I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

I believe you. He's just not up for the fight. I bring his gun up for him and he's good to go. It's just kind of sad. He took the course with me back when the state passed the new laws then got denied . Dedham's the town.

Sticks and stones, and even guns, will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Is there, perhaps, a city with laxer gun laws that consistently has lower homicide rates than some other city that has stricter gun laws? Or do ALL cities and states with laxer gun laws have higher homicide rates that ALL cities and states with strict gun laws?

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

My definition is the as that used by the government:

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

Interesting statistic: 13th Century Europe had an estimated homicide rate of 60 per 100,000.

Japan, with strict gun control, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S.

Homicide by gun in this country is much higher in the teen and young adult population than in the 25 and older set. In the latter, homicide by gun and by non-gun are much closer statiscally than in the younger set. If we MUST have stricter gun laws, maybe it should be age restrictive.

A year ago John Stossel did a 20/20 show that revealed violent crime and murder rates were similar in both strict gun control and laxer gun control states.

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??
the rules are set. Some are defined as un-changeable (as in unalienable or inalienable, which ever the case may be). We post them in the Bill of Rights. Some can be changed, but only by a lengthy and cumbersome process; a good idea when it comes to the rules of the game of Liberty.

When some try to trivialize Liberty, the Second Amendment or the Citizen role in the American Militia, take notice of this. Take it as a warning too. What do they fear? They may just want to secure their hold on power and control of the civilian masses by disabling the Citizen ability to speak with force to correct tyranny. I guess you would call that Second Amendment First Amendment Rights, free speech and a petition to redress grievances backed by force.

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

I pretty sure the personal land-owning "militia members" owned cannons.

But they are just not used that often in crimes.

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

I just watched Dobbs on CNN and he was talking about the Democrats trying to register all handguns right now. Well, that didn't take long. Pay-up

If the person has the heart, the deed will be done. Shooting someone does not have the same intimacy that stabbing or beating someone to death does. It simplifies the procedure for the murderer, thus making murder more accessible.

Research has confirmed that when suicide is more difficult, it reduces its incidence. For example, a study was done by a professor at UC Berkeley that showed that of 515 people who were prevented from committing suicide, 94% of them never lived another 2+ decades and died of natural causes. However, these persons did not intend on using a gun to take their own lives. For we both know there just aint no comin' back from that. Also, considering that a gun is involved 50% or more of suicides for men 20 or older, I suspect that limiting their accessibility might not be a bad place to start saving lives.

75% of all homicides involving 17 year olds involve a gun. So maybe we should keep guns out of the hands of children....which has sort of been my contention all along.

Statistics don't exist in a vacuum and of course, a handgun ban across the board is not politically feasible. But what is the problem if crime plagued cities enact handgun bans to protect teenagers from each other. The policy has to be measured and tailored and i'm sure their are lawyers that are bright enough to think up comprehensive legislation that can address youth handgun violence and maintain constitutional safeguards.

Suicide in Japan is of an entirely different nature, in some cases it is even ritualistic. Apples and Oranges on that one.

I'm sure if glock 9's were available to english serfs the homicide rate would have been much higher. Oh thats right, they only had stabbing weapons and arrows.

As far as 20/20 is concerned, I think its interesting that cities like Little Rock, AK and Shreveport, LA have higher incidences of homicide than Americas largest city. I do know that if you are caught unlawfully packing in NYC, your looking at serious time. Ask Plaxico Burress. Draconian measures....maybe.... a disincentive to carry an illegal firearm, without question.

Hmmm.... now that sounds familiar

I think I've heard that before. You wouldnt happen to have an ALTERNATE user name and profile now would you.....:jester::tooth:;)

Johnny D - Define what you feel an assault weapon is? The reality is an "assault" weapon is nothing more than your average semi auto used by many waterfowl hunters or deer hunters dressed up in fancy clothes. Many of todays turkey hunting guns meet the definition of assault weapon..pistol grip, etc. I frankly don't see why anyone would want one unless they're into a particular type of target shooting. I'll take my SxS and O/U thanks but if you want to shoot some plastic stocked ugly weapon so be it.
I'm also a firm believer that to take away a constitutional right from millions of your fellow citizens is a dangerous practice. What right will become "unpopular" later...maybe one that you cherish. The constitutional law question was recently answered by the Supreme court..Bush court or not ..like it or not...it's your court too. For every scholar that says militia doesn't mean your average citizen I can show you one who says it does. Most scholars of the bill of rights will remind you that every other right is a personal right...ever wonder why some interpret the 2nd amendement as a "collective" or state right? My guess is they interpret it that way for their own narrow purpose.
Here's a question..if we suddenly fall into a huge national crisis... riots resulting from no jobs, a bird flu epidemic, etc. and someone decides to kick in your door and the doors of all your neighbors who are you going to call...the police? They're across town stopping the riot over there...911's on hold. I'll bet you'll be glad you're my neighbor at that point. Now I'm far from a right wing gun nut and I do believe compromise is required but you have to recognize that there are MANY people who would take every gun if they could and that is a problem recognized by the legal gun owning community. There is no compromising with those folks just as there is no compromising with a "gun nut". Neither is going to come out a winner.

I've already answered this question, quite explicitly actually. However, all the "Pro-assault weapons" folks here still continue to dance around my question of "what is the need for the average citizen to own an assault weapon?"

Restricting possession is not an infringement on a Constitutional right. You will be arrested for walking into a movie theater or busy restaurant and yelling "Fire!!!!" Does that arrest impeded on your Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech??

Tomatoes to tomatoes.

Also, there is very little Case Law based on the right to bare arms. The Supreme Court, Bush's Court as you put it, has refused to hear numerous cases brought on by the NRA about this topic because it is not an infringement.

I hate googling responses but... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=91913260
I agree that there are circumstances that require regulation..no problems with a "reasonable"background check..hell they do CORI's on school bus drivers. The key here is reasonable, not a system that seeks to exclude without proper cause. As far as dancing around your question..I think you're just not hearing the answer you want. Again..if I buy an aftermarket stock and throw it on my old Rem.1100 it meets the definition of assault weapon...it's no different than a "street sweeper" except for how it "looks" There is no public "machine gun" ownership without extensive ATF review which effectively eliminates most public ownership. MA's high capacity magazine reg.is a law that I think gun owners should be willing to live with that would satisfy many opposed to "assault weapons" but gun laws being made by those with no knowledge of what they are talking about are unacceptable. Do you like lawyers making medical decisions... politicians making education decisions?

What's the best legally available assault weapon if you're thinking of going up in a bell tower for a little Texas-style target practice?

I want something accurate with knock-down power. It has to be automatic with a large capacity clip because I've noticed the filth tend to run like the #^&#^&#^&#^&ens once you open up on them.

Might want to add a little :jester: when making statements like that!

:eek5: Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle...US military approved..they can run but they can't hide! :hihi:
I now resume my usual "liberal" programming.

:cool:

That .50 cal could probably cut someone in half at 1000 meters. Quite a sexy piece of machinery.

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. I apologize if my answer was not valid nor good. So I will try again. I, personally, do not like guns. I am very uncomfortable in the presence of someone holding a gun. So my answer will be as a devil's advocate, not with great conviction.

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.

Timmothy McVeigh was executed for letting his interpretation of these same words influence his actions to the point where he was killing Americans to defend their freedom from Government.

It's a slipperly slope you're on.

-spence

I am, by no means, a gun advocate. I don't own, don't like guns. But I wouldn't mind if some bolder, righteous, gun owner saved my timid ass if I were mortally threatened by a bad guy. And the saver wouldn't have to be a cop since police usually aren't around at the critical time. And that one time in my life that such may happen would be far more important to my selfish soul than reducing suicides.

I absolutely agree with you that we should keep guns out of the hands of children.

Wasn't comparing Japan to the U.S. Just demonstrating that high suicide rates don't need guns. Most aren't ritual. Just movin on out.

English serfs who were the victims of homicide were probably killed by someone stronger or better armed. Guns tend to equalize that strength thing. If all the serfs had glocks, the homicide rates might not, as you are sure of, gone up, but down. The "Wild West" was not as wild as we are told--mostly dime novel myth. Everyone was armed and it was actually more civil than some of the many mean streets of today. Probably why Plaxico was packing, in spite of NY laws.

What 20/20 demonstrated is that violent crime and homicide rates, OVERALL, were about the same between states with or without strict gun control. That makes it even MORE INTERESTING that some smaller lax gun control cities have a higher homicide rate than NY. It must mean there are a whole bunch of smaller cities with laxer gun control that have a LOWER HOMICIDE RATE THAN NY, thereby helping to equalize the homicide rates between strict and lax gun control states.

I'm not on that slope. I don't own a gun. I'm just, as I say, playing devil's advocate to give a point of view, frightening as that view may be to you, and to me as well. I am sure that the vast majority of those who hold that point of view, despise Timmothy McVeigh. He did not start a revolution, he just killed a lot of innocent people.

If it sounds familiar because it is my twist on an old cliche, well, cliches are intended to be so.

If you mean that you heard it before, not as a cliche, but as a response to being call a name (i.e.--pimp), then, no, I am not that person. I don't have an ALTERNATE user name (don't know what that is--am new to this computer chat stuff).

I completely understand your position. However, to be completely blunt, the Constitution is law - the Declaration of Independence is not.