Landmark Supreme Court Decision on 2A

[CX]

Of course guns don't kill people, people do. But guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people. Surely we can agree on that, even if we don't agree on gun control? You want to kill as many people as possible before the police shoot you, because you're a freaking nutcase who wants to commit suicide-by-cop and take as many people with you as you can in the process, what are you going to use? A gun or a baseball bat? I mean, come on. And if you're a coward who's afraid he might not win a struggle with someone, what will you choose, a gun or some hand-to-hand weapon?

A Lincoln Towncar makes it a lot easier to kill people too. A stainless steel grill can't hurt anyone, but put a V8 behind it and you can smear kill a family of four without scratching your ass twice. That's what that dude in Japan did, and then he used a knife to finish off the ones he only winged. That old guy killed all kinds of people in that farmer's market because he mixed the pedals up. So are we going to ban all the cars now? You pick up a hundred objects every day that make killing "easier", so don't even bother with that old gem. And I'll say it again, even if you try to take all the weapons away, where do you think kung fu came from? Ancient Chinese people sitting around with no weapons, trying to figure out just the right angle to bounce a rice patty off of someone else's head so it will chatter their neck in three places. You know what, opposable thumbs makes killing a lot easier too, so let's just lop off everyone's thumbs. Or, I know, running someone through just wouldn't be the same without depth perception, let's poke an eye out of everyone at birth!

You and everyone else trying to get guns or knives banned is wasting their effort because they're focusing on the wrong thing. Why not take all of that anti-gun energy and put it into anti-violence - and yes, there is a difference. Instead of trying to keep people from killing each other even though they want to, why not try to keep them from wanting to kill each other to begin with?

If you want to own a gun, you also have to consider the odds of you or a family member, including teenage children, ever becoming temporarily depressed or suicidal. Go through your inventory of friends and family and count up the ones who have ever been suicidal to get your estimate of the likelihood of this. Doesn't matter if everyone you know is emotionally healthy at the time you choose to get the gun.

i was a teenager too once, and so were my sisters before me, I was even kind of moody and depressed, yet I never entertained the idea of killing myself. And even without a gun, there are plenty of ways to off oneself. Gravity works pretty swell, for example, especially when combined with a length of rope or great height. If one is concerned about their kids, then they need to be involved with them - it takes more than just not having a firearm they might theoretically blow their own brains out with because they might theoretically want to.

The other big risk is small children. I had a shortcut way of dealing with deadly risks. If I can imagine it happening, it can happen, so prevent it. Maybe this was extreme, but they had taken me by surprise too many times with their newfound athletic abilities and determination--to climb out of cribs, escape over fences, open doors, and wander outside. So I nailed the bookshelves to the wall (in case they tried to climb a bookshelf, it wouldn't collapse on them). I put bars on the low to the floor third-floor window. I chained the gate shut. And yet, one baby did roll head over heals down a flight of stairs at some point---escaping from supposedly secured area to do it.

Again, I was an infant too, and I even had my fair share of accidents, one of which as a big header off of the kitchen table. Yet I never blew my head off, and neither did my sisters, even though there were loaded guns in the house. Imagine that. Now I'm guessing that it had something to do with them being kept inaccessible to short people, and later on my parents having some talks with us about how dangerous guns could be, never to touch them, etc.

And why shouldn't I argue with people one by one about this, even if I've already "lost" at a Constitutional level.

Like I said, if something works for you, fine, that's how you want to do things. But don't make the mistake of assuming that it's something everyone else should do too, or in any way attempt to force them to do so through activism aimed at laws that would ban guns. I have freedoms that I enjoy too, and I don't appreciate them getting stomped on because someone else thinks they know better for me and that it's for my own good.

Everyone has a right to smoke, but smoking is becoming frowned upon, and rates of smoking are dropping in this country.

Actually, they don't because there are so many limitations on the use of tobacco, and I can seriously see it getting banned altogether in the near future.

If I think gun ownership is a bad idea, because the risks to innocent bystanders is too high, why can't I frown on gun ownership and argue against this practice?

Why not argue for better enforcement of anti-gang laws and harsher penalties for the actual people who are responsible for that stuff happening instead of trying to take away guns from everyone else who isn't?

Why can't I lobby for controls and safety regulations for guns and gun owners?

Sure, but we already have plenty of them; the real trick is enforcing them.

You have to get a drivers license to drive a car.

There is no Constitutional amendment protecting the right to drive a car, and I highly doubt there ever will be. Driving a car is a privilege, because essentially it's just a form of transportation, and there are plenty of others, including walking. Owning a gun is a right, because as the Supreme Court has pointed out, it's connected with our right to defend ourselves.

And why can't I howl at the random violence that takes our random high school students who wander into the wrong neighborhoods? Of COURSE I blame people. I want to vilanize those who shoot their neighbors-- accidentally or on purpose-- make sure no one remembers them fondly.

Everyone already does that. The thing is, a lot of folks like you also make the mistake of putting the blame on inanimate hunks of metal instead of keeping the blame squarely on the shoulders of the people causing the problems.

I prefer knives. At least my kids won't get caught in the crossfire of any knife attacks.

No, but they might still lose a few fingers if they aren't taught how to responsibly use them.

[blacknblue]

I cannot ever hear or read a debate like this without remembering that old editorial cartoon.

A man is standing outside of a courthouse wearing prisoner stripes, he is talking to a man in a suit holding a briefcase, obviously a lawyer. Off in the distance we see a huge crowd of people, waving signs and arms, obviously agitated. Over the heads of the mob something is dangling from a lightpole.

The man in prisoner stripes is telling the lawyer:

"They decided to let me go and lynch my gun."

[Alelou]

Actually, I think you could argue that it's easier in this country to get a gun in your hands than to get a driver's license in your hands. At least the latter requires a test.

And, CX, I'm arguing against your logic, not guns in general. If you had paid attention to what I was saying earlier you might have noticed that I didn't say I was against guns. I am for reasonable regulation of guns and who can own them. I also don't see why private citizens need to own military assault weapons. But if you think that's crazy, perhaps you also believe in letting people have driver's licenses without taking tests to find out if they have a clue about how to drive or what the rules of the road are. Cars are in fact deadlier weapons in this country than guns, no doubt about it.

There's sure a lot of dark emotion involved in this, and I'm heading out on vacation anyway, so I'm happily hanging up on this one.

[Elessar]

Actually, I think you could argue that it's easier in this country to get a gun in your hands than to get a driver's license in your hands. At least the latter requires a test.

And, CX, I'm arguing against your logic, not guns in general. If you had paid attention to what I was saying earlier you might have noticed that I didn't say I was against guns. I am for reasonable regulation of guns and who can own them. I also don't see why private citizens need to own military assault weapons. But if you think that's crazy, perhaps you also believe in letting people have driver's licenses without taking tests to find out if they have a clue about how to drive or what the rules of the road are. Cars are in fact deadlier weapons in this country than guns, no doubt about it.

There's sure a lot of dark emotion involved in this, and I'm heading out on vacation anyway, so I'm happily hanging up on this one.

I have to point out that a fundamental problem with your analogy to driving is that use of our transportation system is not an inalienable right - it's a privledge. Now, if we are operating under the assertion that ownership of firearms should not be an inalienable right, that's a different thing all together. But given that it is, you can't say that if we require competency-based licenses for cars we ought to do the same for guns, because the fundamental difference is that gun ownership is constitutionally reinforced, the right to drive is not.

I think the biggest disagreement between people for and against gun control is the perception that the people using guns for the bad things we see on TV will or won't be affected by them. People against gun control tend to believe that the criminals don't act within the law anyway so installing new laws isn't going to effect them. Gun control people tend to disagree.

I think gun culture is too pervasive in our society for anything less than an absolute ban - and capable enforcement of it - on all firearms to make any dent in firearm-related crime. Doesn't mean I think that should happen. Just saying I don't think anything less would make a dent, because I tend to believe that if someone wants to get a gun to commit a crime, and if guns are still legal to manufacture, import, and/or sell in the United States period, they'll find one.

I would like to see some studies on TV, maybe from one of those news magazines that love going out and catching people in the act, about whether or not convicted criminals can pass the criminal background checks they do when you go into the store.

I assume that in any case, I'm sure that felons wouldn't pass it, but that's one end of the extreme. It would be interesting to take guys who maybe were tried for violent crimes like assault & battery or rape or manslaughter or breaking & entering or burglary, but not convicted, and to see if they can pass it.

Plus, the non-gun people gotta understand that I think there are two kinds of background checks. I think this because when you go buy a rifle or a shotgun they just make a phone call and tell someone on the other end all your information. If you buy a handgun, I'm assuming it's more involved, because you actually gotta wait and come back 2-7 days later. They say 7 days but mine got done in 2.

I think one of the biggest problems in this arena isn't law, it isn't what we've decided is right or wrong - it's enforcement. AFter VA-Tech, basically nobody could answer why that kid was able to pass the background check since he HAD been treated for mental health problems. There was SUPPOSED to be a connective between mental health histories and the background check but there wasn't. People, pens, and pensions. That's the problem with civil service in the U.S.

[Mitchell]

In PA atleast their is no waiting period for Handguns. My brother bought a Semi Automatic 22 pistol last year, an their was only the same background check that they have for Rifles, and Shotguns. He had his pistol picked out, bought, an home all in the same day.


I obviously support, an defend the 2nd ammendment. The fact that its the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution should tell you how freakin important this right was to the Founding Fathers. Its not the 3rd, or 4th. Its the 2nd most important right we have as Americans. To defend, an protect ourselves, an an those around us.

Besides background checks, I cant support any attempt on infringing on that right. Or any other of our Rights. If you are willing to give up one, you might ass well kiss them all good bye to. Because next thing you Know the Supreme court will decide that speaking your mind is unconstitutional.

Personaly I think we need to be a Hell of a lot tougher on criminals. Our ancestors Hanged Horse thieves for crying out loud. While today the Supreme Court decided its unconstitutional to sentance child rapests to death. So instead we keep turning killers, an Rapests back out on to the streets instead of sending them off to their final judgement ASAP. Thats Fraked up! Not the Right to Defend ourselves.

Punish those who are truely responsible for the crimes or the Accidents that happen. Dont step on everyone elses right, because some dumb ass moron of a Parent didnt teach their kid about the Gun in their house. Or some damn Gang banger cant aim a gun worth shit kills some kid on a play ground, instead of the guy in the rival gang. Go after those who are truely responsible for these crimes. We all need to start taking responsiblity for our actions, an Making others responsible for theirs. Not keep blameing the innocent, Law abidding citizens.

[blacknblue]

I got a theory on this. It's just a theory, so feel free to jump in and pick it to pieces of you think I am wrong.

I think that those of us who support weapon rights tend to belong to the portions of american sub-culture that maintains a strong sense of history. Not necessarily history in the sense of being ractionary (although I am) but rather in the sense of "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

Not always, but generally, we tend to come from rural areas. Farmers are traditionalists. If they weren't, they wouldn't be farmers. Nobody goes into farming for the money.

We also tend to live in the south or western parts of America, or in Alaska. All of these places Alaska may be an exception, since up there guns are still a day by day survival tool.

But those of us with our roots south of the Mason-Dixon line and/or west of the mississippi river (Or in the appalachian hills like Mitchell. DEFINITELY in Appalchia.) belong to a sub-culture that emphasizes family coherence and a strong tradition of verbal history. I mean, we sit around and talk about each other a lot. We sit around and tell stories about Paw or Grandmaw or Uncle Jim or Great-Aunt Mary. We also tell stories about the old days. And some of those stories go way back. Waaay back. Family anecdotes about the Civil War and Reconstruction are not unusual in southern families. Mine still tell them. So does my wife's.

We remember things. Things that are not taught in school anymore because they are politically incorrect. We are told about real things that happened to real people under real conditions. not the sanitized bullshit you see on tv to movies, and not the carefully neutered crap that teachers try to spoonfeed kids in the indoctrination centers we call modern schools.

We hear about how our ancestors in KY had to hide everything they owned whenever either the Union army OR the Confederate army came through. Because being neutral in the Civil War just meant that you got raided by both sides indiscriminately. And God help any woman who got caught out by a soldier of either army. To read the history books, you would believe that the Civil War was a nice, neat, sanitary series of carefull orchestrated duels between groups of gentlemen. Huh-uh. T'wasn't like that. It was damn ugly.

Northerners often shake their heads in disbelief about why the South still bothers to remember things about that war, even now. They don't understand why we choose to "hang onto the past" this way.

We aren't hanging onto the past. We are simply remembering. We are choosing not to cut off and throw away part of our heritage. That's all. Those same northerners might see it differently if it was their homes that burned, and their grandmothers that were raped, and their family belongings that were stolen by the very soldiers that were supposed to be defending them.

In any case, I have wandered off my track. My point is that when things like Katrina happen, we remember them. Mainstream america, or at least the mainstream american media, will forget katrina ever happened soon. Helped along by frequent urging from the federal government no doubt.

But *we* won't forget. We won't forget that when the chips were down, teh government that was supposed to be there to protect people... wasn't. *We* won't forget that for day after day, while rotting bodies floated by in the flooded streets, and predators stalked unhindered through that pisshole of stadium-turned-dungeon... the police spent their entire time standing guard over the only escape routes out of that living hell and prevented desperate people from escaping. For no particular reason.

*We* will not forget that while armed looters roamed freely, the cops who were supposed to be stopping them were joining them and stockpiling their own goodies. *We*, the reactionary sub-culture who clings to the past, *we* will not forget that when property owners drew their guns and tried to protect their property, the cops confiscated them. Without legal authority, without justification. they just stole them and piled them in with the rest of their loot. True, the courts made the cops give the guns back afterward, but that did not help the innocent property owners during the crisis when they had to face the looters empty handed and unprotected.

The whole gun control argument is predicated on the assumption that the government is well-meaning (there's a stretch, right there), competent to administer the gun control laws (ha!), and is staffed by honorable people. Usually they are honorable. Most cops are a far cry from the bandits with badges in New Orleans. But how many does it take? How many corrupt cops in one city does it take to open up a floodgate of illegal guns to the underground market?

Us reactionary rednecks have long memories. We remember that every time we depended on teh government to take care of us, we got our assess burned. We don't depend on anybody but ourselves now. It works better that way.

[Elessar]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story? ... 638&page=1

Remember this guy? The guy that could be heard in 911 saying he was gonna shoot the guys? 'Castle Doctrine' saved his butt.

Funny thing is, I was in Pasadena, TX...

It's not just a place I drove through, it was where me and my buddy went to this TORN UP, SHITTY in-door shooting range

[Elessar]

In PA atleast their is no waiting period for Handguns. My brother bought a Semi Automatic 22 pistol last year, an their was only the same background check that they have for Rifles, and Shotguns. He had his pistol picked out, bought, an home all in the same day.


I obviously support, an defend the 2nd ammendment. The fact that its the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution should tell you how freakin important this right was to the Founding Fathers. Its not the 3rd, or 4th. Its the 2nd most important right we have as Americans. To defend, an protect ourselves, an an those around us.

Besides background checks, I cant support any attempt on infringing on that right. Or any other of our Rights. If you are willing to give up one, you might ass well kiss them all good bye to. Because next thing you Know the Supreme court will decide that speaking your mind is unconstitutional.

Personaly I think we need to be a Hell of a lot tougher on criminals. Our ancestors Hanged Horse thieves for crying out loud. While today the Supreme Court decided its unconstitutional to sentance child rapests to death. So instead we keep turning killers, an Rapests back out on to the streets instead of sending them off to their final judgement ASAP. Thats Fraked up! Not the Right to Defend ourselves.

Punish those who are truely responsible for the crimes or the Accidents that happen. Dont step on everyone elses right, because some dumb ass moron of a Parent didnt teach their kid about the Gun in their house. Or some damn Gang banger cant aim a gun worth shit kills some kid on a play ground, instead of the guy in the rival gang. Go after those who are truely responsible for these crimes. We all need to start taking responsiblity for our actions, an Making others responsible for theirs. Not keep blameing the innocent, Law abidding citizens.

One thing I've wondered about pro-gun folks like myself, Mitchell, would you support the idea of having to take a one-time class/exam like the one that most states have in place to get CCW, only, for any handgun ownership at all?

[blacknblue]

In PA atleast their is no waiting period for Handguns. My brother bought a Semi Automatic 22 pistol last year, an their was only the same background check that they have for Rifles, and Shotguns. He had his pistol picked out, bought, an home all in the same day.


I obviously support, an defend the 2nd ammendment. The fact that its the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution should tell you how freakin important this right was to the Founding Fathers. Its not the 3rd, or 4th. Its the 2nd most important right we have as Americans. To defend, an protect ourselves, an an those around us.

Besides background checks, I cant support any attempt on infringing on that right. Or any other of our Rights. If you are willing to give up one, you might ass well kiss them all good bye to. Because next thing you Know the Supreme court will decide that speaking your mind is unconstitutional.

Personaly I think we need to be a Hell of a lot tougher on criminals. Our ancestors Hanged Horse thieves for crying out loud. While today the Supreme Court decided its unconstitutional to sentance child rapests to death. So instead we keep turning killers, an Rapests back out on to the streets instead of sending them off to their final judgement ASAP. Thats Fraked up! Not the Right to Defend ourselves.

Punish those who are truely responsible for the crimes or the Accidents that happen. Dont step on everyone elses right, because some dumb ass moron of a Parent didnt teach their kid about the Gun in their house. Or some damn Gang banger cant aim a gun worth shit kills some kid on a play ground, instead of the guy in the rival gang. Go after those who are truely responsible for these crimes. We all need to start taking responsiblity for our actions, an Making others responsible for theirs. Not keep blameing the innocent, Law abidding citizens.

One thing I've wondered about pro-gun folks like myself, Mitchell, would you support the idea of having to take a one-time class/exam like the one that most states have in place to get CCW, only, for any handgun ownership at all?

Would you support having to take a one-time class/exam before being permitted to express a political opinion in public? Merely to prove that you are not going to upset people and cause harm to the public welfare by raising a public disturbance of course...

Or perhaps it would be appropriate to require a test before people are allowed to vote?

They used to do that you know. Literacy tests and other knowledge tests were required in some states. They were used by groups like the KKK to prevent black people from voting after the Civil War. (Since during the days of slavery it was illegal to teach a slave to read, any freed slave was almost certainly illiterate. Ergo, if only literate people could vote, then no black people could vote. See the logic?) Unfortunately that dang pesky Supreme Court ruled such testing to be unconstitutional for any of the "God Given" rights that are supposedly enshrined in the constitution.

[Distracted]

Cool. So we make gun ownership a God Given Right (tm) and make people take classes in order to buy ammo. After all, it's not the guns that kill people, it's those damned bullets.

[Elessar]

In PA atleast their is no waiting period for Handguns. My brother bought a Semi Automatic 22 pistol last year, an their was only the same background check that they have for Rifles, and Shotguns. He had his pistol picked out, bought, an home all in the same day.


I obviously support, an defend the 2nd ammendment. The fact that its the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution should tell you how freakin important this right was to the Founding Fathers. Its not the 3rd, or 4th. Its the 2nd most important right we have as Americans. To defend, an protect ourselves, an an those around us.

Besides background checks, I cant support any attempt on infringing on that right. Or any other of our Rights. If you are willing to give up one, you might ass well kiss them all good bye to. Because next thing you Know the Supreme court will decide that speaking your mind is unconstitutional.

Personaly I think we need to be a Hell of a lot tougher on criminals. Our ancestors Hanged Horse thieves for crying out loud. While today the Supreme Court decided its unconstitutional to sentance child rapests to death. So instead we keep turning killers, an Rapests back out on to the streets instead of sending them off to their final judgement ASAP. Thats Fraked up! Not the Right to Defend ourselves.

Punish those who are truely responsible for the crimes or the Accidents that happen. Dont step on everyone elses right, because some dumb ass moron of a Parent didnt teach their kid about the Gun in their house. Or some damn Gang banger cant aim a gun worth shit kills some kid on a play ground, instead of the guy in the rival gang. Go after those who are truely responsible for these crimes. We all need to start taking responsiblity for our actions, an Making others responsible for theirs. Not keep blameing the innocent, Law abidding citizens.

One thing I've wondered about pro-gun folks like myself, Mitchell, would you support the idea of having to take a one-time class/exam like the one that most states have in place to get CCW, only, for any handgun ownership at all?

They used to do that you know. Literacy tests and other knowledge tests were required in some states. They were used by groups like the KKK to prevent black people from voting after the Civil War. (Since during the days of slavery it was illegal to teach a slave to read, any freed slave was almost certainly illiterate. Ergo, if only literate people could vote, then no black people could vote. See the logic?) Unfortunately that dang pesky Supreme Court ruled such testing to be unconstitutional for any of the "God Given" rights that are supposedly enshrined in the constitution.

In the context of that ruling, everybody knew that the testing was being used to discriminate.

Would you support having to take a one-time class/exam before being permitted to express a political opinion in public? Merely to prove that you are not going to upset people and cause harm to the public welfare by raising a public disturbance of course...

You know there's a huge difference here. The only way that your analogy is accurate is if you think that it's arguable as to whether shooting off a gun with rampant disconcern for anyone's wellbeing is equivalently dangerous to shooting off one's mouth. Such a thought is ludicrous, isn't it? When you get to the meat of it, there is a political, but intangible discussion to be had about whether shooting off a person's mouth in whatever way they want is a public danger. But it's absolutely a guarantee that shooting off your gun without regard for anyone is a danger.

The rest of this isn't directed at you BnB, or at anybody, but is just a general rant. If you want to say that freedom of speech is NEVER dangerous to Americans, go watch Heraldo's broadcast from the beaches of Somalia in the hour leading up to the Battle of Mogadishu and ask yourself if it got Americans killed. Freedom of Speech is not always harmless, even if the majority of the people saying that it's harmful are complete fascists. Sometimes they're right for the wrong reasons. As far as shooting off your mouth and shooting off your gun... Both may be Constitutionally protected rights but one of them (i.e., shooting your gun) can be, and has been, tempered with legal basis by the necessary and proper clause. I think this is all part of the whole "your rights end where my nose begins" idea that permits Congress and/or the Supreme Court to take license with modifying established rights in such a way as to guarantee the public safety.

Just because a phrase like "guarantee the public safety" CAN be twisted into a circular belt of fascist strangulation doesn't mean it always is, either. A lot of people don't believe government should be entrusted with too much authority to stick its nose in your business, i.e., being granted any kind of recognition as a body that's allowed to "look out for you" or that anybody in it "knows what's best for" the public better than the public does. I'm not one of these people, because I think society is full of retards and degenerates that the normal public needs to be protected from. In a sense the public isn't being protected "from itself" as some radical right separtist types think the Feds are trying to do, but from the other nutjobs in it. Besides, on a philosophical level, the fact that anyone even accedes to live under a government is a fundamental admission that you acknowledge its right to rule over you. I mean it's basically a surrender of one's personal sovereignty. If a person doesn't intend to surrender their autonomy or their sovereignty, they shouldn't be living in that country. As far as I'm concerned it's like going to a church you don't really believe in.

D is right about the ammo though. Ammunition and firearms are different things. It would be completely legal to require a license to buy ammunition... unless you want to handload everything you shoot, which would probably be the reason that they didn't say anything about ammo, since everything was ball-ammo at the time and everyone did make their own rounds.

[blacknblue]

No, I beg to differ. You are both bewildered.

"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."

Any English teacher could dissect that poorly worded sentence properly, and the supreme court has finally done so. It means, according to the majority opinion, that since we need a militia (subordinate clause, i.e. the reason for putting the amendment in there) THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or in other words, in terms of american judicial tradition, if the government wants to compromise a right that is embedded in the constitution the burden of proof is on the government. Or more simply, the government does not get to play games with the Bill Of Rights on a whim, or just because the prevailing winds of politics happen to have shifted.

For the government to put ANY restriction on the right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship or not to worship, the right to keep and bear arms, and all the others are not subject to the government's tinkering. The government is required to show that it has a COMPELLING reason for wanting to place a restriction on those rights. Merely holding the theory that they *think* restricting one of those rights *might possibly* cause a reduction of *certain types* of crime is not a compelling reason, based on american judicial history and tradition.

You two ought to read the Bill of Rights. It is full of interesting tidbits. I am sure you would both be shocked at the ninth and tenth amendments especially.

9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Riiiight. What percentage of the American people are honestly terrified of their own freedom these days, and would truly prefer to live in a nice, secure dictatorship where they don't have to take responsibility for anything? Serious question.

This nation was founded under the principle that the government works for the people, as the people's employee. As opposed to the European model at the time, wherein the people were the property of the state and served the king because God said so.

Jefferson wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

What Jefferson wrote is becoming blasphemy in 21st century America.

[CX]

Actually, I think you could argue that it's easier in this country to get a gun in your hands than to get a driver's license in your hands. At least the latter requires a test.

So?

And, CX, I'm arguing against your logic, not guns in general. If you had paid attention to what I was saying earlier you might have noticed that I didn't say I was against guns. I am for reasonable regulation of guns and who can own them.

And I'm always leery of the term "reasonable", because what's reasonable for one person might not be reasonable for another, as you demonstrate in your very next sentence.

I also don't see why private citizens need to own military assault weapons.

And who are you to tell people they can't just because you don't think they "need" them? Especially because the definition of what constitutes an "assault" weapon is always changing depending on who's in office. Not to mention that historical pieces that might get destroyed if certain people got their way. Besides, no one "needs" a lot of the crap they have, but they still want it. No one questions why someone might want a certain car, or to live in a mansion, or to have a bigger TV, or anything else that no one really "needs". So who are you to question why I'd want to own an M1, or a Thompson, or a BAR, or even a modern M16 or M4 for that matter? And before you take it too personally, who is anyone? Seriously, attitudes like that are why I want to get a tank, that is actually functional and works, just to thumb my nose at people who look down their nose and tell me that I don't "need" something.

But if you think that's crazy, perhaps you also believe in letting people have driver's licenses without taking tests to find out if they have a clue about how to drive or what the rules of the road are. Cars are in fact deadlier weapons in this country than guns, no doubt about it.

First off, as I and others have pointed out, driving a car is not a constitutional right, because if nothing else, you can walk. Owning a gun is a constitutional right, and has been since this country was founded as a check against the type of tyranny and oppression the founding fathers fought to be free of taking root in their new country. In more modern terms, this is also connected with the right to defend yourself. Second off, what do you think things like Hunter's Education are? And yet there are people resisting this instruction in school, because they are to guns as the staunch conservatives opposing sex ed. are to sex - they think teaching it will encourage school shootings instead of responsible gun use. There's nothing to this assertion, but that's their way of thinking.

[Mitchell]

Nope. Wont support it. I agree with keepin Anyone who has commited violent crimes from getting a weapon. An so I have no problem with the Background checks.

I just cant support anymore infringment on any of our rights. Its to slippery of a road to head down.

[CX]

To read the history books, you would believe that the Civil War was a nice, neat, sanitary series of carefull orchestrated duels between groups of gentlemen. Huh-uh. T'wasn't like that. It was damn ugly.

Yeah, apparently a lot of people are forgetting Sherman's march to the sea, because for all the things that are named for him in the North, you never see much of him outside of the History Channel, unless you're really looking for something about it. Most High School texts that I've seen barely mention Sherman engaging in total warfare by targeting civilians and their property, and burning Atlanta for that matter. Not even to mention what he did in South Carolina. Southerners still hate the guy - you won't find any "Sherman Streets" in the South. First Nation people hate him too, because after the Civil War, the US government set him loose on them. But whatever you think about him, what he said still rings true, "War is cruelty."

But for my part, it also comes down to being doomed to repeat the past if you fail to heed history. Not to mention, how does the old saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.