oscar: Very few law abiding people own automatic weapons. It's called an NFA Class III firearm. Only one has ever been used in a crime, by a cop no less.

And wasn't it Joe Biden that said shotguns were the problem, not rifles?

Hey Bob, no one has taken away any of your or my rights. We have the right to possess firearms and no one is threatening that right. We do not have the right to own unlimited arsenals of military grade weaponry. So stop your unwarranted whining about rights. The ones you really have are safe.

We do have the right to have military grade weapons as affirmed on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court because the PRIMARY purpose of the right to bear arms is self defense against the tyranny of our own govt.

US v Miller and District of Columbia v Heller- SCOTUS has established the limits to types of weapons

And most importantly to this debate- this conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank 1876

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

-- Edward Abbey father of environmental movement in"Abbey's Road", 1979

Dorner was using his Second Amendment rights to defend himself from what he believed was an oppressive government, right?

Nope. He used it for revenge and murder. Hardly LAWFUL USE of the SECOND AMENDMENT.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment is for a person to defend himself from an oppressive government, then who is in a position to decide whether said government is oppressive? Certainly not the government!

Ever hear of the phrase 'We The People'?

Larry R. Call up your local ATF office and tell them you have Stinger missiles and tactical nuclear devices and you'll learn that I was right about the limit on our right to possess weaponry. You can scream about the 2nd Amendment all the way to prison.

If the 2nd Amendment Right goes the rest will follow !

your rights as part of a "well regulated militia"

WELL REGULATED

Extreme gun rights advocates skip over the well regulated part so ofen, seems to me.

Larry Robinson-1323081 Well researched post.

Justme-123 Just like a liberal to go straight to the most outlandish example he can think of. Why not go all the way and try to scare yourself with a thermonuclear tipped ICBM or a decommissioned Ohio class missile submarine? The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms not artillery and if you don't know the difference then you need to learn.

Laurali, you realize "Regulated" means well practiced and having equivalent working weapons to the government.

@Oscar....

Please go and look up the definition of NON-Transferable... This means that if I no longer want a certain type of firearm, I can't pass it to one of my family members.. By law, I have to turn it in... This is a form of confiscation. These are the terms lawmakers sneak into legislation and smart people are aware of..

And please tell me how having a pistol grip on a rifle is any different than a pistol grip on a pistol?? Or a carrying handle on top, or plastic instead of wood? Or the fact that you can swap out a magazine in under a second will prevent another killing spree.. OR, please tell me that LEA should be the only ones with guns? If you really want to help, please look up HIPPA and how it allows firearms to be able to be purchased by the mentally ill.

Clayton...Please!

And you would rather this woman and her children be defenseless victims?

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/01/10/georgia-woman-who-shot-intruder-hailed-as-model-gun-owner/

2nd Amendment rights? There are no 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on government. The right to defend oneself against unjustified assault is a human right, an inalienable right. The 2nd Amendment forbids the government from denying Americans their human rights.

American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Here's what he has to say:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

Read more here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

--------

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. - Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

----------------

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

------------

"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." - U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999).

"the PRIMARY purpose of the right to bear arms is self defense against the tyranny of our own govt."

Hey Walter Mitty (aka Larry) being the brilliant historian you want everyone to think you are you should be able to answer this. What happened between 1861 and 1865? Do you remember? We had one section of the nation who decided to " bear arms is self defense against what they considered the tyranny of our own government. The took most of the best generals with them, a huge part of the military and they were well armed with the most up too date military equipment of the day. And they still got their ass kicked.

Now Walter Mitty --- you and your right wing buddies may get a real charge owning all kinds of weapons you get at gun shows, you may like to go out on the woods and play army with all your toys every weekend, but if an all out confrontation with the government --- you're going to get your ass kicked just like the south did 150 years ago.

What people like you fail to understand is --- WE HAVE A WAY TO DEAL WITH A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT -- IT'S CALLED A BALLOT BOX.

anti gun crowd,

you guys regularly use the 'you don't need assault rifles as they are a weapon of war' argument... you should understand the opposite core thinking to that position:

a- an assault weapons ban means the AR-15 and it's standard 30 round magazine would be banned

b- the AR-15 is the most popular, flexible, useful rifle today.... the gun crowd looks at it as the best tool they can buy for hunting, target, collecting, customization, defense or any other reason a legitimate gun owner wants to own a gun...

c- the 30 round magazine is a major time saver when they are at the range, paying by the minute

d- people who have been around guns all their lives look at them as tools.... not mysterious, weird, magical, death machines as you guys do

e- for anyone who doesn't currently own a rifle, chances are about 100% that they would buy an AR-15 if they went to buy something

f- the arguments that you guys put out are mostly wrong so you sound crazy to them... they are not machine guns (though they do look like the military M4 and M16 models), they can't be easily converted to auto fire, they don't have grenade launchers, they aren't significantly more dangerous than other rifles, and 30 round magazines didn't make Sandy Hook and Aroura any more deadly than 10 round magazines would have

it's like saying to the smartphone crowd, "we don't care that you want to own them, so we are going to ban iphones because people are calling their drug dealers with them 1.5% of the time"... to the gun crowd your position sounds absurd

that's the core issue... and no matter how many different ways you argue it, that's still the issue: you are infringing on someones right to own a wildly popular product.... and as Americans... we want our material stuff, whether it is an iphone, or BMW, or Coach bag, or AR-15

you guys might laugh at that, but to gun people, we don't see the AR-15 as some monster we are afraid to touch, it's just another tool / product / collectible

Charlie,

play army with all your toys every weekend

Thankfully most gun owners do not look at their weapons in this manner. Guns aren't "toys" that these men and women "play"with. Most gun owners are responsible with their weapons. Yes, there are people who aren't, but there are also people who aren't responsible with cars, alcohol, computers, phones, etc. etc. so on and so forth.

@Justme - Sen. Feinstein herself has stated that the intent of her legislation is to dry up access to "assault weapons". That translates into: ban, confiscate, outlaw, remove from existence.

Oh and by the way -how's that New York ban on guns going? If any of the cops up there are carrying their Glock with the 15 round mags, they are by law, carrying an illegal weapon. I certainly hope that they have disarmed themselves for the good of the state of New York and its children.

Why didn't the framer's go into detail about which "arms" they considered worthy? In the day, they fought with pistols, muskets, cannon & sword. Self protection could be handled with a pistol or sword.

Why didn't they EXCLUDE cannons & muskets as "assault weapons"?

Could it be the framers saw ARMS as whatever people needed for defense? Their own or their country?

And why did the GCA34 outlaw "short-barrel shotguns" specifically because the military did NOT use them? (Which was a LIE)

Hmmmmm, me thinks the 2nd means what it says... the right of the PEOPLE... shall not be INFRINGED

And I do not need a community organizer to try & tell me different

Charlie, you should know by now that the ballot box is becoming increasingly less relevant due to redistricting and our electoral college. Both parties have long realized that they don't need to actually get the majority vote. As long as they can redraw district boundaries to favor their party and win key districts/states they can take the electoral college without actually taking the majority of the popular vote. Both parties have cried foul based on the discrepancy between electoral and popular vote. And both parties have redrawn the map to favor their party when they secure the power to do so.

"Thankfully most gun owners do not look at their weapons in this manner."

Very true --- most gun owners do not think of their weapons as toys. But we do have a few militia types who like to go out in the woods and play army every so often and think they somehow are protecting the rest of us from a tyrannical government.

If we ever need those militias, I'm sure you would appreciate that they trained for the situation. It's better to be prepared and not need to be than to not be prepared and need to be.

"Charlie, you should know by now that the ballot box is becoming increasingly less relevant due to redistricting and our electoral college."

And why the ballot box is is becoming increasingly less relevant -- because PEOPLE DO NOT VOTE. Why is it the Republicans lost a senate seat in Indiana? Because something less than 17% of registered Republicans bothered to vote in the Republican primary and that small minority managed to nominate an unelectable candidate. Redistricting is done at the state level --- by governors and state legislators that WE ELECT. As for the electoral college, that's been around since the nation was founded and the candidate winning the majority of the popular vote has won just about every time.

The remedy to fix out nation rest in the people insisting government work for them. We get the government we deserve and when only something around 50% of the population even bothers to vote -- this is what we get. The answer is NOT to go out and get a bunch of guns, the answer to vote and then hold the people you vote for accountable to the voters.

Dear Mr. President,

They get a vote. It's called their Constitutional right to not own a gun. I voted and I bought guns. It's that simple Mr. President.

There has been many interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the term "Well regulated militia". One that I thought was most entertaining, having worked along side the National Guard on several occasions thoughout my career, no disrespect to those who serve, is they are the "Well Regulated Militia". They are largely governed by the federal government, since each state receives money to maintain the guard. The states had, at one time, sole power to call up the national guard for state emergencies, but the Federal Government can supersede that in the case of "Police actions" or war.

The State militias that are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment stem from a time when there was not a "standing" federal army. Each individual was encouraged and expected to pick up whatever weapon they owned and step forward to defend their homes, neighbors, cities and states along with assisting the Federal Government when, or if the time came.

I posted yesterday with a scenario where China calls in our note on the debt they've perchased...China has a standing army of more than 8 million soldiers, and can draw quite a few more with very little trouble.

The US, in contrast, has a military service that consists of 1.3 million personnel. That is the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, to include active, reserve and national guard. If it came down to it, that would be all we can draw from. IF someone were to invade, EVERYONE would be responsible for ALL of our defense. If you don't have weapons, you will have to rely on someone else. If the right to own weapons for defense is taken from all Americans, we ALL become that much more vulnerable.

You can look at the amendment as defending ourselves from a despotic government, and that would be one use for a "militia", but with the three major players out there making less than favorable statements, or outright threatening us...where would you rather be?

You may think me paranoid, I'm not, I'm just a (Moderate) realist, who has been in the US Army for nearly 25 years.

Military Man,

The militia is every abled bodied person in this country capable of fighting. There are militias in every state, and every citizen is apart of it. The founders did create a federally sponsored army during the revolution, but it was dismantled because they didn't want a standing army within the US for fear that they could take over the country. It was the people who were left to defend the nation.

About that "well regulated" part of the 2nd.....

Essentially what the authors wanted was to ensure that the population were familiar with their weapons and had sufficient military drill that they could perform as a reliable and disciplined reserve when the need arose. Think Israeli Defense Force. They did not want to make such training mandatory, so presented it as a "suggestion".

There are 2 other issues that the framers of the 2nd were concerned with ..... the expense of maintaining a full time military and temptation to use such a body against the people.

The Founders also knew that a well armed populace is the last barrier to tyranny, when the ballot and the courts have failed to control an abusive government.

Let's punish the criminal and not the innocent.

Sadden, the background check law has a huge loophole. If closing it saves one person's life, why would you object? You still get to keep your arsenal. And the fact that you don't like his direction does not for a second mean that President Obama is not indeed leading.

What huge loophole is in the background check?

yes you are

because your post is of no service.

part of his leadership is to keep up the pubic pressure so that Congress passes at least the enhanced background checks

the man has two kids. Most people can see he loves them. Ya think he's differet than most parents who were floored and deeply effected by the NEwtown shootings? So very many people gave new thought to gun control after that sad event. Especialy enhanced background checks and the cutting of red tape for law enforcement so they can togeather keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have have them. One difference is that Obama after the shooting met with the parens of each kid and comforted them, and probably grieved with them. Did youu not see he was shaken by this event? He' s not an emotional person normally.

It is entirely plausable from all the facts available that his push on gun control is legitimate and not related to "his legacy". He made no peep about gun control before and had not decided to pursue it because he knew that Congress would not pass anything due to the NRA. Because of Newtown it's clear he felt that too much was at stake and something needed to be done...and also that the tide might be changing and it might be time something could pass.

The "unenforced" tough lawas are an NRA talking point, I hope you realize. What laws aren't enforced hmm? As others are saying forty percent of guns are legally bought right now without any check at all at gun shows and with private collectors. People can buy in one state and traffic guns to another and yes those laws are hard to enforce (gun trafficing) because I believe it's not yet a federal offense, with big punishment. to traffic guns and different states have different laws.

No one wants to take your guns...or no reasonalbe people. People like Gabby GIffords and her husband from Arizona both hunt and have guns for protection. They are not going to sign on to somethign that takes them away.

I've read the second amendment. You hav a right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. NRA has fed people the idea of what that means historically. I"v read historians interpretations and it doesn't likely mean that they wanted citizens to have an arsenal. That's why they said "WELL REGULATED militia.

Laurali

I am all for background checks at gun shows. I am against universal background checks because they are not only unenforceable but unworkable too. If I buy or sell a gun to a friend, who is responsible for the back ground check the buyer or the seller? Where would we go to have it done, the local police, the county sheriff, the state police, the FBI, the BATF, or would we have to go to the local gun store and have them do it? Would there be a fee? Would the fee be the same in all jurisdictions?

Who in their right mind would go through all the hassle?

Laurali has the RIGHT not to understand the subject matter she's posting about!

She has the right to be Mr. Hussiens lemming.

And by the way Laurali if English did you notice the punctuation in the 2nd?

You do know what all those funny little symbols mean right?

Did you see this one ( , ) after the words Well regulated militia.

Have someone with more than your GED explain why that is there and how

it plays into the whole sentence structure..........

Laurali,

The President "made no peep about gun control" prior to the Newtown shootings because he needed an emotionally charged event to link his gun control efforts to in order to sway a public that is still in a confused, emotionally state. If the President was putting forward a well reasoned plan that was persuasive based on the facts and statistics, he could have done that at any time. The time is now because his is not a reasoned, factually supported stance but, rather, emotional manipulation to achieve an anti-gun agenda. Kinda like what the GWB administration did to get us into a war with Iraq after 9/11.

If he was really concerned about violence he would concentrate on violence, not JUST guns. That's the dead give away.

Laurali, it works like this:

Guy walks into a school with an AR15 semi-automatic and kills 20 people. Seems reasonable to ban AR style guns, so let's do it.

Guy walks into a mall with two semi-automatic pistols with 12 round clips and kills 13 people. Seems reasonable to ban semi-automatic pistols with more than 6 round clips, so let's do it.

Guy walks into a group of tourist and pulls out two revolvers and empties them killing 4 people, reaches under his coat, pulls out two more and kills 5 more people. 9 people dead. Seems reasonable to ban revolvers, so let's do it.

See how that progresses?

"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell

@justme - "If closing it saves one person's life, why would you object"? What part of the background check do you not understand? In California, right now, there is a former cop who has commited murder. A former cop who went through mental evaluations before being allowed to carry a firearm openly in public. No amount of background checks, mental evaluations, or other extraordinary efforts can predict when someone will go over the edge and decide to take a life, or lives.

Personally, if universal background checks are implemented, I want them to include every person over the age of 16, to reveal who has criminal records, who should not be put near children, who should not be put in control of money, and a list of other issues that are detrimental to the public as a whole. They should be second class citizens with no voting rights at all, since they would have been shown to be socially irresponsible.

By using Justme's rationalle, we shoudl ban children in bathtubs becauce if we can save just one child from drowning, we should pass the law, right?

@Laurali - in Spet. 2006, a twice convicted felon was arrested in possession of a firearm. That charge was a felony. The DA and the courts were obligated, BY LAW, to allow him bond and he was released awaiting trial. He went on to commit 6 more felonies, the last of which took a man's life. Again, they had to release him on bond. It took 17 months to bring him to trial and his third conviction, which meant life in prison.

Using the anti-gun mantra...if the DA and the courts had held him without bond for the firearm violation, a life would have been saved. Yet, liberals have pushed for softer penalties in an effort to rehab criminals back into society. The sad part is that the DA and the courts were well aware of this felon's 20 year long criminal history but were effectively prevented from keeping him off the streets.

Where, or how, he got the gun was never determined. It certainly wasn't through a gun dealer, because the background check would have flagged him. If he had tried to get the gun through a gun dealer, he would have been flagged, and subject to penalties for falsifying a gun application.

As for making private gun transfers go through a background check...most gun dealers will do them for a price. However, to force private citizens to do background checks is an unfinanced mandate. Even the individual states have balked at taking actions that are mandated by the feds and not funded. What if the feds required you to do a background check on the buyer of a car you are selling to determine if they have a valid drivers license? Do you have a need to know their drivers license number or their social security number to perform the check? What about concerns about identity fraud as a result? Please give some thought to your future statements.

Organizers..... uh, organize...............

"They deserve a vote!!???" As if they didn't have one??? Way to play the pity card. What is played out is that line "If..(your personal crusade here)...saves just one life..." Jeeesusss!!!! ask any vietnam, iraqi, afghani,...veteran what will save an American life & he'll tell you "a high volume of fire. And as long as this country embraces the profitability of perpetual war - we's all veterans. "(sniff, sniff, sob, sob,) If a handgun saves just one life, then....my bet is it wasn't some limp-wrist, sparkle-jockey .223.

Just sayin', the hypocrisy and fact twisting in some of these threads is eyeball deep & well represented by the Unistat Empire

Our right to bear arms doesn't come from the Constitution- it is an unalienable right. The Constitutional Bill of Rights is a list of negative powers to restrict the govt from infringing on our natural rights.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank 1876

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

-- Edward Abbey father of environmental movement in"Abbey's Road", 1979

As to Militias,

the purpose of the Militia as not just to repel invasion but the Framers insisted it was an offset to the power of the new Federal government.

CURRENT LAW:

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to members of a Well Organized Militia. Nothing about unorganized militias having such rights was mentioned in the Second Amendment.

Just where does it say Well Organized Militia in the Second Amendment?

I see 'A well regulated Militia' in the Second Amendment.

Do you you what a 'Well regulated Militia' is?

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

Larry Robinson tries to look evenhanded but strategically avoids the most recent SC decision...a right leanign court even...that said that it's not counter to the second amendment to have gun regulations.

Do you think you are allowed to have a tank? No? why, if our right to weaponry shold not at all be restircted by the government? It's excessive and not needed except for waging war.

Neigher are high capacity magazines.

Laurali

There is a difference between arms and artillery. It is perfectly legal to own a tank as long as the artillery is removed. There are private collectors all over the US who own tanks.

The real problem Laurali is that no matter how many laws you pass, criminals are not going to obey them. And it's highly unlikely that any of the regulations being bounced around are going to affect criminal behavior in any significant way.

So what is your main goal? To prevent more murders or have a better accounting of all the guns owned legally? Unfortunately, one has very little bearing on the other.

"The real problem Laurali is that no matter how many laws you pass, criminals are not going to obey them."

Well then -- let's NOT pass any laws. We have laws against drunk driving but people still drive drunk. We have laws against robbing banks but people still rob banks. Criminals break laws so laws don't work.

Laws are to keep honest people honest. Criminals aren't honest, or they wouldn't be criminals, nor would they be criminals if we had no laws. HS321 isn't saying we shouldn't have laws, he's saying that we have enough laws that we have a hard enough time enforcing that adding more is like beating a dead horse, what's the point? And Laurali, before you ask what laws aren't being enforced, try immigration for one. Myself, personally, I understand why people want to get into this country any way possible, and if I wasn't born here myself, but into some crap-hole 3rd world country you better believe that I'd do what I had to to get to a better place. The point is if we are going to create new laws we need to enforce the ones we already have, this isn't the cafeteria where we can pick and choose what laws we want to abide by or not, our leaders (and not just the president) need to lead and uphold the laws, all of them, if the laws need to be changed, it needs to be done with a level head and not with emotions that can misconstrue the real intent of what needs to happen.

You're talking about CNN, NBCNEws, and ABCNews, right? They all broadcast hate against the Republican party.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE do you not understand?

Shall - an absolute, must be done

Not - explains itself

Infringed - to encroach, gradually violate

I actually don't give a rats a$$ what the 2nd Amendment says (though I do support it). My right to self preservation and to protect my family from harm supercedes anything written down on a piece of paper. I just happen to have guns to do it with since I'm old and diabled...it levels the playing field.

"You're talking about CNN, NBCNEws, and ABCNews, right? They all broadcast hate against the Republican party."

Ya know AvgJoe -- the right has been whining about the medial for the last 60 years. How did Reagan carry 49 states with the "liberal" media? How did Bush win 2 terms with such a "liberal" media. The media isn't your problem Joe -- your message is the problem.

The American way. He's just asking for a vote but in the House they just want to bury it.

why you don't want to close the gun show background check loophole is seemingly beyond logic. All it does is make everyone show they've not been a felon or violently insane...it is meant to weed out the irresponsible and incompentent from the rest of law abiding gun owneres 92 percent of the populations supports that.

Lauralulu-Where the heck are you coming up with that 92% figure, NBC/DNC ???? There is no Gun Show Loophole, any transaction consummated with a Dealer at a Gun Show is subject to a background check. A Universal Background Check is Unrealistic, Unenforceable and wishful thinking by those that endorse it. Enforce the Existing Laws, Re-Fund Mental Health Care and Allow Institutionalization of those diagnosed to be a danger to themselves or others. Start using the Mandatory Sentencing that is already on the Books when a crime is committed with a Firearm in Possession.

Laurali's post should have included:

"92% of the total number of persons who the pollsters called."

..........of course they were calling only those individuals that might vote in favor of their stance.

But as usual.....they left that part out.

"they remember what happened after the Clinton AWB, and they're not looking for a repeat."

That was true in 1994 but I'm not sure the NRA has the power they had 18 years ago.

@Laurali - If a segment of society suddenly stood up and cried for a background check for purchasing a car, would you be for it? What if there was a limit or restriction on the size of car you could buy? would you be for it? What if there was a requirement that you buy only diesel instead of gasoline? Would you buy a diesel car instead, even though the price for diesel is twice as expensive as gas?

You see there are many facets to the issue. Too many people are willing to stomp on the rights of others without realizing that they are creating a precedent that makes their rights the next possible target for attack.

Charlie: The NSSF estimates 80 million lawful gun owners in America. Despite only ~4 million NRA members, there are a lot of "silent partners" that don't always agree with their opinions, but always support them fighting for 2A. Thing is, a lot of firearms owners are one-issue voters. I could agree with everything on a politicians platform, but the minute they say, "also, we need to restrict firearms from civilians," I tell them to get lost.

"Thing is, a lot of firearms owners are one-issue voters."

You may be right. The NRA may still have the clout they did in 1994. But I'm not sure they do. I think we will get universal background checks for all gun sales out of this. Even most gun shop owners favor universal background checks because the way the laws are now, it puts them at a business disadvantage.

Which gun laws are you interested in? Are you interested in the fact that the current laws simply aren't working because the states haven't been complying with the NICS system?

Did you know the Virginia Tech Massacre shooter, Cho, was deemed a threat to himself and others by a judge and ordered to receive treatment, but his name was never put in the NICS database, which is why 6 months before the massacre he was able to buy two guns, passing the background check, and killed 32 people?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/



The Gun Debate: Lawmakers eye troubled background check system

Individuals who want to buy a gun are required to fill out form 4473 -- which is effectively an application to the federal government to buy a weapon. After taking five minutes to complete, the form is sent electronically to the NICS database in Clarksburg, W.Va. By law, buyers whose names show up on the FBI database can't buy a gun and their application is rejected. They include:

• Felons
• Fugitives from justice
• Anyone who unlawfully uses any illegal drug, including marijuana
• The mentally ill (as determined by a court) or someone who has been committed to a mental institution
• Illegal aliens
• Those dishonorably discharged
• Anyone who renounced U.S. citizenship
• Those under a restraining order for harassment, stalking or threatening a partner
• Those convicted of domestic violence, including misdemeanors

But audits have confirmed the execution of this system is spotty. The two areas most lacking in terms of NICS record-keeping are drug use and mental illness, despite an emphasis after a student treated for mental illness killed 32 students at Virginia Tech in 2007.

A 2012 Government Accountability Office review noted that the government set out to provide "incentives for states to make more records available for use during firearm related background checks" in the wake of that tragedy.

The 55-page report went on to blast the states and federal government for failing to meet congressional expectations.

It found, out of 1.1 million mental health records submitted from 2004 to 2011:

• 23 states and the District of Columbia had submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database.
• 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 mental health records.
• Four states had not submitted any.

Currently, gun purchases are prohibited for anyone found not guilty by reason of insanity, involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or found legally incompetent. Lawmakers in many states want that expanded -- to those under treatment for mental instability, or those released from treatment or a hospital because of medication. Police fear the moment someone goes off their medication, they can become unstable. Therefore these individuals, while not committed, should not be allowed to buy a gun.

Like mental health records, the GAO found drug violations are also under-reported. The agency said most states are not informing the FBI of failed drug tests, as the federal background check law requires. It found:

• 44 states had submitted fewer than 10 records to the NICS controlled-substance file.
• 33 states had not submitted any records even though the law bars anyone with multiple arrests for drug use or possession within the past five years, or those convicted for use or possession within the last year, including marijuana. Yet the report found states with lengthy registries of medical pot smokers did not provide that information to the NICS system.

"Available data suggest that most states are not making these records available," the GAO audit said. Additionally, it said, "On May 1 2012, DOJ data showed 30 states were not making non criminal (drug test results) records available."

It is not for lack of money. Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, Congress provided the federal government both a carrot and stick to prod states into compliance, giving the Department of Justice authority to give and take money away from states that did not cooperate. The GAO audit found the DOJ doled out more than $25 million in grants but did not penalize one state for non-compliance.

"DOJ has not administered the reward and penalty provisions of the NICS Improvement Amendments ACT," the report said.

Nevertheless, NICS performs millions of checks every year, and usually in under two minutes. In 2010, the agency reviewed more than 6 million 4473 forms. Just 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun.

Among those denials, 47 percent were rejected because of a felony indictment or conviction. Yet, just 44 were prosecuted, and 13 convicted of lying on their 4473 form, according to a report prepared for the DOJ by the Regional Justice Information Service in 2012. That represents just .0002 percent of all denials, and an even smaller percentage of the total number of background checks.

How will any new gun laws work when the ones we currently have aren't working because the system itself isn't working?

Dont you think the system itself needs to be fixed first before expecting any new laws to work? Maybe we don't need any new laws if the ones we have were simply being enforced?

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr015-11.shtml

ARIZONA AFTERMATH: MORE THAN THIRTY STATES HAVE FAILED TO ENACT LAWS REQUIRING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL GUN BACKGROUND CHECK DATABASE

Only 17 states have submitted more than 1,000 mental health records to database, and more than 1.5 million records are estimated to be missing

New state laws enacted to improve submission of records to National Instant Background Check System (NICS) in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre appear to be working

Firearms Policy Experts Available for Interview

In December 2005, Seung-Hui Cho was found to present “an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness” by a special judge. This should have barred him from owning a gun under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), but, because his mental health records were never sent to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”), in March 2007 Cho was able to purchase the guns he used the following month to shoot and kill 32 people at Virginia Tech. Similarly, the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, should have been barred from purchasing his shotgun less than a year after he was rejected from enlisting in the army due to drug abuse, but his record was not forwarded to NICS.

NRA talking point. It's right from their website and it's one that Wayne LaPierre spouts all the time.

Ignore it.

Because even with WHATEVER is on the books there is the gun show and private sale background check loophole that you can drive a truck through even if all laws were perfectly enforced

the argument is moot

TaDAaaaa, someone who see's through sambo's smoke

and mirror game.

The NRA didn't omit the Mandatory Sentencing, the Liberal Judicial System has allowed Plea Bargaining that excludes Mandatory Sentencing. That's Bull@!$%# to blame the NRA, when a Pathetic Lenient Judiciary is the Cause.

Laurali..."NRA talking point. ... Ignore it."

Reminds me of the story about the vegetarian who looked through a microscope and saw all the little one-celled animals on the leaf of lettuce he was about to eat. He picked up the microscope and threw it against the wall.

You are an uninformed idiot. There are many, many laws pertaining to the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. With stiff penalties... that invariably are the first to be waived in plea bargaining. Take judges latitude out of the equation with gun crime, and you'll lots more perps in prison for longer.

@Laurali - the argument is moot, only if you don't want to actually listen to it.

Here's one of the "tough laws" we have on the books:

Lying or providing false information of the Form 4473 is punishable by up to 10 years and prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

Funny, the prosecution rate for this sort of infraction is around 0.5%. There was a recent story about this, too.

Because even with WHATEVER is on the books there is the gun show and private sale background check loophole that you can drive a truck through even if all laws were perfectly enforced

And it will always remain that way. Don't think that the private sales background check loophole will ever be plugged.

you think they are children, I get it. you likely think they are children even when they are a fertilized egg or a ball of cells called a blastocyst. or a two inch human looking thing with a brain that is flat and has no brain activity (most biologist agree that it is our brains that make us distictly human).

You and those with your beliefs NEED to look inside and own OWN the fact that your determination that life (as you use the word-something that is special and valuable and a unique human being) beings at conception. IS A RELIGOUS BELIEF by it's nature. It is your religion. you are entiteld to your beliefs (and your religion)

BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FOIST YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON OTHERS IN A DEMOCRACY THAT HAS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

My religion does not have the life begins at conception belief that you do. Not that a special uniqe human being begins then. So I believe what science says. Sure it's allive...but not more so than the embryo of a mouse or dog. Not until it's brain develops the comlexity approching that of a born human being. ..at least more complex than a mouse ,say.

And that is AT LEAST twenty weeks into the pregnancy believe it or not.

Nine out of ten, or more, abortions happen WAY before that, usually in the first twelve weeks.

If you cannot see why YOU ARE WRONG to put your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on the rest of us I don't know what to say

If I believed from my religion (insert some very private choice you make about your body) was wrong how would you like to be able for me to press my religions beliefs on you via LEGISLATION.

It's wrong and evil to put your religion on others. Science, which many of you are skeptical about because you really don't understand it. You didn't have a good enough science education most likely to get the nature of sciende...which is seeking truth. Scientists have no reason to lie about the biological nature of human embryos compared to other mammal's embryos. They know that they arne't biologicaly imbued with ANYTHIGN SPECIAL that makes them human.

You do that with your religion instead and try to put it on the rest of us.

"you think they are children, I get it."

Clearly you do not. Or the way you value children is orders of magnitude different from Noah's.

Did you miss the point of Noah's comment? Those Obama value deserve a vote, so why not those Noah values? Did you catch the double-standard Noah is demonstrating?

I saw no mention of religion in Noah's post.

Not to mention, abortions are available in some states past 20 weeks. Some go as far as 28 weeks, so Laurali, are those abortions just abortions or are they murder since you say that they aren't "human" til 20 weeks?

Overturning Roe v Wade will have about the same affect as any gun ban or gun control measure. You cannot legislate morality and you cannot stop a determined person.

Liberalism at its finest: empower the criminal.

Then grab a knife. You cant swing a bat?

Nothings stopping you from doing it now although I hope you are just kidding.

clayton, why don't you hang a big sign on your house saying "No guns in here"?

Clayton, if you go to the right neighborhood, you can buy a piece in just a few minutes to commit your crime. No background check needed.

Who decides what constitutes "tyrannical"? May individuals such as Harvey Oswald decide that they have the duty to take down a tyrannical government? If not why not? How does an armed populace bring down a government if the US military does not support it? Will all the armed populace have the same notion of what is tyrannical or are we just envisaging a civil war? Does the 2nd Amendment represent anything in the 21st century except a license to challenge the democratic process by force of arms and a means to arm the bad, the sad and the mad? So many questions and the only answer is "what part of shall not enfringe do you not understand".

And what country has not had it's troops join the civilians when the

fecal matter hit the fan? If this terribly powerful war machine is all powerful

then Afghanistan would have been over in days.

That is what the 2nd is about. Japan was afraid to come here in WWII

because there would be an armed CIVILIAN behind every blade of grass.

I think the Inverse if we allow further encroachment on the Second Amendment, Future Generations will look back and question Why did you throw away your Freedom?

Eventually the American people will come to understand that the 2nd Amendment is part of the problem not of the solution. It provides no security against the dangers that threaten you either in the criminal or political spheres. Quite the opposite. It ensures that those who attack your homes and your schools do so with a degree of violence unknown in more civilised countries and, worse still, by proclaiming that there are 2nd Amendment remedies, it undermines the fabric of the very democracy that is the basis of your freedoms. We can only speculate on the nature of the tragedy or tragedies that will be necessary to open your eyes.

Johnny, feel free to put a huge sign on your house stating that it's "A GUN FREE ZONE".

I dare ya.

Johnny's neighbors should put up big signs that point to Johnny's house and say, "Johnny here, is a card-carrying anti-gun Liberal. He hates guns and doesn't have any. To respect Johnny's irrational beliefs, I promise not to come to Johnny's aid with my guns if some person or persons decide to murder, rob, rape, or in some other way, victimize Johnny and his family."

I already live in a relatively gun-free zone - only the police and some criminals have them. And the criminals tend not to use them for everyday crimes. As the country is not awash with guns, it is quite difficullt for even criminals to get hold of them and as the penalties just for possession are so severe, it is not worth using them for mere robbery. Better to keep them for gang-on-gang violence. Last time I read of a gun being used in a robbery, the criminal was killed by the other customers sitting on him. The could not have happened in the States because he would have been properly armed and known how to use it. Certainly more people would have been killed.

As for my neighbours, I haave had serious disputes with one, which would probably have ended in violence if either of us had had easy access to guns. So I'm happy to live in my gun-free zone. If I didn't I might well be dead or in prison by now.

JM..."Eventually the American people will come to understand that the 2nd Amendment is part of the problem not of the solution. It provides no security against the dangers that threaten you either in the criminal..."

Tell that to this woman:

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/01/10/georgia-woman-who-shot-intruder-hailed-as-model-gun-owner/

Johnny has no problems with denying people their human right to self defense against unjustified assault.

Twisted isn't it, a liberal that is all for human rights being denied.

Eventually the American people will come to understand that the 2nd Amendment is part of the problem not of the solution.

Yeah, I agree. And that damn 1st Amendment...it needs to go too since it allows for all the filth on TV and movies. Wait, I forgot, the 4th Amendment...yeah, trash it. I have nothing to hide in my house so, I have no problems letting the cops rummage around looking for stuff. Congrats Johnny Boy, you win the assinine comment of the day award.

This is not lost on Obama..That is why the sucker is going to do his best to go around congress...LIKE HE ALWAYS DOES..

Some of the folks are afraid of Freedom and need someone to manage their lives for them. They are known as Sheep.

Thank you desoto kim..for reminding everyone of this fact..What Is Not Given. Cannot Be Taken Away.

They assume the rights are inalienable. That they are basic human rights.

The words "shall not be infringed" is a restriction on government.

And boy, oh boy do those in power not like to be restricted.

did you expect anything different?

Spend, spend, spend.... ban guns... same old "out of touch with reality" crap from the "out of touch with reality" incompetent....