain wanted to commission his ship to the US for the fight, he had to follow the rules.
So would it be if I joined up with the militia when called. I would be expected to follow the orders of those officers appointed over me.
This says NOTHING about civilian ownership of arms, ship board or otherwise, for those not involved in official US actions.
If there is a question of what is more feared by the GGs you or the NRA only abject idiots would say the former. Since the NRA is the Left's absolute most hated and feared instrumentality of the Right its danger to their plans is obvious to all but the Brain Dead. For them there are absolutist blowhards whose rhetoric merely assists the GGs.
If you cannot even understand that the fedgov can prevent Osama and his minions from obtaining arms your thoughts are worthless even if comedic.
Are you raising funds for the whack job who was caught with Ricin in Florida?
So hows your fund raiser for the Florida Ricin Whack job going?
Nice way of invalidating your own idiotic argument. Try not to drink so much before making your next point.
Have you stopped shilling for the Brady Bunch yet?
There was probably far more regulation of military equipment by the States than by the fedgov in 1790. The former were huge and powerful compared to the latter.
However the fedgov possesses the power to restrict the armament available to terrorist groups and street gangs.
Some of the first gun control legislation came in Illinois in the 1880s to regulate the socialist militias ( German) of that day.
Those arguing with you generally consider "rights" and "powers" to be different.
At the time the second amendment was passed and ratified, individuals could and did own their own field artillery pieces. They also owned ships armed with (many) similar cannon.
IOW there were no restrictions. There are no restrictions now, if the second amendment is read a written. It says "arms", not "militia arms" (although militias had those cannon and later rockets as well) or "small arms" or "individual weapons". It also says "infringed", which means limited, broken into, in any way. No gun or weapons control laws pass muster by this reckoning. Want to ban nukes? Fine amend the Constitution, don't ignore it.
Maybe a Blind Man whould claim I admitted something so absurd but no one else with a living brain.
So there are no fedgov rights to disarm street gangs, criminal gangs, terrorist gangs or state rights to do so? There is an Absolute Human Right to keep and bear ANY armament whatsoever? Is that your contention?
And anyone who does not buy that twisted piece of illogic is a GG?
I consider the words of those who could not even understand that a new founding document was crucially necessary to have relatively little value. Wrong-headed thinkers are the only ones you can draw upon so feel free. But even they would consider you a crackpot.
You think Lee would want his slaves to exercise their Human Right to a gun? HIlarious.
So your bilge has a free sweep? Guess again grASShopper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.