Why would ANYONE want "assault weapons"?

11/13/2004 07:04:45 PM · #26

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Please do NOT pick up a gun at this time !!! :P lol

Originally posted by Flash:
[eyes are failing and fingers hit the wrong keys - spelling]

I understand your point.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/13/2004 07:19:03 PM · #27

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

It may surprise you to find out, but many many firearms owners do have specialized training in the types of firearms that they own. Many national schools offer courses and students pay thousands of dollars to become proficient with their firearms, even passing written exams on the lawful use of force and under what circumstances. Historically, firearms training was taught by one's father and passed on through generations via hunting. The military has been another historical teacher. The NRA has thousands of certified instructors throughout the nation and every gun club has several certified instructors as well. Most of the states that now allow for concealed carry, also require specific training before issuance of a license. Much of what you ask is already in place without the Federal Government's intervention.

Those who do not avail themselves of the training available, are either ignorant of it, or boderline irresponsible. No one should have in their possession an emergency rescue tool (ASR's, batons, firearms) that they do not know how to use properly. Neither should they use an ax, a chain saw, kitchen knives, shaving razors, or a host of other potentially self-inflicting injurious implements.

Safety is paramount to current NRA sanctioned training courses including the Eddie the Eagle program for children.

In case you were not aware.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/13/2004 11:52:52 PM · #28

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So would the pro-gun posters on this forum be for operator licenses for each kind of firearm they own (like a driver license), and would you also be for registration of each gun you own? How about if the government provided free and mandatory training and safety courses for all that want to own guns? If you passed these courses (requiring both written and practical passing of exams) then you would receive a license good for say, two years, and then would have to retake a refresher course? Opinions...

It may surprise you to find out, but many many firearms owners do have specialized training in the types of firearms that they own. Many national schools offer courses and students pay thousands of dollars to become proficient with their firearms, even passing written exams on the lawful use of force and under what circumstances. Historically, firearms training was taught by one's father and passed on through generations via hunting. The military has been another historical teacher. The NRA has thousands of certified instructors throughout the nation and every gun club has several certified instructors as well. Most of the states that now allow for concealed carry, also require specific training before issuance of a license. Much of what you ask is already in place without the Federal Government's intervention.

Those who do not avail themselves of the training available, are either ignorant of it, or boderline irresponsible. No one should have in their possession an emergency rescue tool (ASR's, batons, firearms) that they do not know how to use properly. Neither should they use an ax, a chain saw, kitchen knives, shaving razors, or a host of other potentially self-inflicting injurious implements.

Safety is paramount to current NRA sanctioned training courses including the Eddie the Eagle program for children.

In case you were not aware.

Message edited by author 2004-11-14 00:46:12.

11/14/2004 02:25:03 AM · #29

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

To force gun owners to register their firearms is teh first step toward confiscation. EVERY COUNTRY THAT REGISTERED THE GUN OWNERS CONFISCATED THE GUNS -- Australia was the latest victim.

Would you want to restrict your first amendment rights so that you'll need a license to SPEAK? Why would you restrict my second amendment rights if you aren't willing to restrict your first? How about a safety course for all you liberals before you can speak? :)

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So would the pro-gun posters on this forum be for operator licenses for each kind of firearm they own (like a driver license), and would you also be for registration of each gun you own? How about if the government provided free and mandatory training and safety courses for all that want to own guns? If you passed these courses (requiring both written and practical passing of exams) then you would receive a license good for say, two years, and then would have to retake a refresher course? Opinions...

Originally posted by GeneralE:

A somewhat fresh approach to the Second Amendment issue ...
===================
November 13, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Lock and Load
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

So it's time for a fundamentally new approach, emblematic of how Democrats must think in new ways about old issues. The new approach is to accept that handguns are part of the American landscape, but to use a public health approach to try to make them much safer. The model is automobiles...

11/14/2004 02:32:42 AM · #30

While NRA encourages safety courses, it will not use it as a litmus test for gun ownership.

Gun ownership is a right as written in the COnstitution. Restricting it by saying you need a license to own guns is like saying you need a license before you can have a fair trial, to have a rally, to speak in public, to protest against the government, to believe in whatever Deity you want to believe in.

Registration = Confiscation. Proven many times in different countries... England, then Australia and now, Canada (not yet confiscated, but give it a few years... they're now restricted to 5 shot magazines, bolt action rifle/shotguns only and they had to registered).

Gun owners already know, if you give an inch like the Brady bill for background checks, the gun banners will take a mile.

Comparing guns to cars is ludicrous - you have NO RIGHTS to own or drive a car. that's why there are licenses. Cars/horse carriages, aren't specified in the Constitution, so the government can restrict it as much as they want. Guns, however, are specified in the 2nd amendment.. I wonder about these anti-gun liberals. First Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no laws abridging...." the second amendment ends with "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Sounds pretty damn clear to me.

I often hear these politicans, left and right, refer to the second amendment as "HUNTING" or "SPORTING". BS. The 2nd amendment isn't for those purposes --its sole purpose to provide the people a form of resistance against the government if it becomes a tyrant. That's what it's for -- not for hunting. IN fact, hunting istn' specified in the Constitution and the government do have the ability to restrict it as much as it wants, but they can't take away the guns.

Finally in the past election other electorates are realizing these advocate judges and liberals who want to force their minority view on everyone.

Originally posted by Flash:

11/14/2004 02:37:30 AM · #31

Typical liberal response - "Let the government handle it".

This isn't healthcare, this isn't abortion. This is gun rights, and that right is specifically written in the Constitution (and there is no "right" to healthcare or abortion, it's not written specifically in the Constitution).

Contrary to public belief which is that guns aren't traceable without registration -- it's simply not true. Gun dealers are required by law to keep track of gun sales for at least 20 years and gun manufacturers are required to keep the record of sale as well to dealers So if a gun is found in comission of the crime, the police just find out the make, serial number, and it can find out where it was sold. then it gets the first buyer of the gun, and so on and so forth. This is why gun owners keep track of all of their guns that they bought and sold -- if it's ap rivate sale, typically they keep records.

But, this is far different from a NATIONAL REGISTRY database where you're instantly marked as a gunowner and thus, when the government wans to confiscate guns, they know exactly where you are. How would youlike it if Bush wants to give everyone a biometric ID and have you register your DNA in a national registry? :^)

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Thank you, Flash, I was not aware. Would it be of benefit for the fed or state governments to get involved in order to standardize the training and level of competence needed for licensure throughout the country? Could be done with the help of the NRA and would be good for the fight on terrorism too, no?

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So would the pro-gun posters on this forum be for operator licenses for each kind of firearm they own (like a driver license), and would you also be for registration of each gun you own? How about if the government provided free and mandatory training and safety courses for all that want to own guns? If you passed these courses (requiring both written and practical passing of exams) then you would receive a license good for say, two years, and then would have to retake a refresher course? Opinions...

It may surprise you to find out, but many many firearms owners do have specialized training in the types of firearms that they own. Many national schools offer courses and students pay thousands of dollars to become proficient with their firearms, even passing written exams on the lawful use of force and under what circumstances. Historically, firearms training was taught by one's father and passed on through generations via hunting. The military has been another historical teacher. The NRA has thousands of certified instructors throughout the nation and every gun club has several certified instructors as well. Most of the states that now allow for concealed carry, also require specific training before issuance of a license. Much of what you ask is already in place without the Federal Government's intervention.

Those who do not avail themselves of the training available, are either ignorant of it, or boderline irresponsible. No one should have in their possession an emergency rescue tool (ASR's, batons, firearms) that they do not know how to use properly. Neither should they use an ax, a chain saw, kitchen knives, shaving razors, or a host of other potentially self-inflicting injurious implements.

Safety is paramount to current NRA sanctioned training courses including the Eddie the Eagle program for children.

In case you were not aware.

11/14/2004 01:21:04 PM · #32

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Actually much of the training is already "standardized" due primarily to the various liability laws that are on the books. The use of any item (ashtray, rock, stick, table lamp, bowlingball, firearm, hammer, etc) against another person, is an action that could lead to arrest and subsequent trial. Therefore, firearms trainers have very specific outlines that teach the responsibilities of "use of force" as it is related to current law. It is also common to have local attorneys/judges as guest speakers in these classes to clarify and emphasize key points. The NRA's "Personal Protection" courses are quite specific in this regard. The National Schools like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, and Massad Ayoob's LFI (Lethal Force Institute)are run by very experienced professionals in both firearms use and the courtroom. Not everyone can afford these training programs and not everyone needs this level of training, but for those who either require or desire it, it is certainly available...given that you qualify (as in character/background history). Ecah of the states that currently have concealed weapons permit systems, also have a standardized training format, with the exception of Vermont, as that state does not require a license. Vermonters, can carry concealed, as their state laws have language indicating such. There is also "reciprocity" laws between states that have CCW licenses as long as the other states license is recognized. Some states and municpalities do not recognize any license and firearm owners should be aware of these as dire consequences can arise. DC, New Jersy, NY City, and Chicago are just a couple that come to mind. The Congress recently passed legislation that allows certified police officers to now carry nationwide. There may be some restrictions, but I am not familiar with the specifics.

Regarding the Federal Government "managing" the training and licensesure, as you can see from other posts, this is a very sensitive issue, as it becomes complicated when one tries to License a right. I firmly believe that if more of the unknowing would make the effort to be informed with facts, then much of the "arguing" would subside. Even Michigan's Govenor, who was staunchly opposed to relaxing the concealed carry licensing from "may issue" to "shall issue", has recently stated that the "wild west" predictions were totaly unfounded. Fact is that most people who have permits do not carry, as it is a real pain to lug around a 1-2 pound piece of metal plus accessories. But it is also a fact, that everyone in the community is safer - even those who are not licensed, as the criminals do not know who is and who isn't "armed". Much has been made of the drop in crime rates over the last several years, with those on the anti-gun side claiming the "Brady Law" as instrumental. However those that truly follow the adoption of CCW ststes (now 38 out of 50 I believe), know that in each state where the law was adopted, assaults went down. Brandishing is an arrestable offense in many places and most of those with licenses take the responsibility very seriously.

There is a tape (VHS) that is very educational for novices who are unfamiliar with firearms. It is titled "A Woman's Guide to Firearms" but is not just for women. It is from Lyon House Productions copyright 1987 and hosted by Gerald McRaney and Lee Purcell. It was distributed by Bianchi International. Not sure how to find it, but the NRA may have copies. I will send you mine, if you can't find it elsewhere....just return it when you're done.

History has been very unkind to those who register and contract with the government, their firearms. The founding father's I believe were aware and weary of that very thing. That is why so many who adhere to the "individual" right interpretation of the 2nd amendent, do so with such ferver. But, please do not mistake that ferver, for irresponsibility. Lawful gun owners on a whole, are extremely responsible. They just want the criminals to be responsible or at least accountable also.

edited for spelling and grammar

Message edited by author 2004-11-15 19:24:02.

11/15/2004 05:31:26 PM · #33

Flash - i find that Michigan mayor amusing :)

In Texas, it's "shall issue" after Bush passed it when he was governor. Crimes have actually DECREASED after the passage and there have been a lot of documented cases where people did use it and save their lives, including one guy in Dallas, Texas who was sitting in rush hour in his car, and some maniac broke into his window and just started to pound on him. He was almost blinded because the guy kept hitting his left eye... he reached for his conceal gun in the glove compartment and shoots the offender and saved his eye (which is defined as a vital organ, so you can use deadly force to stop the offender).

Texas law require testing of conceal handgun licensee's, requiring a shooting test, 12 hours of classroom (which i can happily say i passed 100% on the written -- my shooting skills though is another matter, but i was at the average of the shooters in the class), etc.

I actually have no problem with licensing for conceal carry in public, because it's a public issue. However, to say that you need a license to HAVE gun in the privacy of you OWN home, is ludicrous when it's a right already. My gun sitting there isn't going to bother anyone except for people that would try break into it.

CCW is really designed for women though, because it equalizes the equation between some big dude trying to rape a 5' girl when she's armed with a 357 magnum :) In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force to stop an attacker who is using deadly force against you. A 6' 5" 250 lbs with his body weight against a 5' 100 lb woman is enough to fit the definition of deadly force because he can simply overpower the girl without any weapons.

Flash is also right about brandishing conceal handgun. in Texas, if you POINT the gun at someone, you ARE using deadly force by definition. So there could only be two outcomes -- either you're using deadly force against someone illegal, in that case, you'd go to jail for a long time, or, you're using it for protection legally. Don't think that people who get the license is automatically going to point it out at someone during an argument. I think people will find that gun owners are probably the most polite people on earth.

Actually, if you ever go into a gun range, you'd see how polite everyone is :) because after all, everyon is armed. Those senators that want to ban gun shows probably never ever been to one of them, much less a gun range.

So I find it realy amusing when anti-gunners claim that if you allow CCW you'd end up with the wild west :) The fact is that criminals when they try to carjack someone in Texas dont' know if the victim is a CCW or not. It gives them second thought before attacking someone.

11/15/2004 07:13:33 PM · #34

Tony (paganini),

I'm glad that this post was started as it provided an opportunity to share some points that may have not been known. I believe it is important for all sides of an issue to understand the other. It is only through a thurough assessment of the opposing arguments, that one can hope to present their side with enough clarity that influence can be made. Regardless of whether the opposition changes positions is less important than the "tolerance" afforded through "enlightenment". It is in this manner of temperment that I try to state my positions and reasons for them. Many still disagree with my viewes, however most are not personally offended. It is difficult when one is passionate about a given subject and certain in their argument, to not be overbearing when stating one's case......as the other side can be just as passionate and have just as strong a rationale.

The issue of the 2nd amendment being about an "individual's" right is surrounded by much dis-information. This dis-information is meant to stir emotion, so that the "logic" of the argument is not analyzed. Our side does the same thing. It is the responsibility of those with knowledge to impart it to those who don't.....but nicely, with courtesy and respect for the opposing view. Through this method, is the most progress made. Lord knows, that I have enough troubles as it is, enough obstacles in life, and enough uphill battles to fight.

As stated elsewhere in this thread, more Democrats will have to come to terms with gunowners, if they are looking for a majority in the congress. Many do not know that the NRA supports quite a few Democrats for election and re-election. They also do not know that often the NRA will recommend voting for a proven Democrat against an unproven Republican, even if both have "A" ratings on gun issues. The reason that the NRA supported W over Kerry was based on records, not party affiliation. That said however, on average, more republicans get endorsed by the NRA, because more Republicans have records supporting legislation that is favorable to the NRA's positions. But I suspect that that will change. I fully expect more Democrats to "publicly" not be as confrontational regarding 2nd amendment issues.

For anyone needing a solidly sound read on firearms and use of force responsibilities, I highly recommend Massad Ayoob's "In The Gravest Extreme" ISBN 0-936279-00-1 It is required reading for intro courses at LFI and many practicing attorneys comment on picking up a few points after the reading book as well. It is around 130 pages and is an excellant resource to have in your library, should you ever have to defend you actions. You mentioned the case whereby the driver of a vehicle used a handgun in self-defense and was not prosecuted. What many do not understand about this particular case, is that the aggressor CLEARLY was on the offense and after repeated strikes on the drivers head, while stuck in a traffic jam, did the defendant manage to stop the attack by using a justified level of force. The witnesses from the scene were the primary substantiation to the defendents claims. Without the witnesses, even with the same circumstances, the outcome could have been much different....and has in other incidents.

As a general rule, firearms owners are a very responsible lot. Each of us, however, must strive to share our understandings with those who do not see things our way. If we fail to expand our knowledge to the unknowing, then at some point in the future, there will not be enough of us, and the ignorant will make laws based on emotion, that deny us our rights.

Take care. Stay alert and be ever vigilant.

Flash
Endowment/Life Member - NRA

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/16/2004 12:19:05 PM · #35

Flash,

Thanks for the post. The thing about the Dallas incident was that he did get his eyes bashed in pretty badly, so even without witnesses, it'd still be justified, even in Texas.

The issue with Democrats is that they really dont' get the gun owner's passion for the 2nd amendment, nor do they realize how effective we are in our votes. By letting someone as anti-gun as Kerry run on the platform just shows what they're about.

i don't think the Democrats will change much in the presidential national election level. The moderate/conservative Democrats are simply switching parties now. I don't want to see a one-party system either though, but i think it's inevitable if the Democrats keep on its ultra-left stance.

Tony

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

11/16/2004 12:37:55 PM · #36

Thanks very much for that in depth response, Flash. Believe it or not, about 15 years ago I contemplated gun ownership and the training that went along with it but decided against it for reasons that had more to do with questions I had regarding the organization offering the training and the subsequent â��community serviceâ�� required. Then I reconsidered again about 5 years ago when I was considering a move to the remote countryside but that didnâ��t materialize. At this point in my life Iâ��m not sure that gun ownership is something that I would take on as I am looking to make life simpler, and this seems to complicate matters, for me anyway. By the way, back in the 90â��s I was mugged by two men brandishing knives in the NYC subway system but managed to get away by using my wits and legs. Iâ��m not sure just how serious they were about using their weapons but I wonder if my carrying a concealed gun would have resulted in a better outcome.

I can see where some people may feel more secure with a gun, such as in a small business setting, and I do agree with you and believe that most gun owners are a responsible lot and take it seriously. I have also wondered if I could actually use one in self defense, as this requires being 100% certain of the circumstances for itâ��s use, but I guess thatâ��s where the training programs come in. Still, even with the best of training, I would imagine that people during the stress of a threat could use a gun inadvertently (too quickly) and in the wrong ways, unless through frequent practice and psychological preparation develop competency. If gun ownership and permit to carry concealed were to be made totally legal everywhere, Iâ��m wondering just how many people would devote the considerable block of time in their busy lives to acquire this level of proficiency. While there may be some excellent training programs out there, a government sponsored program may be the best way to make sure that the general population who want to own and carry meet an annual requirement for proficiency. Again, this could be done in conjunction with the already excellent training out there.

Another concern I have with gun ownership is that they may not be used strictly for defensive purposes but offensive ones as well. This can be done in subtle ways, as well as, outright brandishing and firing. For example, an argument ensues between two parties where threat of violence is not a probability, but if the gun owner allows view of the concealed weapon, the other party may back down giving the gun toter a non-verbal advantage in the usual day to day haggling. Could this be classified as coercion?

Another example: With the huge national deficit and tax giveaways, a long term war underway, rising unemployment and other issues looming, I can foresee a day when state and local governments will not have the resources for maintaining adequate policing. Groups could easily be formed among gun owners to target a scapegoat and take matters into their own hands. This could result in posses, vigilante groups, witch hunts, marauding bands and lynch mobs, all acting in their â��best interests,â�� but maybe not acting in legally, or morally, justified ways. White supremacist groups, such as the KKK could become more aggressive and dominant.

Finally, my understanding of the 2nd amendment, and Iâ��m no expert, is that firearms are guaranteed for use in conjunction with militias connected with the federal government (a vestige from colonial days?). If that is the case, then a government run program to oversee training, registration and their use is a way of complying with The Constitution.

Originally posted by Flash:

Actually much of the training is already "standardized" due primarily to the various liability laws that are on the books...

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

11/16/2004 04:51:55 PM · #37

Olyuzi,

I do enjoy our discourse. You raise some very valid points and I can see that much thought has gone into this subject. I would like to make a couple of further comments. Regarding the incident in NY and the mugging, NY city is very restrictive in its licensing with most individuals that have a carry permit, obtaining it with the help of an attorney and paying several thousands of dollars for the license. In that city, even if you wanted to carry one, it is illegal (or at least very restricted). Your use of wits and legs is commendable and in a class that I taught for a few years, avoidance was always the preferred option. Regarding the discussion of an argument where one party that was armed "showed" in an attempt to intimidate, that would qualify as an escalation of force and depending upon witnesses and the complaintant, serious consequences could arise. The classes that I have been involved with (either as a student or instructor) were extremely clear on the responsibilities of being "armed" in public. Regarding the scenerio of marauding bands, it is in my view extremely possible to have these play out. Not just formal groups/gangs, but informal mobs as after the Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Korean shopkeepers were spared some of the carnage due to their preparedness.

You are certainly correct in your assessment that a strong committment to training and skill retention is both prudent and unlikely for the vast majority of firearms owners. But for those who take on the responsibility of "daily carry", there is no greater requirement. Should a time come when the "balloon goes up" and they are faced with seeing the "elephant", then there training will take over. Their action(s) will likely be judged after the fact, and if deriliction is present, then the very tool that they relied upon for survival may in fact be their demise. This why each and every person must carefully weigh the choices for themselves, just like other adult choices of morals, religion, and politics.

Regarding the 2nd amendment being an individual right vs a collective right (as in a militia), it is pretty well documented in a number of court cases and by constitutional scholars, that the framers intended an individual right. But this is why we have courts and why courts make rulings/interpretations and why so many pro gunners are concerned with the makeup of the courts. One thing is certain, at some point, the courts will decided once and for all. We just don't know when. Many see an end run attempt by the United Nations to enter into a treaty that outlaws the 2nd amendment. Not sure if it will ever come to pass, just have to keep a vigilent eye watching.

As a side note, there are a multitude of other defensive actions that a person can study and learn, besides firearms. My all time favorite is PPCT or Pressure Point Control Tactics, founded by Bruce Siddle. It is an immemsely successful system and I will share more, if there is interest.

Flash

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

11/17/2004 08:51:23 AM · #38

Originally posted by Flash:

Olyuzi,

Regarding the 2nd amendment being an individual right vs a collective right (as in a militia), it is pretty well documented in a number of court cases and by constitutional scholars, that the framers intended an individual right. But this is why we have courts...... Flash

Well, I'll try to make my point here one last time and see if it gets ignored completely again.

Flash, I think you and paganini are mistaken on this point of the actual constitutional interpretation and judicial record of the Supreme Court on this issue. Which is, I think, important to the discussion.

Here is a synopsis from the Brady Bill people, an obviously biased source, but nevertheless...
The Second Amendment in the Courts

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word â��fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a â��Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."

Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.

****************************************************

Can you supply a Supreme court ruling affirming the right of the individual to carry a firearm? I don't think anyone can, which is unfortunate, considering:

"Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established however some, although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

-- Thomas Jefferson

pp.46 - 47, "The Living Thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, Presented by John

Message edited by author 2004-11-17 08:52:20.

11/17/2004 06:12:02 PM · #39

Gingerbaker,

Just re-read your past posts on this thread and the above reply. What I believe you are saying is that you personally believe the 2nd amendment is or at least should be about individual rights, however the court rulings up to 1999 with apparent support of the Supreme Court (by not taking the appeal)have let stand the "collective" rights (State Militia = National Guard) interpretation.

This may take awile, but off on a research binge I must go. I do not keep all of the court rulings on file that proclaim an individual right, but I will try to find some.

In the meantime, please don't feel ignored. Afterall you are an ally who has committed to supplying the first round.....should we ever find ourselves in close enough proximity to toast a scene.

11/17/2004 06:25:05 PM · #40

Try //www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

not sure how to make this a link but the article has 3 parts that discuss the 35 other 2nd amendment rulings by the US Supreme Court. You are correct regarding no difinitive one ruling, however the case of "Miller" is not the only word.

//www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

Message edited by author 2004-11-17 20:59:24.

11/17/2004 07:28:36 PM · #41

The courts has never limited it to a collective right, that's for certain. The fact is, "militia" is not the National Guard. Even the federal law definition of what a "militia" is today,

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, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers 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.

Organized militia includes National Guard, contrary to popular belief, National Guard is NOT a state militia -- it's sole authority answers to the federal government. It sounds like it's "Texas National Guard", but that's because it's recruited in Texas :-) The actual command and control is still the federal government.

Now, anti-gunners are using this as saying "look, militia is a group so we must control guns as a group, collective force, and does not include individual rights". That's because they really don't understand English and usage of English.

"A well-educated electorate necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed".

Does this mean only electorate can keep and read books and not individuals in general? :-) The first part of the clause establishes the CONTEXT of the message, i.e., the REASON for the right to bear arms, the second one guarantees it. Unorganized militia means federal government can't control it. And this is why Supreme Court has always defer it to the state level legislation on that issue.

You have to keep in mind that the Framers were very state-rights originally. It wasn't until after the civil war that the federal government gain as much power as it does today.

Why would the framer put in all these individual rights in teh first 10 amendments and only put in an collective right for the second amendment? :) Unless the liberals want to argue that freedom of speech is reserved for political parties only, i.e. collective right, instead of individual right.

Also back in the old days, the STATE = the people. 10th Amendment reads that powers not reserved for the federal government belongs to the state, OR the people is pretty clear what the intention is. The anti-gunners might have a point in arguing that second amendment allows for state regulation of firearms, that's the best they can really argue from what the Framers wrote and this is why Supreme Court has never disallowed a state to regulate firearms.

Why has the NRA not backed any lawsuits? Well, think of it this way -- why would any legal gunowner violate for example, the assault weapons ban in 1994 simply to overturn the law? It carries a 10 year sentence to have a bayonet on there! :) It also carries the same setence for having a 30-round magazine made in January of 2005 versus December of 2004 :) if you lose the case you can be in prison for a very long time, while real criminals like the recent one in Massachusetts where a Harvard student stabbed someone violently to death was only setenced to 7 1/2 years in prison.

Anyway, I think once Bush nominate his replacement for a couple of Supremes, then there would be litigation to challenge some of these laws and possibly overturn them and finally have a definition of whether it's individual or collective. At worse, the Supreme Court would rule it's collective in the state level, which means states can regulate it but not the fed.

11/17/2004 07:34:22 PM · #42

Olyuzi,

Your chances of being hurt in the course of a crime is 50% if you don't resist or resist with anything other than a firearm. Your chances of being hurt is only 20% if you resist with a firearm.

Here are the stats from DOJ:

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92

Average annual number of victimizations
in which victims used firearms to defend
themselves or their property
________________________________________
Attacked Threatened
Total offender offender
________________________________________
All crimes 82,500 30,600 51,900
Total violent crime 62,200 25,500 36,700

With injury 12,100 7,300 4,900
Without injury 50,000 18,200 31,800

Theft, burglary,
motor vehicle theft 20,300 5,100 15,200

Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Includes
victimizations in which offenders were unarmed. Excludes
homicides.

//www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/17/2004 09:03:33 PM · #43

Originally posted by Flash:

//www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

This is a very long article, however it has a tremendous amount of information on the 2nd amendment "individual vs. collective" rights issue. Well worth the time, if one wishes to have at hand "VOLUMES" of court cases and decisions. From this article, I would surmise that scholars conclude that an individual right exists, especially within the Renquist court, including justices Ginsberg and Suter. However please read for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Message edited by author 2004-11-18 19:26:18.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

11/22/2004 08:41:39 PM · #44

this is sick
automatic weapons for deer hunting?

Message edited by author 2004-11-22 20:42:01.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR

11/23/2004 12:02:46 PM · #45

It's SEMIAUTOMATIC. And if you read another report from other places, you will know the SKS rifle is used very commonly for hunting.

That's besides the point, it's a legal firearm to own.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

this is sick
automatic weapons for deer hunting?

Message edited by Konador - Removing Derogatory Comment.

BADDBOYY21

Nikon D300

11/24/2004 12:23:59 PM · #46

This is always the same old argument. If you take the guns away from the good guys...only the bad guys will have them. I mean how many honest "bad guys" are out there. It's not like they will be handing over their illegal guns.

As for someone here stated that automatic weapons are banned...they are incorrect. Automatic weapons are legal with a class 1 firearms license!

There are more people killed in accidental car crashes each year. I don't see them banning vehicles anytime soon.

I am a police officer and I am not giving up my right to own a firearm! As for the "smart" guns...that will never work! If criminals don't have a gun...they will just beat you with a bat instead!