If you love Paintball....

[Lohman446]

That's true. The exact phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. Neither does the exact phrase "right to privacy" and "right to a fair trial". Just because those exact words aren't in the constitution does not mean that the concept is not there.



It's not preventing you from carrying a gun or owning one. Imagine what it would be like if there were no such laws. Then anyone could buy and carry a gun. And for me, I know that I'm safe not because I carry a gun, but because I know that there are preventative measures keeping other people from buying and carrying them.

Fine, then why are there laws preventing me from buying military grade weapons and munitions?

[maxama10]

Id expect a post from Army about now.


Also, that story about the resteraunt and the girl was shown on Penn and Teller BS with a nice episode on gun rights etc...

[mobsterboy]

know what I think is funny? How people associate the 2nd amendment and the NRA together, when in reality they are two separate entities. One is the right to bear arms, now that sounds just like owning a personal firearm, but its not. It was the country's right to a militia. So unless you NRA folks are Armed Forces Last Reserves or something, you just stand for your right to personal firearms. 2nd Ammendment as it was written will never go away so long as we have nutcases like Korea out there.

[Glickman]

know what I think is funny? How people associate the 2nd amendment and the NRA together, when in reality they are two separate entities. One is the right to bear arms, now that sounds just like owning a personal firearm, but its not. It was the country's right to a militia. So unless you NRA folks are Armed Forces Last Reserves or something, you just stand for your right to personal firearms. 2nd Ammendment as it was written will never go away so long as we have nutcases like Korea out there.

United States v. Miller
The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves.

so it really IS the right to personal firearm ownership btw

Because although it would seem painfully obvious it actually comes down to being a pretty naive statement.

Second that motion

[spike_ball999]

Maybe I'm just delerious from lack of sleep recently, but my mind is kinda going everywhere right now.

Anyway, if you cant see it or feel it, I think there's a civil war comming within the next 5 years. I'm gettin my guns.

[kosmo]

By the way... someone brought up Seperation of Church and State. Thats not in the constitution. Never had been never was. Freedom to practice your religon is but there is no garantee of seperation of church and state anywhere in the constitution. People can never be seperated from the moral fiber of thier being and that is thier religon. It will be present in thier very actions and core and no one can ask someone to dismiss that part of thier lives. It would be folly to think that they could. This country was founded on Christian prinicpals predominantly so its not too suprising it has a heavy influence.

What the constitution says is that congress can not establish religion, and in a different part of the constitution it says that the rules/rights that apply for the federal government also apply to state governments. Hence why people who think that states should force children to say under god in the pledge need to move to a different country if they cant deal with their religion not being forced upon others. And no, it doesnt specifically say "separation of church and state", but it says it about 5 million times in documents by those who wrote the constitution. It doesnt specifically say personal gun ownership either, but militia back in the day meant every man physically capable of firing a gun needs to have one to be ready to protect the country. Thats why the 2nd guarantees personal firearm ownership. Also, saying that an average citizen can have no effect on a military force is complete bull. Look at what we did to Iraqs army and now what Iraqs civilians are doing to us. The French did more damage to the German military after their surrender in WW2. So did the Polish. We kicked the crap out of the NVA regulars in Vietnam, but the villagers setting traps and ambushes killed plenty of Americans. Its an invaluable part of the defense of any invaded country.

[DSR75]

It's not preventing you from carrying a gun or owning one. Imagine what it would be like if there were no such laws. Then anyone could buy and carry a gun. And for me, I know that I'm safe not because I carry a gun, but because I know that there are preventative measures keeping other people from buying and carrying them.

If everyone had a gun and could carry it whenever and whereever they wanted, there would be a lot less crime. Look at the countries (1st world not 3rd world african countries like the Sudan) who have the highest amount of gun control. They are at the top of the list when it comes to violent crime rate. Now look at countries who have very little to no gun control (some even have laws stating that you MUST own a gun), they have the lowest crime rate.

And the preventative measures you are talking about.....only law abiding citizens follow them. The ones who would break the law are going to break the law against illegally purchasing firearms as well. Look at it through a criminals eyes. If there is a lot of gun control then that means the target is most likely unarmed and unable to defend themselves. In areas with little gun control, there is a higher chance that that person very likely is armed and able to defend themselves. You choose your target!

For those who are interested I have a double major in both History and Criminal Justice. I've spent a lot of time researching this issue. My cousin works for the State Department and he as provided me with a lot of statistics. Unfortunatly my PC crashed last week and I no longer have them saved. When he gets back into the US I'll try and post them if anyone is interested then.

[Lohman446]

It would seem to me Germany and the USSR (often heralded as showpieces of goverment overcontrol) had, with a strong enough police, very little crime.

I disagree vehemently with gun control, and your best examples are the crime rate drop in the same places after gun carry laws are enacted as they tend to take out more variables. Comparing country to country across lines is not fair comparisons due to differences in societies

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Captain.... it was supposedly at one point posted on the Brady site. However whether it even existed or still exists in that same format was not the real intent of posting it. It contains many things already proposed and some defeated some not at times. Plus many of the points still exist on almost all those sites even today. I was a compilation of those at one time. Its primary use here was to consolidate a lot of agenda's of certain organizations for the purpose of discussion. Thats all. I can dig and find its origin. Or we can go to those sites and find them all piece by piece if you like? The purpose of any such posting is to "lobby" a position. There is no attempt to hide that if thats what you wish to imply... I not making any bones about my position on the subject. Hardly trying to use trickery. All of that sort of thing is well out in the open.

You answered my question very clearly about the compiled list. I realized when I read it that a lot of the things have been attempted in politics before, but some of the list just seemed way too left-wing to be considered realistic gun control measures.

One point I always fall back on in a gun control debate is the "Criminals don't follow the law" arguement. It's easy to make gun control laws, but it's hard (almost impossible) to make criminals comply with them. So what's the point of gun control? (rhetorical)

[SCpoloRicker]

lol @ USA

[Ole Unka Phil]

You answered my question very clearly about the compiled list. I realized when I read it that a lot of the things have been attempted in politics before, but some of the list just seemed way too left-wing to be considered realistic gun control measures.

One point I always fall back on in a gun control debate is the "Criminals don't follow the law" arguement. It's easy to make gun control laws, but it's hard (almost impossible) to make criminals comply with them. So what's the point of gun control? (rhetorical)

Oh yea. Some of that is so far oddball that even some of the anti gun organizations will distance themselves from it. But... there are those that do think that way, and if no one else, more moderate, cares or objects... well....

Kosmo, great point about the ability for each citizen to be able to defend against an invading force.

I posted some stuff a while back on anther thread. I need to find that stuff again. It was some of the exact writings of the deliberations of the Articles of the Federation that defined the whole Militia concepts and why they were intended to be several levels. I will see if I can find that.

But essentialy it came down to our forefathers setting up a series of Militia's that were from the ground up. By that I mean it started at the lowest lever first being every Man (back in those days no mention of women) that was capable of carrying. They also went into great detail about why that each man should and HAD to be free to own a gun. Then it went into the establishment of "Organized Millitia's. Such as State Guards (like National Guard only they are State organizations. This is the only still existing true example of the invisioned "organaized millitia" as it was designed and not all states have these anymore I don't think. Some do. But the Consitution was then drafted out of these Articles and so the real meanings and definitions of what was ment is drawn from there. They Constituton was designed to be a simplistic "announcement" of all these things. Not a grocery list of how each thing was to be exactly interpreted because all that really already existed. So you cannot interpret the constitution as a law (more or less). You have to go to the laws that define it. taking things from the "writers intents" and other scources such as case law and additional defining laws. Thats where it all comes into play. Now... opponents don't like that but, case after case, it ends up being that they are wrong. It was an individual right. And it was clearly intended to be a right. It was so important that it be a cornerstone of the peoples right to both defend themselves personaly but also to keep its government subservient to the people that they put it right at the top. 2nd only to Freedoms of Religon, Speech and Assembly. So the first are basic rights of the people to talk about stuff like this, meet and discuss it and pray to whatever god they wished for guidance on it and the government shall make no laws against that. Then there is the right to bear arms and for every state to be able to take to arms to ENFORCE this.

Now... as to the religon thing. The GOVERNMENT is to make no laws. It does not say that religon cannot influence. It does not constrain Religon from doing what it wants. It restrains the government. And in fact because the Governement can make no laws to stop that from even happening, it can be assumed that the people wanted to be able to influence government with thier religous beliefs. Is that a valid argument?

In case anyone has not noticed... the Constitution is a document RESTRAINING the Government by the People. It is not a government document directing the people as to what they can or cannot do.. It is "we, the people" telling the government what it will and what it cannot do. The Constitution is OUR direct orders to our government to behave and laying down the ground rules to the government of what we will allow it to do and not do. How can we enforce our rules without also being given the tools to do so? Well... SECOND AMENDMENT! See now clever these guys were?

[Ole Unka Phil]

The Video of the day...

Subject: Assault Weapons.

Big download but worth a watch

http://www.fwbairsoft.com/truth.wmv

[Altimas]

How can you not trust this man? Look at his sweet mustache!!!

[Ole Unka Phil]

Here is an article from Baltimore Md. Those of you from Maryland should know already that Maryland has some of the toughest Gun restrictions in the Country outide of perhaps DC and NY City... maybe the toughest. But it ranks right up there with some of the toughest for a Legal person to get a gun or to get a carry permit at all. Maryland has a permit. But it does not believe it has to issue them. And does not many times do so. It has taken the stand that the 2nd ammendment does not apply to states. So it reluctantly set up a "may issue" permit system while taking the stance it does not have to and probably won't give you one.


But.... what does that really accomplish? Here's a guy that kills with them anyway...and not a single one of the gun laws kept this guy from getting them. Because... he don't care about no stinkin laws. So who is having trouble getting a gun to protect him/her self from this guy? You guessed it... the poor shmoe that tries to do it legaly!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_re_us/baltimore_violence

Also going to touch on a couple of historical things here in a bit. Did you know that the first Gun laws were originaly passed to keep Blacks and Hispanics from getting guns? Its primary purpose was to disarm them and it was racist. The whole concept of regulation was tolerated and accepted by whites to achieve this. Little did they know that later on it would be used as a precident to be applied to them! Similar laws were all enacted for Alcohol and Marijuana. (See how Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms got linked together?). The very existence of ATF is a tax revenue. Notice how they exist under the Treasury Dept? These first restrictions were aimed at a particular race. And since the Federal Governement had no real authority to do them they came up with a clever way to enact them as "Taxes". What they would do was make it illegal to own or possess without a Tax stamp. And then they would actualy deny them to anyone that was not white. So this continues today.The use of taxes and restrictions to get permits as a means of denying things. Which is what Maryland does, in essence. Now what we have is a whole generation or two that think this whole thing is as intended. But what it really is, is a perversion of racist laws that are now turned on all the people. And now we have a whole new generation that doesn't even think anything of it. This is "Gradualism". This is how cleverly a Government regulates itself into an area it has no right to do. It does not make laws to do it. It makes taxes and permits which eventualy it just denies. Then it make criminals out of honest people. And everyone just accepts it.

[DSR75]

Great post Phil.