A School Shooting in Maryland

[GDB]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'm for putting people in mental wards if they are a danger to themselves and to society. I do NOT want them out on the street.

Then push your representatives to fund mental health, especially since they keep saying it's a mental health issue and not a gun issue. But then they go and defund mental health and remove regulations preventing the mentally ill from buying guns.

Law Enforcement visited him at least 38 times. Think about that for a moment. They visited him more times, than years you've been alive. He was barred from stepping on school grounds with any kind of bag that could hide dangerous items/weapons. The School Board changed how troublesome kids were dealt with to make it seem like the schools in that county had more innocent little babies attending than they really did.

Did he actually commit any crimes? Because I'm sure if he had been denied his "right" to purchase a gun without having committed any crimes, the NRA would've raised holy hell. Can't have it both ways.

Banning guns, limiting magazine capacities etc, is not the answer and punishes the millions and millions of Americans who havent done anything wrong.. And you will not get compliance from the vast majority of Gun Owners in America. As you shouldn't.

Boo hoo, you can't have weapons made to murder people. You aren't allowed to own a nuke either, is that infringing on your 2nd Amendment right?

Also, "giving compliance" is totally your choice. But if it's against the law, be prepared to be arrested or fined. Gun owners are not special; they have to follow the law just like anyone else, and their failure to want to follow it should not determine whether it becomes a law any more than any other law that would affect people.

My old man is happy he won't be around to see this country split apart.

Okay?

[shadow1296]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'm for putting people in mental wards if they are a danger to themselves and to society. I do NOT want them out on the street.

Law Enforcement visited him at least 38 times. Think about that for a moment. They visited him more times, than years you've been alive. He was barred from stepping on school grounds with any kind of bag that could hide dangerous items/weapons. The School Board changed how troublesome kids were dealt with to make it seem like the schools in that county had more innocent little babies attending than they really did.

Banning guns, limiting magazine capacities etc, is not the answer and punishes the millions and millions of Americans who havent done anything wrong.. And you will not get compliance from the vast majority of Gun Owners in America. As you shouldn't.

My old man is happy he won't be around to see this country split apart.

fine if you are going to keep devolving this into gun control, heres my two cents, you are right banning all guns isn't the answer, if you think it is then you aren't actually a part of the conversation. but banning a certain gun or limiting the magazine capacity of a gun is, that gun is AR-15's. There is no reason for that gun to be in american hands no logical reason for it to have extended magazines. It is a dangerous weapon that can destroy to many innocent lives. It has no place in civilian hands. Because those few people that use it kill to many people for it to make any sense for it to be legally sold.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Nothing like a civil war to move a country forward, am I right?

Or maybe we can just break the country into two and get it over with. Because both ideologies are incompatible with each other at this point. All i know, is myself and many others are not going to give up our firearms. Period. And there will be blood on the streets.

That's why I said it take a generation or two for anything to realistically change. There are too many people that own guns or want to own guns or are strict in their interpretation of Constitutional Law. It will take decades if not a half century or more for any sort of anti-gun movement or even for people to want to remove or amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment to read as anything else than it is presently.

Those kinds of changes don't happen quickly. Even the Temperance movement took something like a hundred and fifty years to gain enough ground to get an Amendment passed (18th) making booze illegal in all states, only for it to fail spectacularly and be amended out of existence slightly over a decade later (21st). Anti-gun movements in the United States? That will take a long time to gain that kind of ground.

If things continue as they are now with the various protests and all, eventually, those kids will grow up, they will have families and pass on their message to their children, and as the message continues to from this generation's youth to the next, and the older generations pass, than the nation might (might) be ready for such a large change. But it will not be quick, and it will not be without protest. But it might be without a Civil War, if it takes its time to happen, rather than forcing it too soon.

(However, if one looks as an more or less optimistic future of Earth, like say Star Trek....human civilians still own modern guns in that future. Even the 2001 made Star Trek: Enterprise had a corn farmer in Oklahoma owning a plasma rifle, and other people have gun collections of vintage weapons of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.)

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You took it out of context then?
And you admit it?
That's good to know.

You are equating taking out of context with reaching a different conclusion.
Also you just admitted to taking my post out of context.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

You are again attempting to twist Scalia's words.

I will post from the body of his decision instead of just the summary since you seem intent on trying to take his meaning out of context.

So yes, Scalia did mean that those scary paramilitary weapons are what the 2nd amendment protects.

What Scalia said and is part of what you quoted is that the second amendment does not give you unlimited right to carry any weapon for any purpose in whatever manner and that limitation over carrying dangerous weapons is supported.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Refusal to hear is not a court decision and is not relevant. It has no weight and is not case law. Just because the court may chose to not hear a challenge does not mean they have ruled on any particular issue. Don't let the corporate media fool you on this. Abortion cases were rejected for decades before Roe vs Wade.

Turn that as you may it doesn't change that the Supreme Court has concluded that these challenges do not warrant enough substance to overturn the bans and limitations currently in place.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

One thing that does need to be brought back, is mental wards. Something that Ronald Reagan essentially eliminated, much to the detriment of American Society.

The good old tale of Reagan eliminating mental wards. We can also talk about the state of these mental wards.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That's why I said it take a generation or two for anything to realistically change.

That would happen under the assumption that gun violence rate is stable. But I seriously doubt it. The NRA affiliates do not want to lose their expensive toys, in their eyes they are the good guys (no different from michael dougas in the movie Falling Down). They are convinced that they are the only ones that can to stop an evil government (which in their heads is no longer a tyranny, it simply is a government by non-republicans which needles to say, they think as inherently evil). Everyday they keep hearing in their echo chamber how they are going to get their guns and destroy "america". It is only a matter of time before some self proclaimed patriots make their move against the government (Remember Cliven Bundy? Now add firearms to the equation) and the copy cats start apearing. Timothy McVeigh was a signal that u.s. born citizen can attempt to attack the government and back then Fox News did not even exist.

If I am right, then you are far from seeing the worst of gun violence, after "blood pours into the river" as we say over here, then government will have no other option than removing military grade from civilian hands (The comparison to alcohol does not apply since your body can't get hook on guns the same way you do with alcohol or other ingested drugs), but many lives will be lost or destroyed in the process.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

You are equating taking out of context with reaching a different conclusion.
Also you just admitted to taking my post out of context.

There is no "different conclusion" with regard to Scalia's ruling.
You were wrong, just admit it.

What Scalia said and is part of what you quoted is that the second amendment does not give you unlimited right to carry any weapon for any purpose in whatever manner and that limitation over carrying dangerous weapons is supported.

Scalia used US vs Miller to define what constitutes "dangerous" and it is not an AR-15 or other paramilitary weapon.
It is weapons such as a sawed-off shotgun like the double-barrel hunting gun in the US vs Miller case. That is a dangerous weapon.

Turn that as you may it doesn't change that the Supreme Court has concluded that these challenges do not warrant enough substance to overturn the bans and limitations currently in place.

There is no "turn" there is only the fact that a refusal to hear is not rejection of the premise of the case but rather whatever the court decides is the reason. Including trying to free up the docket for other cases deemed more pressing.
You are reading into the rejection more than is there.

Last December they refused to hear a case on sexual discrimination based on someone being Transgender. That in no way means they ruled against the person, it simply means they chose not to hear this case on this issue. They may change their mind in the future, and that is my point. Just because they ignore some cases on an issue does not mean they won't revisit it again in a different case later.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...imination-case

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

That would happen under the assumption that gun violence rate is stable. But I seriously doubt it. The NRA affiliates do not want to lose their expensive toys, in their eyes they are the good guys (no different from michael dougas in the movie Falling Down). They are convinced that they are the only ones that can to stop an evil government (which in their heads is no longer a tyranny, it simply is a government by non-republicans which needles to say, they think as inherently evil). Everyday they keep hearing in their echo chamber how they are going to get their guns and destroy "america". It is only a matter of time before some self proclaimed patriots make their move against the government (Remember Cliven Bundy? Now add firearms to the equation) and the copy cats start apearing. Timothy McVeigh was a signal that u.s. born citizen can attempt to attack the government and back then Fox News did not even exist.

If I am right, then you are far from seeing the worst of gun violence, after "blood pours into the river" as we say over here, then government will have no other option than removing military grade from civilian hands (The comparison to alcohol does not apply since your body can't get hook on guns the same way you do with alcohol or other ingested drugs), but many lives will be lost or destroyed in the process.

I'd prefer the slow option since the other path will lead to civil war, pretty much guaranteed. The "they can have my gun if they can get them from my cold dead hand" crowd is quite real and made up from a lot of Vietnam era veterans and probably a bunch of first Gulf War (Desert Storm) veterans as well. These are people that still take their oaths of service to the Constitution seriously, and see any blanket gun ban without an amendment to the Constitution as going against the Constitution and thus illegal as a serious affront to the United States and they will take up their arms to fight against it, and will shoot those that come to "illegally take their guns away". Because they would feel that such an act, without changing the Constitution would basically just overnight make every gun owning citizen a criminal, and that's just not right without an amendment being passed.

Because it is suppose to be difficult to change the Constitution. It requires either an enormous amount of support in both Houses and the Presidency to pass, or a majority of the states to pass it, or in truth, probably both to get it to stick.

The ERA failed because it couldn't get enough support in Congress and not enough states to pass it. If the Equal Rights Amendment can't get itself passed, how much trouble do you think it will be to pass an amendment to the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment?

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If the Equal Rights Amendment can't get itself passed, how much trouble do you think it will be to pass an amendment to the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment?

Humor me for a moment and let's suppose that an amendment to the constitution that nullifies the second amendment so that civilians are not allowed to bear arms (like in 91% of the world) save for those used for hunting wild animals. Do you sincerely think they will say "Oh, now it is the law, here, have my stash of firearms"? I have seen this trend with conservatives for several years; when the law is on their side they want it applied asap, but when it is the opposite they look for excuses to disavow it. The favorite one here would be that they think the constitution is like the bible, no modifications can be accepted (which is ridiculous since even the bible had many back in the day) since they believe in "the spirit of the thought of the founding fathers"

[Ithekro]

If there is enough support to get said amendment passed than most of those you are talking about would have had to have supported it to get it passed in the first place.

Which is why I think it will take a long time to happen, because to get to that point a lot of those that a died hard against such a thing would have passed on. Meaning the trend away form conservatism would be happening on a wide scale, or the style of conservatism would have changed due to the acts of the students of today changing what is considered acceptable and what is not in society.

This will take a long time to change, if it ever does change without a war happening.

If it happens, of course their will be those that don't comply. Some will bury their weapons rather than turn them over....just in case. Others will turn them over, but would likely expect compensation (for the lose of property), perhaps a tax waver or something for the value of said guns. And there will of course be those that want to have a collection for historical purposes to go with their hunting arms of choice. (mind you one can have a hunting weapon that is intended for human, as human is a type of animal...and Colt .45 is suited for that purpose).

But most I think would turn over the weapons, grudgingly, if all the legal steps were taken to enact an Amendment to the Constitution that changed the 2nd Amendment.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

fine if you are going to keep devolving this into gun control, heres my two cents, you are right banning all guns isn't the answer, if you think it is then you aren't actually a part of the conversation. but banning a certain gun or limiting the magazine capacity of a gun is, that gun is AR-15's. There is no reason for that gun to be in american hands no logical reason for it to have extended magazines. It is a dangerous weapon that can destroy to many innocent lives. It has no place in civilian hands. Because those few people that use it kill to many people for it to make any sense for it to be legally sold.

Well fortunately I live in America where there is a reason for Civilians to have such weapons in the first place. I bought 4 more 30 round Magpull mags two weeks ago for my AR. I'll probably buy a few more as well as another 1k rounds of 5.56 after I pay my taxes. If the Founders had meant for 'assault weapons' to not be included in the 2nd Amendment, they would have mentioned it. As there were already semi-automatic weapons back then, and they didnt ban them, they clearly meant for the civilians to be as armed as any military personnel could be.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If there is enough support to get said amendment passed than most of those you are talking about would have had to have supported it to get it passed in the first place.

That is not how gun legislation work at the moment. Case in point More than 90 percent of U.S. voters supported background checks for all gun buyers. (yeah, I used an old link to show this is not a new trend, if you want a fresher number click here). Even if they will never accept it, NRA members represent a minority of voters and not all of them have an AR-15 or similar (most people just want a gun since firearms are common, so they would gladly give it away if only law enforcement had them). But they are vocal and well organized, just like the bolsheviks from the 1917 revolution and I do not need to tell you how that one ended.

[shadow1296]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Well fortunately I live in America where there is a reason for Civilians to have such weapons in the first place. I bought 4 more 30 round Magpull mags two weeks ago for my AR. I'll probably buy a few more as well as another 1k rounds of 5.56 after I pay my taxes. If the Founders had meant for 'assault weapons' to not be included in the 2nd Amendment, they would have mentioned it. As there were already semi-automatic weapons back then, and they didnt ban them, they clearly meant for the civilians to be as armed as any military personnel could be.

I live in america as well and your argument is a logical fallacy, the founders had no way of knowing how america would become, To them automatic assault weapons were a foreign concept they were only thinking in things like muskets and bayonets and semi auto weapons did exist back then they weren't nearly as effective as they are now, they never expected that children would be killing children with them, if they had any knowledge of it they would have done just that. yes they created that amendment so the people could fight against an oppressive regime if ours was ever to become one. But they also made it so if a state wanted to secede from the union they could it was their legal right for the same reason if they felt it was going down that route, that changed, things have to change now, innocents are getting killed not red coats, not foreign invaders, not traitors, and not an oppressive regime, innocents

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by shadow1296

I live in america as well and your argument is a logical fallacy, the founders had no way of knowing how america would become, To them automatic assault weapons were a foreign concept, they never expected that children would be killing children with them, if they had any knowledge of it they would have done just that. yes they created that amendment so the people could fight against an oppressive regime if ours was ever to become one. But they also made it so if a state wanted to secede from the union they could it was their legal right for the same reason if they felt it was going down that route, that changed, things have to change now, innocents are getting killed not red coats, not foreign invaders, not traitors, and not an oppressive regime, innocents

I also live in the United States, so I'll help you with the truth about this issue since it has been muddied with propaganda (from both sides), and many inaccuracies that cause this issue to be very heated, emotional, and far....far from the truth.

It is not correct to say the Founding Fathers didn't know of, or were familiar with, semi-automatic weapons, and what would be considered "high-capacity" firearms. The development of multi-shot, high-caliber, semi-auto weapons goes back to the 1500s (some say 1400s, but that is unconfirmed).
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the semi-automatic weapons, and "rapid-fire" weapon concepts that would later become machine guns (like the Gatling gun), pump-action weapons, revolvers, and yes, gas-operated weapons. The reason the weapons were not used widely is due to them being extremely expensive to build with the technology of the 1500s to 1700s.

There is no such thing as an "automatic assault weapon." That is gun-prohibitionist-speak that is essentially baseless drivel.
Assault RIFLEs are select-fire rifles that can fire BOTH, fully-auto (or tri-burst) and semi-auto.
Paramilitary rifles--more commonly known as semi-automatic rifles--are NOT select-fire, and thus do not have a full-auto (or tri-burst) mode.

Here is what the Founding Fathers--in their own words--said with regard to why they gave us the 2nd amendment protection.

George Mason: When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.[1]

George Mason: “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a Free State…”

Alexander Hamilton Federalist paper #29: 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 instill 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?
Alexander Hamilton (Fed papers 184-188): “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”[2]

Rep. Elbridge Gerry (of Massachusetts 1789): “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins…”

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Richard Henry (Light Horse Harry) Lee in his Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788): “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

James Madison: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”[3]

James Madison: “The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”

Thomas Jefferson: “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every Free State.”

Militia act of 1792: “…each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…”

Quotes by Tench Coxe (1755-1824 American political economist):

1) “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

2) “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them”

3) ”Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

James Madison, federalist paper number 46;

“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . 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.”


Weapons of that era and previous centuries were becoming multi-shot, semi-automatic weapons.

The Girardoni rifle is a good example:

The Puckle Gun:

Nock 6 barrel rifle:

Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks:

There are more, but I think that thoroughly helps you understand that much of gun-prohibitionist rhetoric is just flat out wrong at best, and outright lying at worst.

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

There are already background checks to purchase guns. Have you ever bought one? Ever?

The NRA is flawed, but they are the only real organization that is standing up for Americans' rights to own Firearms.

One thing that does need to be brought back, is mental wards. Something that Ronald Reagan essentially eliminated, much to the detriment of American Society.

Nicolaz Cruz bought his gun legally. Don't you think more things could have been done to prevent that?
at the very least we can agree these kind of people should not have guns, yes.

[Shinagami]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I also live in the United States, so I'll help you with the truth about this issue since it has been muddied with propaganda (from both sides), and many inaccuracies that cause this issue to be very heated, emotional, and far....far from the truth.

It is not correct to say the Founding Fathers didn't know of, or were familiar with, semi-automatic weapons, and what would be considered "high-capacity" firearms. The development of multi-shot, high-caliber, semi-auto weapons goes back to the 1500s (some say 1400s, but that is unconfirmed).
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the semi-automatic weapons, and "rapid-fire" weapon concepts that would later become machine guns (like the Gatling gun), pump-action weapons, revolvers, and yes, gas-operated weapons. The reason the weapons were not used widely is due to them being extremely expensive to build with the technology of the 1500s to 1700s.

There is no such thing as an "automatic assault weapon." That is gun-prohibitionist-speak that is essentially baseless drivel.
Assault RIFLEs are select-fire rifles that can fire BOTH, fully-auto (or tri-burst) and semi-auto.
Paramilitary rifles--more commonly known as semi-automatic rifles--are NOT select-fire, and thus do not have a full-auto (or tri-burst) mode.

Here is what the Founding Fathers--in their own words--said with regard to why they gave us the 2nd amendment protection.

George Mason: When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.[1]

George Mason: “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a Free State…”

Alexander Hamilton Federalist paper #29: 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 instill 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?
Alexander Hamilton (Fed papers 184-188): “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”[2]

Rep. Elbridge Gerry (of Massachusetts 1789): “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins…”

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Richard Henry (Light Horse Harry) Lee in his Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788): “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

James Madison: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”[3]

James Madison: “The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”

Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”

Thomas Jefferson: “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every Free State.”

Militia act of 1792: “…each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…”

Quotes by Tench Coxe (1755-1824 American political economist):

1) “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

2) “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them”

3) ”Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

James Madison, federalist paper number 46;

“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . 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.”


Weapons of that era and previous centuries were becoming multi-shot, semi-automatic weapons.

The Girardoni rifle is a good example:

The Puckle Gun:

Nock 6 barrel rifle:

Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks:

There are more, but I think that thoroughly helps you understand that much of gun-prohibitionist rhetoric is just flat out wrong at best, and outright lying at worst.

For these reasons I am glad I do not live in America. From an outsiders perspective American society is riddled with hypocrisy and contradictions. One simply needs to look at the specifications of such firearms and wonder why civilians should have access to such powerful ammunition....One should remember and always keep in mind that guns don't kill people, people kill people as cheesy as that sounds the truth it bears is astounding. For obvious reasons we "cannot"(will not !) regulate the production of arms(lucrative business hey ) but we can regulate who has access to them and no I do not advocate the weapon is in the right hands theory...Trust me I am from a "developing" country there is no such thing as a weapon falling into the "wrong" hands. Such power in anyone's hands is a frightening concept and I will not entertain you with hypothetical situations because the realities are more terrifying... Its odd how people want to live by laws of people who lived hundreds of years ago. Thomas Jefferson didn't have to worry about a weapon that could fire a 100 rounds per mintue such concepts were science fiction to him confined to the basements and theories of the "mad scientists" of his day. We must not practice the same ignorance and turn a blind eye the rapid evolution of science behind these weapons. I wonder what the AR-15s model will look like in 2050 and whether you would want that in the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry. Civilians cannot buy such powerful artillery in my country, semi-automatic weapons are reserved for police and the military. Whether this was a flaw the makers of the constitution made only time will tell. Maybe I will have a change of heart when the aliens invade and I cannot protect my family and those I love or maybe as I live in a developing country it might slide into a civil war and I will not be ready to protect myself from the savages who only wish to see me dead. Sarcasm aside I cannot tell whats right but I believe this is society's Spiderman moment. "With Great Power comes.... Well you know the rest
“Nearly all men can stand adversity
, but if you want
to test a man's character, give him power.” sarcasm was a bit much........

[OH&S]

This thread has been intense so far.

Rather than arguing a particular position, I've got to ask for comparison's sake (as well as being better informed):

1. What are the minimum requirements to obtain a firearm license and buy a gun in the US?

1a. If there is a background check, what does said check consist of?

2. Who is ultimately barred from purchasing a firearm or going through the process of obtaining a license? i.e. Is there a prohibited persons list?

3. Are gun safety courses a mandatory part of the process of obtaining a firearm license?

4. Outside of sport/target shooting; recreational hunting/vermin/pest control; primary production; Business or Employment; Rural Occupation/Farming; Animal Welfare and Firearm Collection (All classified as genuine reasons for obtaining a firearms license in my State in Australia), what reason would a normal citizen have for buying a gun?

4a. If the reason is "protection", protection from who or what?

4b. Is the US just a generally unsafe place compared to Australia such that the average citizen feels the need to buy a gun to give them some sort of feeling of safety?

4c. Or is this just a case of people exercising their rights and a complete refusal to budge on watering down anything that would lead to one step closer to having that right taken away (even though that's one hell of a pipe dream; even those Florida school shooting survivors weren't arguing that)?

[ganbaru]

OH&S, I am not expert on the matter but the answers of many of your questions would often be ''depending of which State we are talking about'' as legislation aren't the same everywhere which don't help. One big example would be Chicago where there more restrictive gun laws but guns coming from neighbourring states damper their effects.

[Ithekro]

Most laws are state by state with some federal law in place.

[OH&S]

^That's technically true for Australia as well but surely there's some national guidelines or recommendations? The 2nd Amendment and all legal decisions regarding the interpretation of said amendment can't be the be all, end all?

[ganbaru]

There's some federal laws than restrict or ban some weapons like the previous assault weapon ban. I think than 3-D printed gun and those made with little to no metal might have been banned on the federal side. Otherwise the legislation is mostly on the State part.