I realize I'm not the most intelligent person in the world but I heard this on the radio this morning (our radio news comes in via ABCNews)

My Paraphrased Version:

Supreme court rulings over the past decade state that the second Constitutional Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) has been restricted to military personell, law enforcement and (they listed one other party that I can't remember.) YESTERDAY (May 7) a new Supreme Court ruling stated that the second amendment now applies to all individuals.

What do you think caused this?

What do you think the immediate effects will be?

Do you think this is a horrific mistake?

I found it:

W A S H I N G T O N, May 7 — The Bush administration has told the Supreme Court for the first time that it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, reversing the government's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment.

At the same time, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test that principle now.
"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week.

That right, however, is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting the view of Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens, and not merely to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the amendment's text.

Ashcroft caused a stir when he expressed a similar statement in a letter to the National Rifle Association last year.

"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.

Of course the second amendment applies to individuals. Why would'nt it?

I'm just glad we finally have an administration with stones enough to force the issue.

Originally posted by DngrMse
Of course the second amendment applies to individuals. Why would'nt it?

I'm just glad we finally have an administration with stones enough to force the issue.

Hell yeah, it's about time. Finally people can read simple English and not get confused by the simplest of words ... like "is" and ”... Shall not be infringed ..."

Think about this, when the constitution was written ,there was a constant threat of the British coming to invade, therefore citizens needed to bear arms. Now that times have drastically changed, it's time to disarm the population ,and ammend the constitution, as (appart from music groups), there is no threat of the English invading.

Originally posted by mayaneagle
there is no threat of the English invading.

The british haven't been a threat since 1812. Got anymore clues?

Originally posted by mayaneagle
Think about this, when the constitution was written ,there was a constant threat of the British coming to invade, therefore citizens needed to bear arms. Now that times have drastically changed, it's time to disarm the population ,and ammend the constitution, as (appart from music groups), there is no threat of the English invading.

Many people would argue that the reason the right to bear arsm was 'granted' was not to protect us from British attack, but because the nature of power is to corrupt, and that another time may come, in the nations future, where the need to fight the government would come again.

I do not own a gun, not sure if I ever will (probably, but not sure) but I would never want to vote for someone in favor of an ammendment to bar the 2nd.

Originally posted by Manu


Many people would argue that the reason the right to bear arsm was 'granted' was not to protect us from British attack, but because the nature of power is to corrupt, and that another time may come, in the nations future, where the need to fight the government would come again.

I do not own a gun, not sure if I ever will (probably, but not sure) but I would never want to vote for someone in favor of an ammendment to bar the 2nd.
Coutries such as Australia don't allow an aremed populace, yet their country functions just fine without the idea that "someday we might have to take up arms against our government"
Notice, if anyone takes up arms against the US government, the National guard, the FBI, etc. would crush them.(Remember Waco?) (Remember the civil war?)Look at it this way ,nobody is going to succeed in taking up arms against the federal government. We might as well disarm the population to prevent bloodshed from those crazy enough to challenge our imperfect, but better than the rest ,elected government.
Does it say anywhere in the constitution to take up arms against our own government. That would be treason.

FBU-

Right, but countries like Austrailia also show mixed results with their policy of an unarmed populace. i.e Criminals still get guns.

Am I retarded and missing something? I've known people that own guns throughout my life that had nothing to do with military. I don't think I'll ever own a gun and would prefer it if no one did, but as far as I know, it's always been a right. They sell guns at kmart for gods sake. What am I missing? People have always owned guns.

Originally posted by mayaneagle
Think about this, when the constitution was written ,there was a constant threat of the British coming to invade, therefore citizens needed to bear arms. Now that times have drastically changed, it's time to disarm the population ,and ammend the constitution, as (appart from music groups), there is no threat of the English invading.

Huh? I think you need to read/study U.S. Colonial and Revolutionary history a little more. The People (individuals) were allowed to be armed because it was a safeguard against tyranny. The FF felt that a "standing army" was a dangerous tool to be around, and could be used on a whim by a powermonger that may seize control of the government. The Constitution is in place as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. The Constitution's purpose is to put limits on government's power.

I recommend that you read the wise words of our Founding Fathers. Here are some of their thoughts on why we are armed...

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” - George Washington

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. The rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.” – George Washington

“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 to John Cartwright, 1824.

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 46

Originally posted by mayaneagle
Think about this, when the constitution was written ,there was a constant threat of the British coming to invade, therefore citizens needed to bear arms. Now that times have drastically changed, it's time to disarm the population ,and ammend the constitution, as (appart from music groups), there is no threat of the English invading.


Personally, I believe it is a right that the government can not take away. What happens when there's a terrorist attack on the ground and the first people there are civilians with weapons? Wait, sorry...using what-ifs...dangit...point lsot continue on with debate.

Actually, isn't the government all about what-ifs?

BTW, I don't own any weapons other than my m16-A2 service rifle that's issued to me and I still don't own that. I haven't fired a weapon since 2000, but I've thrown grenades:D :D :D

Carry-on

I'm of the belief that we'd all be better without ANY guns and by we, I mean all of humanity, individuals, gov't, monkeys, etc. I hate the idea of artificial equalizers. However, that's a dream world. And as soon as a single party holds a power above and beyond all others then it's only appropriate to have a checking function or else that ultimate power will corrupt absolutely.

So who should be checked and who should be a checker? We don't start off with the checking power. That comes along afer age 18 for most handguns and usually with parental consent prior to that. Seems like a SOMEWHAT fair rule, as we all know that kids love getting shot.

And criminals, while in prison and usually afterwards aren't supposed to have guns.

Unfortunately here, like many other issues, the plan (or secondary formal group as Merton calls it) is an idealized creation for how reality is. Clearly we're aware of the deviation from the law. That's why we have laws. If we had the ability to predict every illegal action prior to its action than no one would need guns, and therefore everyone would also be entitled to have them as a result of no negative results arousing from them (they'd be strictly neutral or postive products).

Reality is, people have guns that shouldn't. Reality is people use guns in ways they shouldn't. Reality is guns are ONLY going to kill people. Whether those people are criminals or upstanding citizens, a tyranical gov't or a warring nation those people are going to die.

I don't like guns, but I don't like power imbalances either. I don't like being robbed, but I don't like guns being possessed by every citizen as a means of combating this. I don't like being powerless in case of a need to defend myself, but don't trust our collective judgment on the appropriate time to kill.

As it is, we cannot possibly remove all guns from everyone, and until that time I have to side with freedom to defend oneself, even if it is not a position I'm happy to have to take.

Justin

Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn
Coutries such as Australia don't allow an aremed populace, yet their country functions just fine without the idea that "someday we might have to take up arms against our government”

First, who cares what Australia does? I don’t. However, I feel sorry for those Australians who WANT to protect themselves or hunt with a weapon and cannot.

It makes not your argument because the results of this “ban” has shown an increase in gun-related crimes. Criminals DO NOT care if there’s a law banning guns. They’re already breaking the law by committing their robbery, rape etc. What’s a silly gun ban to them? Nothing…

Here are the facts about what’s going on in Australia…

[F]rom 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
Murder 321 284 -11.5%
Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abductions 562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0%

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=30


Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.”

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=78


Laws not allowing people the freedom and the right to arm and protect themselves shows complete and utter contempt for law abiding citizens.

Remember that Hitler ALSO confiscated guns from the German people. He began with taking arms from the Jews…


Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn
We might as well disarm the population to prevent bloodshed from those crazy enough to challenge our imperfect, but better than the rest ,elected government.

Dude, you sound like someone who would have easily followed Hitler or other despotic monsters.


Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn
Does it say anywhere in the constitution to take up arms against our own government. That would be treason.

You need to review our founding documents a little closer. It’s not in the Constitution. That’s where limits on our federal government are outlined. However, within the Declaration of Independence it states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Now, we have a representative government - a Republic - where we make changes and alterations to the nation's laws, and make new laws and repeal old laws. This is also where we hash out our differences or make no decision at all.

The Founders knew - though - that ALL government eventually becomes corrupt. How, we the people, handle and deal with these challenges is left up to us. But they laid a foundation for all of us to model. Remember, the FF's actions were considered treasonous to the British Empire, and the Declaration of Independence was the document that outlined their beliefs/philosophy.

The second ammendment to the US Constitution is by far the most controversial ammendments. I dont necessarily think that any ruling would change how the ammendment is interpreted. Remember that the current suppreme court is extrememly conservative. In the future this may change.

>>>>Dude, you sound like someone who would have easily followed Hitler or other despotic monsters. <<<<
Look here "Statistics King", how dare you compare me to the general proliterian populace of Hitler's Germany. I don't see how my views, being a well educated person, make me comparable to the uneducated, unenlightened Nazis. Get over yourself buddy.

Originally posted by eanax


First, who cares what Australia does? I don’t. However, I feel sorry for those Australians who WANT to protect themselves or hunt with a weapon and cannot.

It makes not your argument because the results of this “ban” has shown an increase in gun-related crimes. Criminals DO NOT care if there’s a law banning guns. They’re already breaking the law by committing their robbery, rape etc. What’s a silly gun ban to them? Nothing…

Here are the facts about what’s going on in Australia…

[F]rom 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
Murder 321 284 -11.5%
Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abductions 562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0%

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=30


Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.”

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=78


Laws not allowing people the freedom and the right to arm and protect themselves shows complete and utter contempt for law abiding citizens.

Remember that Hitler ALSO confiscated guns from the German people. He began with taking arms from the Jews…




Dude, you sound like someone who would have easily followed Hitler or other despotic monsters.




You need to review our founding documents a little closer. It’s not in the Constitution. That’s where limits on our federal government are outlined. However, within the Declaration of Independence it states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Now, we have a representative government - a Republic - where we make changes and alterations to the nation's laws, and make new laws and repeal old laws. This is also where we hash out our differences or make no decision at all.

The Founders knew - though - that ALL government eventually becomes corrupt. How, we the people, handle and deal with these challenges is left up to us. But they laid a foundation for all of us to model. Remember, the FF's actions were considered treasonous to the British Empire, and the Declaration of Independence was the document that outlined their beliefs/philosophy.


Well said, I've never heard that taking up arms against the government if neccessary would be treason..

Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn

Coutries such as Australia don't allow an aremed populace, yet their country functions just fine without the idea that "someday we might have to take up arms against our government"
Notice, if anyone takes up arms against the US government, the National guard, the FBI, etc. would crush them.(Remember Waco?) (Remember the civil war?)Look at it this way ,nobody is going to succeed in taking up arms against the federal government. We might as well disarm the population to prevent bloodshed from those crazy enough to challenge our imperfect, but better than the rest ,elected government.
Does it say anywhere in the constitution to take up arms against our own government. That would be treason.


Yea I remember Waco, it's treasonous of the govrnment to take up arms against it's own people..

Those tyrants should be hung..

Originally posted by mayaneagle
Think about this, when the constitution was written ,there was a constant threat of the British coming to invade, therefore citizens needed to bear arms. Now that times have drastically changed, it's time to disarm the population ,and ammend the constitution, as (appart from music groups), there is no threat of the English invading.

It was not merely the threat of the British invading... it was also the premise that if government gets too big for it's britches, the average citizen can form a much larger force than any NG or regular military unit, thus, overcoming the goverment.... and keeping it in line...

Originally posted by eanax


"Arms are the American yeoman farmer’s eye-teeth." – Thomas Jefferson

"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 to John Cartwright, 1824.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence. The rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good." – George Washington

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 46

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster

Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn
Look here "Statistics King"

LOL. You hurl an ad hominem around like ‘Statistics King’ after I provide cold, hard data that contradicts your contention that Australia “functions just fine…” Ha! Their gun-related crimes have gone up.

Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn
how dare you compare me to the general proliterian populace of Hitler's Germany.

Well, when you make dim-witted comments about banning guns, one must wonder…

Originally posted by First~Born~Unicorn
I don't see how my views, being a well educated person, make me comparable to the uneducated, unenlightened Nazis. Get over yourself buddy.

Please…newbie! Once you let your opinion out, it’s over. Anyone on DA can make comments on what you post. Be prepared.

Hmm. So, you’re well-educated? Well, then, you’d know that educated folks followed that short guy with the funny mustache from Austria...

Dr. Joseph Goebbels studied history and literature at Heidelberg University, and ultimately earned a doctorate in German philosophy from the same institution. And you’d also know that he masterminded the Nazi propaganda machine.

Adolf Eichmann studied engineering but did not complete his coursework.

Rudolf Hoess studied political science at the University of Munich.

Hermann Goering was from an aristocratic family and the son of a judge.

Dr. Josef Mengele, the sick bastard that he was, studied philosophy at the University of Munich, and he studied physical anthropology, genetics and medicine at Frankfurt University.

Hans Frank studied economics and jurisprudence and was the leader of the National Socialist Lawyers Bund 1933-1942.

Albert Speer was an architect by training, and studied at the technical schools in Berlin, Karlsruhe, and Munich. He helped Hitler with much of his planning and organization of the war.

These folks were educated and high-ranking Nazis. So what was your point about the “uneducated, unenlightened Nazis”?

Hmmm... I've been misjudging the Nazis. They sound like a class act. It's not too late to join is it?

And getting back to the topic at hand: One of the nice things I heard from one of my military friends a while back was that if China ever had a land invasion of the US, their whole first wave could be killed off entirely by armed civilians.

Obviously our military could defend us as well, but that's still a nice thought.

As long as we hold people accountable for their use of guns, they hold less of a threat. Equate it to mutually assured destruction. Not a pleasant way to live, but a necessity in order to maintain "peace" because of the state of weaponry.

If everyone is armed, and everyone has the same natural fear of death, than the advantage of the individual holding the gun s lost.

Justin (how did I end up posting about gun philosphy?)

Originally posted by Unrepresented
Hmmm... I've been misjudging the Nazis. They sound like a class act. It's not too late to join is it?

And getting back to the topic at hand: One of the nice things I heard from one of my military friends a while back was that if China ever had a land invasion of the US, their whole first wave could be killed off entirely by armed civilians.

Obviously our military could defend us as well, but that's still a nice thought.

As long as we hold people accountable for their use of guns, they hold less of a threat. Equate it to mutually assured destruction. Not a pleasant way to live, but a necessity in order to maintain "peace" because of the state of weaponry.

If everyone is armed, and everyone has the same natural fear of death, than the advantage of the individual holding the gun s lost.

Justin (how did I end up posting about gun philosphy?)

Depends on where they landed. If it was somewhere close to New York, they wouldn't last a minute, same with LA and San Diego. Not completely sure about the otehr palces though.

Who wants to know? Some sort of Chinese communistic person who wants to overthrow the world????

MWuhahahaha..

I mean umm...some geek with a calculator?

Mwuhahahaha,
I mean umm...yeah

Guys, play nice please.

FBU-

I think Eanax's Nazi reference was to the fact that one of Hitler's first goals was to remove weaponry from the masses.

Originally posted by Manu
FBU- I think Eanax's Nazi reference was to the fact that one of Hitler's first goals was to remove weaponry from the masses.

Absolutely Manu. Once weaponry/arms were removed from the populace, it was much easier to control people, and when this was coupled with Goebbels' propaganda machine and Himmler's shock troops, it made for a very potent combination.

“If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition and the will to use it, Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic.” – Aaron Zelman, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Eanax is the man.

You are right on the money on all accounts.
I dont know if I missed it or not but the violent crime rates in Britain and Canada, and most of the other industrialized nations (all with massive gun control), exceed that of the US.
Where guns and Concealed carry permits have been allowed, crime has gone down.
I for one like the idea of defending myself and my family against some drug crazed idiot trying to harm us.

This is a couple years old...

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established Gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
CHina established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and extermiated.
Cambodia established gun contol in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
This places the total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results, Australia wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that countrys state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over ther previous 25 years, figures had shown a steady deacrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" had been observed after such monumental effort and governmental expense was taken in "ridding society of guns". Its time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens. Take action before its too late, call or write your Representative and Senators

Originally posted by mayaneagle
Think about this, when the constitution was written ,there was a constant threat of the British coming to invade, therefore citizens needed to bear arms. Now that times have drastically changed, it's time to disarm the population ,and ammend the constitution, as (appart from music groups), there is no threat of the English invading.
The second ammendment was not written to protect the population against the British, but against the American Government. It was to protect the people against their OWN government.

Originally posted by igofast
Am I retarded and missing something? I've known people that own guns throughout my life that had nothing to do with military. I don't think I'll ever own a gun and would prefer it if no one did, but as far as I know, it's always been a right. They sell guns at kmart for gods sake. What am I missing? People have always owned guns.
People used to get their guns through the SEARS ROEBUCK Catalog, too, in the mail, and for some reason, we never had any school massacres.

In fact, we never had a school massacre that I can think of until several years after the laws passed in the 60's.

Darn, it's too bad El Al had armed security people at their ticket counter yesterday, or the Egyptian idiot would have been able to kill a lot more than 2.

Everybody NEEDS to arm themselves in this nutcase world. The police forces in this country have become less than a joke. This am a TN car containing who knows what has been used as an excuse to close a freeway for hours now. Apparently being a chicken**** rather than doing what it takes is part of the routine for Kali-Krazy-Kops.

Even more frightening is my agreement with CA:

Well said, I've never heard that taking up arms against the government if neccessary would be treason..

Originally posted by mayaneagle
there is no threat of the English invading. No, but we might annex washington :D

Originally posted by Cynic
No, but we might annex washington :D

By the authority vested in me by the voices from my refrigerator, I hereby bequeath the area known as 'Washington DC' to Cynic and his countrymen. Enjoy!

thanks. Oh, and you can keep dubya.