Gun Control: The Issues

Our Great country was built on the foundation of our great constitution. This set down the set of rights that we should live by and believe in. While almost all of those rights have been debated, tweaked, haggled over, and fought over; there is one that by far our shines the others, it is the 2nd Amendment, or the right to bear arms. Why is this a hot topic? Whys is it constantly brought up in politics, and daily life? Why should we even care about this topic? My paper will examine these questions and look at this hot topic.

Gun Control is a topic that is defined by a bunch of controversial laws, about the control of guns. The laws would require mandatory child locks, background checks, ballistic fingerprinting, plus other controls. The first attempt at Gun Control was in 1919 when congress passed a law that did a 10% manufactures tax on guns. Than in 1927 congress passed the law the prohibited interstate mailing of guns. 1934 brought the first heavy piece of legislation on the issue, the National Firearms Act. This made people with sawed of guns to register, manufactures had keep track of serial numbers, dealers and makers of ‘gangster weapons’ and to be licensed. This was latter added to by the Federal Firearms Act which had dealers pay taxes on guns, they also had to keep records of to whom the guns were sold to, and convicted felons couldn’t buy guns. It also said that licensed dealers could ship guns. (Barden, 34) These were the first big laws set out by the federal government; these were to bring on a whole landslide of issues for the rest of the 20th century.

This issue is always being used in government as a campaign base, as a piece of legislation, or as a way to get funding from interest groups. It also affected the people in politics very directly. In 1960 President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot, in April of 1968 the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by a gun, and finally John F. Kennedy’s brother Bobby was gunned down only months after King. The guns that killed these important figures included a gun bought by mail, and a cheap ‘Saturday night special’. (Barden, 30-32) After these shootings the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed. This new law made the previous laws more effective and added other provisions, such as the ban on ‘Saturday Night Specials’. With these killings, the debate over Gun Control was lodged into our political spectrum forever.

The Gun Control issue is an issue due to the high rates of gun crimes in our country. Citizens in America own over 2 million guns. (Hawkes, 4) These guns are said to be used as sport, to defend the family, and for self-defense. This rarely is the case though, out of 464 deaths by guns, only 14 were in self-defense. Plus the gun in the home was 6 times more likely to shoot a family member, instead of an unwanted visitor. (Barden, 22) So why do we have all these guns? It could be said that the gun has been in our society since it’s beginning, at the revolution. Also since it is guaranteed by our constitution, some feel it to be their God-given duties to up hold that law. So maybe these reason are why Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom combined had 59 handgun deaths in 1985, while the United States alone had 8,092 handgun deaths. (Barden, 23)
Why else are guns important? Most gun owners in the United States are men. (Hawkes, 13) The upbringing in America for years is that the man is tough, the in control figure. The gun backs that role. The gun is a symbol of all power, a symbol not to be reckoned with. While packing heat a person feels safe and secure, especially for men. Men also feel the need to pass this along to the next generation of kids. Today in the United States kinds are being taught to use guns at a phenomenal rate. Since more kids have access to guns this has led to 27, 000 boys between the ages of 12 and 15 to be killed by guns. ( Hawkes, 14)

Guns are also important in the field of law enforcement. The police in America have been armed with guns for over a hundred years. The police have very strict rules set down to restrict how their guns can be used. IF the guns are used against department rules the officer faces suspension, release from work, and even arrested. America has the most armed police force in the world, which has led to the most police-suspect shootings. Is it odd how this figure is similar to shootings in between civilians? The armed police force is in place to insure protection of the people, but in shooting/hostage situations, it comes down to non-gun solutions. So do police even need guns?
The argument that guns are used for leisure cannot be ignored either. Guns are used for hunting and sport target practice quite regularly in the United States. I n America there are over 26 million hunting licenses. (Hawkes, 16) These licenses are used in hunting deer, duck, pheasant, and numerous other types of game. There has been debate over allowing kids to learn to hunt young. The argument is that when kids are taught to kill like this, it makes them immune to the value of life, and to the fact that killing is not bad. “You can look at some of the shooting rampages in schools- a lot of (the kids) were taught by adult. In their minds, killing is a viable option,” says Susie Cutler, who is an active demonstrator against hunters. (Morrow, “Should Kids Hunt”) To some though hunting is a tradition and some see it as a need to hunt and pass their knowledge down to their kids. Jerry DeBin, the Alabama coordinator of conservation education, “ We’ve lost our connection to the land and outside world. Most people don’t even notice which way the wind is blowing.” (Hawkes, 18) Him and others believe aht the children of today ought to be taught those skills, and the number one prime way to do that is through hunting.

Among the many pro-gun lobbyists raises the strongest of them all, the NRA. Some Civil War Veterans founded the National Rifle Association in 1871 with the intent to keep America’s skills with the gun high. It was a sort of gun club for enthusiasts. (Barden, 42) Today, though, the NRA is a high-power lobbyist organization. Its job is to try to persuade politicians that there idea on puns and simple and valuable. The NRA believes that under the 2nd Amendment Americans have the rights to manufacture, transport, buy, and sell guns with no interference from the federal government. (Barden, 43-45) They also believe that any form of Gun Control is a direct infringe and insult to the citizen and their rights. The NRA also says that even a thing like a waiting period would hurt the gun industry, because a waiting period would outlast the time of a gun show.

A strong part of the NRA position on guns is a favorite slogan, “ Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This is the belief that the high rate of gun deaths in this country is because of the people who own the guns. The solution to this problem isn’t taking away guns from ‘law-abiding’ citizens, but to put those who break the law in jail for very long amounts of time, according to the NRA. The proponents of Gun Control say that the jail sentences won’t bring back the people who have been killed, and won’t stop killers in the future from killing. Robert Lawerence, a pathologist, a person who studies bodies of dead people, brings up another thing that disputes the NRA’s stance. “ If you hit somebody enough times with a blunt object to kill him or her, you probably mean to kill them,” he says “ that is not, in my opinion, always true with a firearm case. These are plenty of cases that involve a spur-of-the-moment lapse of judgment or an intense moment of irresponsibility under the influence of alcohol or drugs, when a person will shoot somebody before they realize that it is over. Once that weapon discharges, it’s all over. It’s to late. Once you pull that trigger the other options are gone.” ( Barden, 43-45) Nobody can run away from a bullet, so who is the real killer, the inescapable gun, or the angry person.

The Lobbyists in the gun industry by far are one of the leading contributors to politicians. In the 1999-00-election cycle gun rights groups gave 3.7 million dollars to candidates, with 90% of that going to republicans. (www.opensecrets.org/new/guns/index) These groups, led by the NRA, have given more than 13 million dollars since 1990. Members of the GOP have been the core receivers of the money. SO we can also assume that usually a Republican will vote against a gun control law. Sometimes though the politicians will actually vote their conscious, like Rep. Constance Morelle(R-Md) who stood with Democrats on a strict gun control law. The lobbyist in the NRA has had its influence on the government and other politicians, by doing this funding, and they also have kept there influence strong by the contributions.

Many groups from different sectors of life, but for the same underlying cause have fought the fight for Gun Control. Three groups that have been key figures are the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March. The Brady Campaign started after the shooting of President Reagan, and his Press Secretary, James Brady. The shooting left the President with a short stay in the hospital, but left Brady paralyzed. ( Barden, 43-45) After this shooting Brady and his wife Sarah started the Brady Campaign, which grew out of the NCCH, National Council to Control Handguns. Working with this group and President Clinton, they got the Brady Law passé. This put into affect a mandatory waiting period. Even after the shooting Reagan, a life-long member of the NRA kept up his strong anti-control approach on guns.
The other group, Million Mom March, is a grass roots organization built out of the efforts of several parents. The group held its first protest in front of the Capital Building on Mother’s Day in 1999. Over 750,000 people attended this rally, plus people around the country attending chapter rallies at state capitals. This group has joined with the Brady Campaign, politicians, veterans, and many other groups to form one of the most effective groups out there.

The ideas being fought over in the Gun Control camp include many things. Right now a hot topic in the news is ballistic fingerprinting. After a gun is fired it leaves distinct scratches on the bullet, like a fingerprint. A national database of their ‘fingerprints’ would help police figure out exactly what kind of gun and where it came from. Right now there is legislation in both the Senate and the House for the creation of such database. ( www.handgun.org, “Issues”)
In the recent sniper shootings in Maryland a copy of the military M-16 was being used. It is the Gun Control idea that these military weapons should not be on the streets. In a interview with Maida Taylor, a physician, graduate of Cal-Berkley, and a former member of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) “ Assault weapons were designed for killing, and that will always be their purpose. In a study done by the ATF it was said that an automatic assault weapon was 20 times more likely to be linked to a killing than any other firearm. Right now there are suits against makers of these weapons, and laws trying to prohibit the selling of high ammunition magazines. ( www.handguncontrol.org, “Issues” The politicians in this country are starting to wake up to this problem, a problem that wouldn’t be if those weapons hadn’t gotten out of the military.

The waiting period has always been at the top of the Gun Control advocates agenda. It is their belief that the ability to buy a gun in a moment of rage is what leads to many killings. Without a waiting period there is no time to do a background check on the buyer. In Utah on January 14, 1999, a lady with a history of mental illness, bought a gun and than walked to a office building, killing one and wounding another. (www.handguncontrol.org “Issues”) If this lady had to wait she might have settled down, or her mental history would have been picked up by a background check. Than there are the cases like this last one that get national attention, like the shooting of President Reagan. His shooter, John Hinkley, had walked into a pawnshop to buy a gun. He gave the seller a fake address on the Federal Firearms sail form, and than walked out with his new gun. If there had been a waiting period the seller would have discovered the lies on the form and could’ve stopped the crime. (www.handguncontrol.org “Issues”) These are just some of the examples that have grown out of our society, and the Gun Control advocates have been able to base their campaign off these events. The one piece of legislation about a waiting period is the Brady Bill, passed with the knowledge of what happened when John Hinkley walked into the pawnshop.

The war over guns, a war fought with words, money, elections, and legislation. This has been a war that has been seen through our country for 50 years now. Both sides fight continuously to better the country and its people, in their own ways. Who’s right? We may never know, or will we just to wait and see who wins when it’s all over.
!

This has been debated.

Also,its to long.It would take days to go over every flaw in it{i.e. judgeing the usefulness of self defence by its body count or the 6 times falacy**.

Shorten it down and you may get a better response.

The only gun "control" necessary, is hitting what I'm shooting at.

By the way,youneed to do more than just put the last names and a number by the sources.That tells us nothing.

My opinion on gun control is this. If you take away the right of someone to own a gun, you take away protection. Has there ever been a rapist wait for a woman to dial 911 before he acts? A 9mm is more intimidating than a telephone. Which would you rather be armed with to protect your family when confronted with a home intruder at 3am?

To beat a dated phrase even more, guns don't kill. They have neither the capacity to fire on thier own nor the ability to aim themselves. Those two acts require human intervention.

Consider this: remove guns from the street, and those that commit murder will simply use another weapon. Baseball bat, knife, tire iron and the list goes on. I can make a lethal item from a toothbrush, a thin peice of wire or just about anything you can think of. If a person wants to kill, he or she will find a way to do it.

No, more gun control laws are not necessary. Lets try to enforce the ones already on the books (that the Clinton administration ignored during thier push for more and tougher gun laws).

If a person wants to kill, he or she will find a way to do it.

Absolutely, but does that warrant making it easier for them?

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox


Absolutely, but does that warrant making it easier for them?

Good point, and just another reason why gun control is a bad idea. It makes it easier for those who want to prey on others to do so. If you're of a mind to kill, rape, steal, would you let another silly little law stop you from obtaining an illegal firearm? I don't think so.

In the US? No, I doubt it. It's been such an esential part of your 'culture' for so long now, you'd never be able to get rid of them, so there will always be enormous quantities available, somewhere.

And what the heck do you think you're doing Counterfeiting Kitty Points? ;)

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
In the US? No, I doubt it. It's been such an esential part of your 'culture' for so long now, you'd never be able to get rid of them, so there will always be enormous quantities available, somewhere.

Right, those who are inclined to break the law will always be able to acquire firearms. It's happening in Britain, and Australia too.



And what the heck do you think you're doing Counterfeiting Kitty Points? ;)

Well.....you see, I know this guy who knows a guy who can get them. I might be able to hook you up too. ;)

Originally posted by Brian
Lets try to enforce the ones already on the books That would be good.

I am so tired of the NRA using the same old tired rheteric to kill any attempt to enact sensable gun laws. What is the deal with making people wait before selling them a gun. Maybe if we had stricter gun laws the kids at Littleton Colorado would still be alive today.

Originally posted by Criminal
Maybe if we had stricter gun laws the kids at Littleton Colorado would still be alive today.

Since the the two who did the shooting got someone else to buy the guns, I doubt that is an issue. It does not matter how many gun laws are on the books, if the are not properly enforced, they are useless.

Originally posted by Criminal
I am so tired of the NRA using the same old tired rheteric to kill any attempt to enact sensable gun laws. What is the deal with making people wait before selling them a gun. Maybe if we had stricter gun laws the kids at Littleton Colorado would still be alive today.

Ok... let's go by your premise...

Here are the Federal gun laws (http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/FederalFirearms.htm) and here are the State Gun Laws for NC (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=Detail&R=NC)

Now, going by the letter of the law, HOW could the teens have used a gun to kill anyone? Oh wait... you say they BROKE the law to obtain weapons? Oh, OK, I see... so they were ALREADY criminals. Hmmm... we don't need MORE laws, we need to enforce the ones we have, AND PARENTS need to step up to the plate and DO THEIR JOB.

The littleton kidds planned out their attack over a peroid of time.Just how long of a wait are you suggestting?
Plus,they broke the law anyway to do ity.The Columbine murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, violated at least 17 state and federal weapons-control laws. Mark E. Manes, who allegedly sold the handgun to Harris and Klebold, may have violated at least one federal and one state law, and if either of the killers' parents knew their child possessed a handgun, they would have run afoul of a Colorado law.
Waitting pweriods get folks killed more often than not.

Bonnie Elmasri -- She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.[Congressional Record (May 8, 1991), at H 2859, H 2862. ]

Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross -- She bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.[Wall Street Journal (March 3, 1994) at A10.]

Los Angeles riots -- USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.Well,they are the idiots that voted for them so stop your biching.[Jonathan T. Lovitt, "Survival for the armed," USA Today (May 4, 1992).]

Experience with the Brady waiting period that lapsed last year, as well as with state waiting periods, indicates that these laws are either neutral or do more harm than good. In the only academic research done on the Brady law, Lott found that the national waiting period had no significant impact on murder or robbery rates and was associated with a small increase in rape and aggravated-assault rates.



licensing prevents people who are being stalked or threatened from quickly obtaining a gun for protection. When added to California's 14-day waiting period, the processing time for a license will delay access to a gun by at least a month. While research shows that even short waiting periods increase rape rates, waiting periods longer than 10 days increase all categories of violent crime.[John Lott.Moore guns less crime.]

Originally posted by Criminal
I am so tired of the NRA using the same old tired rheteric to kill any attempt to enact sensable gun laws.

I love this one.

Look close at the implication.

This phrase is used in a manner to suggest that present controls - some 20,000 gun laws already on the books - aren't meaningful. If that were truly the case, then there should be no opposition to repealing all of it until some meaningful legislation is finally proposed. However, the fact that
current "gun control" laws are tenaciously guarded indicates the gun-grabbers hold them to be vitally important - exposing their use of "finally...meaningful" to be deceitful.

Seems no law is meaningfull enough unless its total.

The NRA is not in the top ten dhinors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp

The NRA is not even among the top 100 spenders on lobbying dollars in 1998, the latest for which there are figures that I could get the site to pull up.Your link does not work. http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/lobby98/topspend.htm
Since 2000 was the only high year,the gun industry are not even in the top 70,and the nra not in the top 100.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q12

Here we have the gun rights grouping totall{not just the nra**.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

Where do you get this NRA is a top lobyist group stuff?

The NRA is powerful because of votes, not money. The young Clinton administration admitted as much in the 1994 elections, which saw the defeat of many representatives who voted for the Brady Bill. The reason some representatives are "in the pocket of the NRA" is because those representatives know that many of their consitutents are NRA members and will vote them out of office if they stray from the preservation of firearms rights. This is, by the way, what so-called "representatives" are supposed to do. The NRA represents a clear example of effective, grassroots democracy. Needless to say,though many people don't get it, the NRA doesn't force or brainwash people into adopting the NRA party line, rather, people who think as the NRA does joing the NRA because they think it represents them and will give them a voice in the government. *NRA membership is growing very, very rapidly right now.

The NRA gets most of its money from dues, not corporate contributions. Membership is $35/yr, and the NRA has about 4.1 million members* giving the NRA an annual budget of $140 million from membership dues.

The people who continue argue that gun-looby money subverts democracy pointedly ignore the funding sources for anti-gun organizations. Stock-trader billionaire George Soros funds the Bell Campaign. Andrew J. McKelvey, founder of Americans for Gun Safety, the internet billionaire who founded Monster.com pours millions of dollars into anti-gun causes.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/election/pol1005.htm Avowed socialist Ted Turner (who created and owns CNN - the "unbiased" news source) does likewise. These aren't even about multiple companies subverting democracy as is claimed of gun companies doing so through the NRA, or even a single company doing so - it's about private individuals crafting public policy. You can't suvert democracy more than that!!

Hows this for buying power:

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16938

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn


Ok... let's go by your premise...

Here are the Federal gun laws (http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/FederalFirearms.htm) and here are the State Gun Laws for NC (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=Detail&R=NC)

Now, going by the letter of the law, HOW could the teens have used a gun to kill anyone? Oh wait... you say they BROKE the law to obtain weapons? Oh, OK, I see... so they were ALREADY criminals. Hmmm... we don't need MORE laws, we need to enforce the ones we have, AND PARENTS need to step up to the plate and DO THEIR JOB.


That sums it up. Thanks for cutting to the chase and ending anti-gun zealots' hand-wringing.

Here is a new version of my original post Updated

Gun Control: The Issues

Our great country was built on the foundation of our glorious constitution. This set down the sets of rights that we should live by and believe in. While almost all of those rights have been debated, tweaked, haggled over, and fought over; there is one that by far outshines the others, it is the 2nd Amendment, or the right to bear arms. Why is this a hot topic? Whys is it constantly brought up in politics, and daily life? Why should we even care about this topic? This paper will examine these questions and look at this hot topic.

The constitution set down many rights that were to be protected by the government, they were, at that time, very important beliefs that the majority felt hade to be protected. Since than though there has been alterations to the Constitution. Today there are no slaves, and everyone can vote. Now the 2nd Amendment is under fire. This Amendment says that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This was important in the 18th century because our national defense depending on militias, and people lived of the land. No though the role of militias in our country has disappeared, and the amount of people who live off the land has also gone down. So why do we still have this out-dated Amendment?

The first attempt at gun control was in 1919 when congress passed a law that levied a 10% manufactures tax on guns. Then, in 1927, Congress passed the law that prohibited interstate mailing of guns. 1934 brought the first heavy piece of legislation on the issue, the National Firearms Act. This required people with sawed of guns to register their sawed-off guns, manufactures had keep track of serial numbers, dealers and makers of ‘gangster weapons’ and to be licensed. This was latter added to by the Federal Firearms Act which one taxed the dealers, two required records to be kept of to whom the guns were sold, three made it illegal for a convicted felon to buy a gun, and four allowed licensed dealers to ship guns. (Barden, 34) These were the first big laws set out by the federal government; these were to bring on a whole landslide of issues for the rest of the 20th century.

This issue is always being used in government as a campaign base, as a piece of legislation, or as a way to get funding from interest groups. It also affected the people in politics very directly. In 1960 President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot; in April of 1968 a gun killed the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.; and, finally, John F. Kennedy’s brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, was gunned down only months after King. The guns that killed these important figures included a gun bought by mail, and a cheap ‘Saturday night special’. (Barden, 30-32) After these shootings, the gun control Act of 1968 was passed. This new law made the previous laws more effective and added other provisions, such as the ban on ‘Saturday Night Specials’. With these killings, the debate over Gun Control was lodged into our political spectrum forever.

The reason gun control is a valid issue is due to the high rates of gun crimes in our country. Citizens in America own over two million guns. (Hawkes, 4) These guns are said to be used as sport, to defend the family, and for self-defense. This rarely is the case, though, because of the 464 deaths by guns, only 14 were in self-defense. Plus, the gun in the home was six times more likely to shoot a family member, instead of an unwanted visitor. (Barden, 22) So why else do Americans have so many guns in their homes and in their life.

Why else are guns important? Most gun owners in the United States are men. (Hawkes, 13) The upbringing in America for years is that the man is a tough, and in control figure. The gun backs that role. The gun is a symbol of power, a symbol not to be reckoned with. While “packing heat”, a person feels safe and secure, especially for men. Men also feel the need to pass this along to the next generation of kids. Today in the United States, kids are being taught to use guns at a phenomenal rate. Since more kids over the years have access to guns, 27, 000 boys between the ages of 12 and 15 to be killed by guns in the last 10 years. ( Hawkes, 14)

Guns are also important in the field of law enforcement. The police in America have been armed with guns for over a hundred years. The police have very strict rules detailing exactly how their guns can be used. IF the guns are used against department rules the officer faces suspension, release from work, and could be even arrested. America has the largest armed police force in the world, which has led to the most police-suspect shootings. The armed police force is in place to insure protection of the people, but in shooting/hostage situations, it comes down to non-gun solutions. So this has led to some asking whether the police even need guns.

The argument that guns are used for leisure cannot be ignored either. Guns are used for hunting and sport target practice quite regularly in the United States. In America there are over 26 million hunting licenses. (Hawkes, 16) These licenses are used in hunting deer, duck, pheasant, and numerous other types of game. There has been debate over allowing kids to learn to hunt young. The argument is that when kids are taught to kill like this, it makes them immune to the value of life, and to the fact that killing is not bad. “You can look at some of the shooting rampages in schools- a lot of (the kids) were taught by an adult. In their minds, killing is a viable option,” says Susie Cutler, who is an active demonstrator against hunters. (Morrow, “Should Kids Hunt”) To some though hunting is a tradition and some see it as a need to hunt and pass their knowledge down to their kids. Jerry DeBin, the Alabama coordinator of conservation education, states, “ We’ve lost our connection to the land and outside world. Most people don’t even notice which way the wind is blowing.” (Hawkes, 18) he and others believe aht the children of today ought to be taught those skills, and the best way to do that is through hunting.

Among the many pro-gun lobbyists rises the strongest of them all, the National Rifle Association. Some Civil War Veterans founded the NRA in 1871 as a gun club with the intent to help up American’s skills with the gun. It was to have been a gun club for enthusiasts. (Barden, 42) Today, though, the NRA is a high-powered lobbyist organization. Its job is to try to persuade politicians towards their agenda for guns. The NRA believes that under the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to manufacture, transport, buy, and sell guns with no interference from the federal government. (Barden, 43-45) They also believe that any form of gun control is a direct infringe and insult to the citizens and their rights. The NRA says that even a thing like a waiting period would hurt the gun industry, because a waiting period would outlast the time of a gun show.

A strong part of the NRA position on guns is a favorite slogan, “ Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This is the belief that the high rate of gun deaths in this country is because of the people who own the guns. The solution to this problem isn’t taking away guns from ‘law-abiding’ citizens, but to put those who break the law in jail for very long amounts of time, according to the NRA. The proponents of Gun Control say that the jail sentences won’t bring back the people who have been killed, and won’t stop killers in the future from killing. Dr. Robert Lawerence, a pathologist( a person who studies bodies of dead people) brings up another thing that disputes the NRA’s stance. “ If you hit somebody enough times with a blunt object to kill him or her, you probably mean to kill them,” he says. “ That is not, in my opinion, always true with a firearm case. There are plenty of cases that involve a spur-of-the-moment lapse of judgment, or an intense moment of irresponsibility under the influence of alcohol or drugs, when a person will shoot somebody before they realize that it is over. Once that weapon discharges, it’s all over. It’s too late. Once you pull that trigger the other options are gone.” ( Barden, 43-45) So it’s a combination of the two, it is the person, but the person uses the guns to complete their task as cleanly as possible.

The lobbyists in the gun industry by far are one of the leading contributors to politicians. In the 1999-2000-election cycle gun rights groups gave 3.7 million dollars to candidates, with 90% of that going to the Republicans. (www.opensecrets.org/new/guns/index) These groups, led by the NRA, have given more than 13 million dollars since 1990. Members of the GOP have been the core receivers of the money. SO, we can also assume that usually a Republican will vote against a gun control law. Sometimes though the politicians will actually vote their conscience, like Rep. Constance Morelle(R-Md) who stood with Democrats on a strict gun control law. The lobbyists in the NRA lobbyists have had its strong influence state and local governments, by doing this funding, and they also have kept their influence strong by the contributions.

Many groups from different sectors of life, but for the same underlying cause have fought the fight for gun control. Two groups that have been key figures are the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March. The Brady Campaign started after the shooting of President Reagan, and his Press Secretary, James Brady. The shooting left the President with a short stay in the hospital, but left Brady paralyzed. ( Barden, 43-45) After this shooting Brady and his wife Sarah started the Brady Campaign, which grew out of the NCCH, National Council to Control Handguns. Working with this group and President Clinton, they got the Brady Law passed. This put into effect a mandatory waiting period of three days. Even after the shooting, Reagan, a life-long member of the NRA kept up his strong anti-control approach on guns.

The other group, Million Mom March, is a grass roots organization built out of the efforts of several parents. The group held its first protest in front of the Capital Building on Mother’s Day in 1999. Over 750,000 people attended this rally, plus people around the country attending chapter rallies at state capitals. This group has joined with the Brady Campaign, politicians, veterans, and many other groups to form one of the most effective groups out there for better gun control.

The ideas being fought over in the gun control camp include many things. Right now a hot topic in the news is ballistic fingerprinting. After a gun is fired it leaves distinct scratches on the bullet, like a fingerprint. A national database of their ‘fingerprints’ would help police figure out exactly what kind of gun and where it came from. Right now there is legislation in both the Senate and the House for the creation of such database. ( www.handgun.org, “Issues”)
In the recent sniper shootings in Maryland a copy of the military M-16 was being used. Gun Control advocates say that these military weapons should not be on the streets. In an interview with Maida Taylor, a physician, graduate of Cal-Berkley graduate, and a former member of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) “ Assault weapons were designed for killing, and that will always be their purpose.” ( Taylot, Interveiw) In a study done by the ATF it was said that an automatic assault weapon was 20 times more likely to be linked to a killing than any other firearm. Right now there are suits against makers of these weapons, and laws trying to prohibit the selling of high ammunition magazines. ( www.handguncontrol.org, “Issues”) The politicians in this country are starting to wake up to this problem, by going out and voting for measures that would restrict these types of guns, a problem that wouldn’t be if those weapons hadn’t gotten out of the military.

The waiting period has always been at the top of the gun control advocates agenda. It is their belief that the ability to buy a gun in a moment of rage is what leads to many killings. Without a waiting period there is no time to do a background check on the buyer. In Utah, on January 14, 1999, a lady with a history of mental illness, bought a gun and than walked to an office building, killing one and wounding another. (www.handguncontrol.org “Issues”) If this lady had to wait she might have settled down, or her mental history would have been picked up by a background check. Then there are the cases like the shooting of President Reagan. His shooter, John Hinkley, had walked into a pawnshop to buy a gun. He gave the seller a fake address on the Federal Firearms sale form, and than walked out with his new gun. If there had been a waiting period the seller would have discovered the lies on the form and could’ve stopped the crime. (www.handguncontrol.org “Issues”) These are just some of the on which the Gun Control advocates have been able to base their campaign. The one piece of legislation specifically about a waiting period is the Brady Bill, passed with the knowledge of what happened when John Hinkley walked into the pawnshop.

The war over guns is a war fought with words, money, elections, and legislation. This has been a war fought in our country for 50 years now. History and a strong and independent people contribute in many ways to this ongoing debate. Both sides fight continuously to better the country and its people, in their own ways. Each of us is obligated to study the situation, and listen to all sides, and than make a thoughtful, educated decision. Above all, is this an individual right that should be taken away for the good of many?

what iwas saying was that out of all the groups in this issue, look how much the NRA spends comared to other groups. Also we dont even need to look at the money, the NRA has played sucha hard ball campaign that its basically the same. THe nra uses their power in ways that other groups would be afraid of, all because they are afraid to lose their gun sales.

Originally posted by Proletarian
what iwas saying was that out of all the groups in this issue, look how much the NRA spends comared to other groups. Also we dont even need to look at the money, the NRA has played sucha hard ball campaign that its basically the same. THe nra uses their power in ways that other groups would be afraid of, all because they are afraid to lose their gun sales.

First,thats not what you said.
Second,the nra{who I am no fan of anyway** does not use its power anydifferently than any other group.From gays, to edgucation to civilrights.

The nra does not manufacture firearms is not a retailer{of even a minor sort** of guns dear.that is more mis information and I see you still did not give us the full names or studies that your foot notes are for so rebutle of them will be next to impossible.
Real brave of you.

Bibliography
-Barden, Renardo. Gun Control. Vero Beach, Fl: The Rourke Coporation, INC, 1990.
-“Gun Control” Google. 2002. www.opensecrets.com/news/guns/index.html
-Hawkes, Wigel. Gun Control. New York: Gloucester Press, 1988.
-Halcrow, Patricia. “Charlton Heston and the Sniper.” The New York Times -10/24/02, Editorial Desk.
-“Issues” www.handguncontrol.org
-Morrow, Lance. “Should Kids Hunt?” Time November 30, 1998
-Taylor, Maida. Interveiw. 11/6/02

They dont sell guns, but dont they fund gun shows?

Please do give me an example how it doesnt act like it does.

Dont get into personal bashings your fighting with someone else on the internet tisk tisk there are my sources read away

This is a debate, not a boxing match.

This Amendment says that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This was important in the 18th century because our national defense depending on militias, and people lived of the land. No though the role of militias in our country has disappeared, and the amount of people who live off the land has also gone down. So why do we still have this out-dated Amendment? First,the second is not isolated only to the militia.But lets assume your fallacey is true.

I will try and keep this as short as possible.

The militia is still needed and has been called out for use as late as WWII.

During World War II, which was fought with essentially the same types of ground combat weapons that exist today, armed citizens were considered quite important. After Pearl Harbor the unorganized militia was called into action. Nazi submarines were constantly in action off the East Coast. On the West Coast, the Japanese seized several Alaskan islands, and strategists wondered if the Japanese might follow up on their dramatic victories in the Pacific with an invasion of the Alaskan mainland, Hawaii, or California. Hawaii's governor summoned armed citizens to man checkpoints and patrol remote beach areas.[Alan Gottlieb, "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right," Northern Kentucky Law Review 10 (1982): 138.]

Maryland's governor called on "the Maryland Minute Men," consisting mainly of "members of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting Clubs and similar organizations," for "repelling invasion forays, parachute raids, and sabotage uprisings," as well as for patrolling beaches, water supplies, and railroads. Over 15,000 volunteers brought their own weapons to duty.[Governor O'Conor of Maryland delivered a radio address on March 10, 1942, at which he called for volunteers to defend the state: "[T]he volunteers, for the most part, will be expected to furnish their own weapons. For this reason, gunners (of whom there are sixty thousand licensed in Maryland), members of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting and similar organizations will be expected to constitute a part of this new military organization." State Papers and Addresses of Governor O'Conor, vol III, p. 618, quoted in Bob Dowlut, "The Right to Bear Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?" Oklahoma Law Review 36 (1985): 76-77, n. 52. See also Kates, Why Handgun Bans Can't Work, p. 74, citing Baker, "I Remember 'The Army' with Men from 16 to 79," Baltimore Sun Maqazine, November 16, 1975, p. 46.]

Gun owners in Virginia were also summoned into home service.[M. Schlegel, Virqinia On Guard--Civilian Defense and the State Militia in the Second World War (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1949), pp. 45, 129, 131. According to Schlegel, the Virginia militia "leaned heavily on sportsmen," because they could provide their own weapons. Ibid., p. 129; quoted in Bob Dowlut, "State Constitutions and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Oklahoma City University Law Review 2 (1982): 198.]
Americans everywhere armed themselves in case of invasion.["To Arms," Time, March 30, 1942, p. 1.]

After the National Guard was federalized for overseas duty, "the unorganized militia proved a successful substitute for the National Guard," according to a Defense Department study. Militiamen, providing their own guns, were trained in patrolling, roadblock techniques, and guerilla warfare.[Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, U.S. Home Defense Forces Study (March 1981), pp. 32, 34, 58-63, quoted in Dowlut, "State Constitutions," p. 197.]

The War Department distributed a manual recommending that citizens keep "weapons which a guerilla in civilian clothes can carry without attracting attention. They must be easily portable and easily concealed. First among these is the pistol."[Originally printed as Bert Levy, Guerilla Warfare (New York: Penguin Books, 1942), p. 55; reprinted as B. Levy, Guerilla Warfare (Panther Publications: 1964), p. 56; quoted in Dowlut, "State Constitutions," p. 198, n. 91.]

In Europe, lightly armed civilian guerrillas were even more important; the U.S. government supplied anti-Nazi partisans with a $1.75 analogue to the zip gun (a very low quality handgun).[Julian Hatcher, Frank Jury, and Joe Weller, Firearms Investiqation Identification and Evidence (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole, 1957), p. 59.]

Of course, ordinary citizens are not going to grab their Saturday night specials and charge into oncoming columns of tanks. Resistance to tyranny or invasion would be a guerrilla war. In the early years of such a war, before guerrillas would be strong enough to attack the occupying army head on, heavy weapons would be a detriment, impeding the guerrillas' mobility. As a war progresses, Mao Zedong explained, the guerrillas would use ordinary firearms to capture better small arms and eventually heavy equipment.[Mao Zedong, Mao-Tse Tung on Guerilla Warfare, translated by S. Griffith (New York: Praeger, 1961), cited in Raymond Kessler, "Gun Control and Political Power," Law and Policy Ouarterly 5 (1983): 395.]

The Afghan mujahedeen have been greatly helped by the new Stinger antiaircraft missiles, but they had already fought the Soviets to a draw using a locally made version of the outdated Lee-Enfield rifle.["One Year Later, Analysts Groping for Answers to Afghanistan," Kansas City Times, December 26, 1980, p. B-3, cited in Kessler, p. 395.]

One clear lesson of this century is that a determined guerrilla army can wear down an occupying force until the occupiers lose spirit and depart--just what happened in Ireland in 1920 and Palestine in 1948. As one author put it: "Anyone who claims that popular struggles are inevitably doomed to defeat by the military technologies of our century must find it literally incredible that France and the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam . . . that Portugal was expelled from Angola; and France from Algeria."[Gottlieb, p. 139. Even the pro-control New York Times editorial board sometimes understands the efficacy of lightly armed guerrillas; see, for example, "Who Will Hold the Guns in Rhodesia?" New York Times, August 31, 1977, p. 18. Nor do the guerrillas have to drive the occupier out single-handedly. At the least, guerrillas can tie down the enemy army, weakening the enemy so that he is defeated elsewhere. Although the Nazis faced critical manpower shortages on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union, a sixth of their forces were deployed fighting Tito and his Yugoslavian partisans.]

If guns are truly useless in a revolution, it is hard to explain why dictators as diverse as Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, and the Bulgarian communists have ordered firearms confiscations upon taking power.[For the Philippines, see Sherrill, p. 272. For Uganda, "Uganda Curbs Firearms," New York Times, December 22, 1969, p. 36. For Cuba, see Kessler, p. 382; Crum, "Gun Control Paved Castro's Way, Conservative Digest, April 1976, p. 33 (use of Batista's registration lists to facilitate confiscation); Williams, "The Rise of Castro: 'If only we hadn't given up our guns!"', Medina Countv Gazette, October 15, 1978, p. 5. For Bulgaria, see "Gun Control Laws in Foreign Countries," rev. ed. (Washington: Library of Congress, 1976), p. 33. (Upon coming to power Bulgarian communists immediately confiscated all firearms.)]

So much for the above statement .

Second point,assuming the fallacy of the second applies only to a militia:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next
Sec. 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 members 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

See previous post examples of this militias use in recent times.

Originally posted by Proletarian
Bibliography
-Barden, Renardo. Gun Control. Vero Beach, Fl: The Rourke Coporation, INC, 1990.
-?Gun Control? Google. 2002. www.opensecrets.com/news/guns/index.html
-Hawkes, Wigel. Gun Control. New York: Gloucester Press, 1988.
-Halcrow, Patricia. ?Charlton Heston and the Sniper.? The New York Times -10/24/02, Editorial Desk.
-?Issues? www.handguncontrol.org
-Morrow, Lance. ?Should Kids Hunt?? Time November 30, 1998
-Taylor, Maida. Interveiw. 11/6/02
Thank you.However I still cant get the opensecrets site to work

I wasnt talking about revolutions, so how does that fit in.

Almost all of you examples were from ww2, ties have changed and we no longer even need the small amount that it was used in ww2. Today our national guards are stronger than they were in ww2 and we have the coast guard to monitor the seas. Why do we have to continuly live in the past, with outdated ideas, our country was meant to change, so let it change.

They dont sell guns, but dont they fund gun shows?

I never said they did not fund guns shows.First,not all are funded by them and second,that does not make them a retailer.It makes them a sponsor.Like sponsering a little leagu team hardly makes that sponser a sports team owner.they dont get the proceeds from gun sales as a retailer.Unless there was some special previouse arangement{which may be illegal**.

Please do give me an example how it doesnt act like it does.

Once again,the berden of proof is on you.You made the acusation,it is up to you to provide evidence to back up what you said.
And remember,you said like no other would do.Thats a big statement!


Dont get into personal bashings your fighting with someone else on the internet tisk tisk there are my sources read away

Nothing personal.You posted it twice and never gave what was asked for after the first time until you were prodded.I should not have had to do so.Once is understandable.Twice is just ignoring others lagitamate request.

This is a debate, not a boxing match.

Well,you may have come to the wrong place if you think that but, see above.

Originally posted by Proletarian
I wasnt talking about revolutions, so how does that fit in.

Almost all of you examples were from ww2, ties have changed and we no longer even need the small amount that it was used in ww2. Today our national guards are stronger than they were in ww2 and we have the coast guard to monitor the seas. Why do we have to continuly live in the past, with outdated ideas, our country was meant to change, so let it change.

I was not talking soley about revolutions either.Nor were my example all either.There were plenty that were not revolutionary,unless you call defendding a nation a revolution.

WWII was not that long agao and as stated,the same weapons and tactics are stil used,even into modern times.
We are not as strong as you think.The idea is not outdated because of what the militia is and was and what the founders intended.Besides,the laws and statute are clear as to what the militia is.Not what some modern thinkers wishes it to be.Every country has a reserve force.That is what we need if a major war broke out.This is evident enough by the fact that we still register for the draft.

The cost guard cant even stop illegal alleins and drug runners,much less a submarine force or invation.LOL.

Self defence{ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THE SEOND,IS NOT OUTDATED.AND WILL NEVER CHANGE**.I wanted that clear,not yelling at you.

"...the second amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like [in] Grozny, [and in] 1776, when they take your independence away." - Bob Dornan, January 25, 1994 response to Clinton's State of the Union address

"If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory." - Mickey Kaus, Washington Post, Jan 8 1980, in op-ed by Michael Kinsley (a liberal Democrat quoting a liberal Democrat)


The Constitution is worth nothing if it is valid to throw out amendments because of one's view of "the evolution of history and the role of the federal government" renders them obsolete. I hope you are not trying to advocate that the supreme court as well as the founders are incompotent in the constatution and we now know better?That is treachery and the road to despotism.Dictators use the same reasons to justify their brand of order and "safety" as i see you using.That scares me !!There is a big difference between sound reasons and reasons that sound good.

Fox News By Jon Du Pre 07/06/2000.
"We know that criminals are still getting guns on the street through the black market," said Luis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc. .Well ,well,well.Seems we gun nuts have been calling it right the entire time.
Actually though, I am all for the sissy left wingers calling for further bans on guns, it makes more and more people go out and buy them, buy ammunition and call up folks like me and us "not normal " folks to ask for lessons on how to shoot them. What is most amazing is that the louder the liberals shriek for gun control, the more military style weapons get purchased. You guys keep it up and I'll bet there will be more assault weapons in the hands of civilians than in the hands of the military.So one can make the acussation that it is you who are the gun makers supporters.You who care only about retail sales,ect. Way to go liberals!!!! You have found your purpose in life - too bad it isn't the one you wanted.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant the pre-existing right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia let alone a well regulated one, is not required to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
The militia is one reason,not the reason and that is clear by the founders debates that a standding army was not to be trusted.

The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment applied only to members of a well regulated militia or that the sole purpose of this amendment was to preserve the right of states to keep their militias.

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge, wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Tucker's remarks are solid evidence that the militia clause was not the sole reason for preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Tucker specifically mentions self-defense. This indicates two things: The scope of the right to keep and bear arms was not restricted to military purposes or the common defense (just such a provision was rejected by the Senate), and that "the people" means individuals, not a collective entity, and not a state.
(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

In the Federalist Papers, No. 29, Alexander Hamilton clearly states membership in a well regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
---The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted. A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).

FEDERALIST No. 29

Concerning the Militia
From the New York Packet.
Wednesday, January 9, 1788

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in
times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties
of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal
peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in
the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with
the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for
the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the
camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage
of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them
much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions
which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity
can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to
the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most
evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower
the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA
ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan
of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been
expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this
particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be
the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be
under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is
constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies
are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the
body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as
unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid
of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in
support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the
employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of
the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army
unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence
than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to
execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is
nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the
POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty,
whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his
only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which
have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much
calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair
dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath,
that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and
unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient
even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as
much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd
to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute
its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of
the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of
those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws
necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would
involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of
landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to
it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power
to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of
color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it,
in its application to the authority of the federal government over the
militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be
to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of
authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when
necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of
sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between
charity and conviction?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are
even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of
the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed,
composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the
views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia
may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen.
But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who
object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and
were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature
from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold
to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried
into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a
business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a
week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great
body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be
under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of
perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated
militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public
inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the
productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon
the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole
expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a
thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so
considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made,
could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can
reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to
have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be
not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in
the course of a year.

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be
abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the
utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible,
be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of
the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a
select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit
them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it
will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia,
ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require
it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but
if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at
all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready
to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing
army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution
should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from
the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and
perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is
a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of
danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to
treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere
trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous
artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring
of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our
fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors,
our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are
daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate
with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What
reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the
Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its
services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the
SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible
seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable
establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the
officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to
extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always
secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is
apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance,
which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind
nothing but frightful and distorted shapes --

"Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire";

discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming
everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable
suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for
the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to
Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of
Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch
are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d´ors and ducats. At one
moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the
people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from
their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy
of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an
equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic
Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art
or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the
people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism,
what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the
militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and
hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery
upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of
the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a
project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to
make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed
people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a
numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the
detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do
they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of
power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves
universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober
admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they
the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If
we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most
ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would
employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper
that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another,
to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence
of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the
first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is,
indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of
affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be
no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a
neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of
self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

The "Friends and Family" fallacy
It is common for the "public health" advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of "friends and family." The medical literature includes many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger"[9] and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection."[10]

Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides,[11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends." Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also against their relatives.[12,13,14,15]

Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence."[16]

The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present "in the home."


[9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. "Reducing Firearm Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9.

[10] Christoffel KK. "Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms: Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992; 88:294-300.

[11] Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5.

[12] Dawson JB aand Langan PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7.

[13] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993.

[14] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.

[15] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532.

[16] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide." Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993.


Got to go.see ya later.

See Micheal Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The movie speaks for itself.

Originally posted by Criminal
See Micheal Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The movie speaks for itself. Yes, as an unmitigated piece of tripe.

Originally posted by QtrHrsmn
Yes, as an unmitigated piece of tripe.
Did you see it? If so how can you explain the fact that the US leads Canada, all nations of Europe or Japan in the number of Murders?

For me, one point sums up all of the gun rhetoric. Gun laws by definition are for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminals are those who break laws, what is one more?

Originally posted by Criminal

Did you see it? If so how can you explain the fact that the US leads Canada, all nations of Europe or Japan in the number of Murders?

How do you explain the fact that Britain still had a lower homicide rate even when they had very few laws restricting gun ownership?

Originally posted by Criminal
See Micheal Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The movie speaks for itself.

Sure. And for an excellent piece on the dangers of tornados, you can watch The Wizard of Oz. :rolleyes:

To DngrMse you point our the fact of low homicide rate and no gun laws. Well they also dont have a ton of guns like Americans do. They have never been given the constitutional right ot bear arms. So they have less guns, not because of laws.

Proletarian

Originally posted by Criminal

Did you see it? If so how can you explain the fact that the US leads Canada, all nations of Europe or Japan in the number of Murders?

how can you explain that even if we remove all gun deaths{suecide accident ect.** that we STILL lead the ones you selectively picked?

Originally posted by Proletarian
To DngrMse you point our the fact of low homicide rate and no gun laws. Well they also dont have a ton of guns like Americans do. They have never been given the constitutional right ot bear arms. So they have less guns, not because of laws.

Proletarian
Not true.

Arms possession for protection of self, family and polity was both the hallmark of the individual's freedom and one of the two primary factors in his developing the independent, self- reliant, responsible character which classical liberal political philosophers deemed necessary to the citizenry of a free state. The symbolic significance of arms as epitomizing the status of the free citizen represented ancient law. From Anglo-Saxon times "the ceremony of freeing a slave included the placing in his hands of" arms "as a symbol of his new rank." Likewise in Norman times, "the Laws of Henry I stipulate[d] that a serf should be liberated by" a public ceremony involving "placing in his hands the arms suitable to a freeman." Anglo-Saxon law forbade anyone to disarm a free man and Henry I's laws applied this even to the man's own lord. [A. Norman, The Medieval Soldier 73 (1971), 1 English Historical Documents c. 500-1042, 427 (D. Whitelock ed. 1955), The Assize of Arms 416 (1181), reprinted in II English Historical Documents (D. Douglas & C. Greenaway eds. 1953).]

Such precedents were particularly important to theorists like Blackstone and Jefferson to whom the concept of "natural rights" had a strongly juridical tinge relating to the English legal heritage.

The Anglo-American legal distinction between free man/armed and unfree/disarmed flowed naturally into the classical liberal view that the survival of free and popular government required citizens of a special character - and that the possession of arms was one of two keys in the development of that character. >From Machiavelli and Harrington classical liberal philosophy derived the idea that arms possession and property ownership were the keys to civic virtu. In the Greek and Roman republics from whose example they took so many lessons, every free man had been armed so as to be prepared both to defend his family against outlaws and to man the city walls in immediate response to the tocsin warning of approaching enemies. Thus did each citizen commit himself to the fulfillment of both his private and his public responsibilities.[See, e.g. Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, 69 J. Am. Hist. 599 (1982), Original Meaning, 82 Mich. L. Rev. supra; Malcolm, The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Perspective,Original Meaning, 82 Mich. L. Rev. at 230-2. ]



Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.
there is no correlation between the
availability of firearms, the homicide rate, or the suicide rate in America.[Prof. Gary Kleck, ?Targeting Guns: Firearms and their control?, w/ supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1972 to 1995]

Most gun-related crime is
caused by gang activity and is in poor neighborhoods. These organized bands of criminals commit many crimes, and guns are tools they use. Control gangs and you will control gun violence (consider that more than 28% of kids in high school report street
gang presence at their schools**.

Per capita firearm ownership rates have remained relatively unchanged since 1959 while crime rates have gone up and down depending on economics, drug trafficking innovations, and ?get tough? legislation.[Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control 97 (1997).based on a compilation from 1959 through 1996.]

Gun Control is always being used in government as a campaign base, as a piece of legislation, or as a way to get funding from interest groups.

That is because they are corrupt Socialists.

Even after the shooting Reagan, a life-long member of the NRA kept up his strong anti-control approach on guns.


Because Reagan was one of the good republicans.

Cercyon why don´t you once go to shooting range and try it out. Your fear will disappear. Words are hollow.

Citizens in America own over 2 million guns. (Hawkes, 4)

There are 75 million gun owners. Hawkes guy is blowing smoke in thin air. You think all the gun owners have a cooperative where they share the gun LOL. Failing to get this basic fact straight shows the incompetency of Hawkes guy.

TThis rarely is the case though, out of 464 deaths by guns, only 14 were in self-defense.

Most criminals are not stupid enough to fight armed homeowner. They run away. This also shows gun owners are not crazy gun swindlers out to shoot.

Plus the gun in the home was 6 times more likely to shoot a family member, instead of an unwanted visitor. (Barden, 22)

This self perpetuating lie has been discredit millions of times.But ,here is the e-mail response I got when asked of the methodology:

From the abstract:

Objectives: Determine the relative frequency with
which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in
self-defense, compared with the number of times these
weapons are involved in an unintentional injury,
suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

Methods: We reviewed the police, medical examiner,
emergency medical service, emergency department, and
hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings
in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle,
Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

Results: During the study interval (12 months in
Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626
shootings occurred in or around a residence. This
total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118
attempted or completed suicides, and 438
assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally
justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three
that involved law enforcement officers acting in the
line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was
used in a self-defense or legally justifiable
shooting, there were four unintentional shootings,
seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted
or completed suicides.

Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be
involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting,
criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used
to injure or kill in self-defense.

Well dhuuuuuuuuu!

they pick the most likely placed to have their theory proved.These are the places the drugg running gang bangers are sent when they shoot each other up.In other words,they picked the most crime ridden areas which have a plethera of illegal guns and make it the standard for the rest of the nation.

Using that method,I can run a studdy in podunk iowa where there has been no murder or gun death in 20 years and many guns are in the homes and
calim that not having a gun in the home is far more likely to get you killed.Having applied the same methodology to non-gun deaths and non-gun self-protection homicides in the home, the risk factor more than doubles . Another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?"



So maybe these reason are why Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom combined had 59 handgun deaths in 1985, while the United States alone had 8,092 handgun deaths. (Barden, 23)

That has nothing to do with guns. Look at Japans totalitarion culture. Besides the entitlement mentaliy created by schools in america´s kids makes them somehow "feel" they have a claim on other people´s rights. That is the root of crime.

has led to 27, 000 boys between the ages of 12 and 15 to be killed by guns. ( Hawkes, 14)

We have already discredited Hawkes and his methods. I will not believe his stats further.

There has been debate over allowing kids to learn to hunt young. The argument is that when kids are taught to kill like this, it makes them immune to the value of life, and to the fact that killing is not bad.

Well if kids cannot tell the difference between game and a human being, there is something wrong with public schools(public indoctrination system) not guns. Secondly kids, when they grow up, need to be able to kill when criminals or tyrannt´s Stormtroopers come parading by. I would go as far as saying that kids should be given paramilitary training. I think it was Henry lee adams who said "It is important that the whole body of people be trained at an early age."
and somebody said "Martial spirit is necessary for the preservation of freedom."

?You can look at some of the shooting rampages in schools- a lot of (the kids) were taught by adult. In their minds, killing is a viable option,? says Susie Cutler, who is an active demonstrator against hunters.

That is connecting two unconnected points. There is no proof that kids who go hunting went on the rampage in schools. Is there???

The NRA believes that under the 2nd Amendment Americans have the rights to manufacture, transport, buy, and sell guns with no interference from the federal government.

For this I refer you to tenth amendment. "Powers not delegated to federal are reserved to the states or to the people."
Delegated powers are in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. I challenge you to find the delegated power to feds to interfere with firearms.

Nobody can run away from a bullet, so who is the real killer, the inescapable gun, or the angry person.

That is why Gun training at an early age would solve the problem. How many times do expert marskmen, military people or veteran shoot somebody in accident. Almost none.
receivers of the money.

SO we can also assume that usually a Republican will vote against a gun control law.

Republicans are no good except for Ron Paul. Libertarians are true second amendment supporters not republicrats.Not to mention someone forgot to tell John Mcain about you stereotype.

Many groups from different sectors of life, but for the same underlying cause have fought the fight for Gun Control.

I would say different sectors of sewers where communist. globalist one worlders. Constitution haters. And Freedom haters reside.IMHO.
Or even the mentaly challenged when it comes to good scientific data colecting and studies,which your sources clearly are not capable of{its called bias by the way**.