How far are you willing to go to defend 2A

[Dr. Dickie]

"Experience shows that people meekly turn over their weapons and then hope to rely on the courts later to slap the authorities on the wrist."

For the most part, you are correct, and for the most part that is the way it should be. I do not think any of us wants people killing authorities for minor transgressions. However, the people on the first three planes on 9/11 obeyed the hijackers because history said that if you obey you got released unharmed. The people on th fourth plane knew better.
Before Katrina, people would surrender their arms and hope to sue the authorities afterwards, it was a gray area under a stressful time. Now we know better, the law has been made clearer.
You are right that even if there were a sudden compete and total ban of weapons, probably most would meekly turn their weapons over. And that is one of the saddest statements about us that you could say. As a people we are not even willing to fight for freedom anymore, our founding fathers cannot be lying so still below us.

 

[mike101]

The "Cold Dead Hands" thing sounds good on paper, but if you look like you are even thinking about shooting at an LEO, your hands will most certainly be cold and dead, instantly. You may as well call it suicide by cop.

If it really ever gets to that point, I agree with those who would stash the guns away, and tell the police they were sold years ago.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

How far am I willing to go? That depends on how far they violate my life.

The one reason the American people will never be disarmed:

The corruption of our government, the authorities and the world can always be counted on from generation to generation to screw up and reveal itself. Brutality will always be seen for what it is and, try as they may, it will not be contained. Enter the reborn wisdom of our founding fathers and the 2A.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Lonestar, staying with the idea of "fair, honest and sensible gun laws" for now: I suggest you read "Under the Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. Univ. of Fla. Press, 1985.

Their primary conclusion was that no gun-control law ever passed in Florida had ever had any effect on the rate of violent crime involving firearms. Remember, this must include federal laws as well--including the GCA '68.

If there is no utility to a law, why have it?

When members of Congress declare that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms of any sort; when the phrasings of the media indicate an attitude that gun-owners are inherently violent, what do you suggest as our attitude? How are we supposed to feel?

When we are called "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" by the anti-gun groups, publicly and in print, how should we feel? Are we supposed to enjoy being called such names?

The abuse and maltreatment of gunowners has been going on since I first got involved in the political issues in 1967. I'm rather polite here at THR, but leave it that my opinions of the anti-gun crowd could readily be expressed in seriously harsh words--with fluency in several languages.

Very very nicely put Art.

What I dont appreciate most is the fact that we are ignorant according to anti's. I always remember this quote

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
--George Orwell--"

When a lot of us are very well educated either by self or public education and I have not met a gun owner who is not safe with their weapons. As for me, its a "RED DAWN" sort of thing, unfortunetly its necessary to be polite on this forum, I have been in public places and other forums that do not require such civility. But if violence is required to keep my definition of freedom, then so be it.

I am sure most people on this forum would not stand idle, I see already most people here vote, write letters, send emails, belong to gun clubs, this is the peaceable way of resistence.

I also remembered some Ghandi quoteshad to look them up of course to make sure I did not foul them up completely)

“A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.” Mahatma Gandhi

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Thin Black Line]

I am sure most people on this forum would not stand idle, I see already most people here vote, write letters, send emails, belong to gun clubs, this is the peaceable way of resistence.

And it's still another step, a giant leap, to defend yourself and abstract ideals.
Unless a threat is concrete, direct, and immediate, people stand back to wait and
see if the danger passes. That usually works well unless it's a juggernaut.

 

[coyote_jr]

Lot of projecting going on here. Lot of guys, who probably consider themselves know-it-alls, that believe if "I won't do it, they won't either." Speak for yourself. I have no doubt some people may simply be posturing. I have no doubt some people would seriously shoot.

 

[strambo]

I hope I never have to find out...

 

[jnormanh]

Don't be confused about what the second amendment says. The subject is "militia". Some think the second amendment gaurantees the right of all citizens to bear arms. That's been debated for a long time, but the final decision about what the second amendment means has been settled since 1939 when the Supreme Court ruled in US v Miller that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms to individual citizens. It's been tested in the Supreme Court many times since, and it always comes down in support of the original 1939 decision.

You may not like or agree with the Supreme Court decisions (the losers in cases at law never do), but it is the law, and we are a nation of laws. The Supreme Court makes the final decision about what laws mean. Period.

That means that citizens can own guns, but that ownership can be limited by Federal law (as in no full autos), and by local laws (no loaded guns in vehicles in some states).

Congress can institute new gun laws, but it's unlikely that they will. Live with it.

I don't know why the NRA and others rant and rave. if you want to own guns for any legitimite purpose, hunting, target shooting, home defense, you can do so. Nobody credible is talking about banning guns. Nobody. NRA's rants are just scare tactics.

The NRA can shout about "the right to bear arms" until the cows come home. There is no such right in the Constitution. The Supreme Court says so, and the NRA is full of baloney. The raise a lot of money though.

 

[Biker]

Go home.

Biker

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Some think the second amendment gaurantees the right of all citizens to bear arms.

You Brady Bunch trolls are funny.

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] 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 birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... T he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [83]-- Tench Coxe

 

[GRIZ22]

US vs Miller deals with Miller's possession of a sawed off shotgun in violation of NFA. If you read the entire decision the court's position there was "no military use for a sawed off shotgun". It actually strengthens an argument for military style weapons in citzen's hands

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

jnormanh

. . . since 1939 when the Supreme Court ruled in US v Miller that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms to individual citizens. It's been tested in the Supreme Court many times since . . .

Have you ever read U.S. v. Miller?

Ever?

Here is what Miller said about individual citizens and militias:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Here is what it says about the short barreled shotgun at issue:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The highlighted phrases are another way of saying, "Since no evidence was presented on this issue, we aren't going to rule on our own (judicial notice) that a short barreled shotgun is any part of the ordinary military equipment."

The necessary corollary is that the Second Amendment would protect the possession of weapons that could be show, by evidence, to be "any part of the ordinary military equipment."

As for your next sentence, that Miller has "been tested in the Supreme Court many times since," well, no, the Second Amendment has never been present in the holding of any Supreme Court decision since 1939. It has been mentioned in dicta (for example, for the explanation of what the word "people" means).

Here is a good link to review the case:
http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm

 

[Tommygunn]

Don't be confused about what the second amendment says. The subject is "militia". Some think the second amendment gaurantees the right of all citizens to bear arms. That's been debated for a long time, but the final decision about what the second amendment means has been settled since 1939 when the Supreme Court ruled in US v Miller that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to bear arms to individual citizens. It's been tested in the Supreme Court many times since, and it always comes down in support of the original 1939 decision.

The Supreme Court has made over 90 rulings that have touched upon the 2nd amendment. In each of those rulings the court stated that, or opined that, the right was indeed an individual right. The wording of the amendment itself supports no other interpretation. "...the right of the people..." There's the connection. The "people" listed are US. "We, the PEOPLE..."

Congress can institute new gun laws, but it's unlikely that they will. Live with it.

Sure hope you're right there, pal, but I wouldn't bet on it. They try all the time. The succeeded in a major way in 1994. "Live with it." What's that supposed to mean?
I suggest you get a book titled Supreme Court Gun Cases; Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed, by David B. Kopel, Stephen P Halbrook, Ph.D., and Alan Korwin, and review it well, 'cause, buddy, you are absolutly not qualified to tell me to "live with it" given your present comprehension of the Second Amednment.

 

[jnormanh]

<<The necessary corollary is that the Second Amendment would protect the possession of weapons that could be show, by evidence, to be "any part of the ordinary military equipment.">>

So you think every citizen has the right to bear "military arms"? That's utter nonsense. Try walking down the street with an M-16, or a bazooka, or a grenade launcher.

The truth is that the Federal government, state governments and local governments are free to regulate gun ownership in any way they see fit. There is no constitutional right to bear arms, or such laws would be ruled unconstitutional.

You can quote NRA propaganda all you like, but if your city, state or the federal government wants to restrict or ban gun ownership, the Supreme Court will not find a violation of the constitution...unless you're acting as a "militia".

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

The truth is that the Federal government, state governments and local governments are free to regulate gun ownership in any way they see fit.

No. They are not. The quotes being thrown at you are not from the NRA, but most are either from the Constitution or from those who WROTE the Constitution.

Further, just because a government exceeds its legitimate authority does not make their actions any more Constitutional or "legal".

Of course, that would be if you were really interested in debate on this topic. I'm guessing your only point in being on this forum is to try and stir the pot.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I'll be carefull in choosing my words.

As for myself, I will not say on a public forum.

As for the country as a whole the majority would not act per se.

But you have to realize that guns are part of a greater mosaic of human rights. It isn't so much guns as much as a right to defend yourself, against anyone. The 1st Amendment is about a right to express yourself, and your beliefs, and your religion without interference from the government. The 4th Amendment is about a right to proerty and privacy. Atleast these are the core ideas behind the language.

If the government takes away guns, it isn't simply for the sake of taking guns. It will also be for the sake of limiting other rights. Simply to take away guns, the government would have to violate everyone's privacy. It would have to violate everyone's property and privacy. A gun ban would also involve trammeling people's rights to express their feelings as well as their opinions, and finally, to prevent communication between people who could be potentially "breaking the law."

It wouldn't just be a gun ban. It would be a ban on privacy and on certain forms of speech, and it would be an affirmation of the idea that the prerogatives of the state, and it's needs outweigh any concerns of property owners.

To say that this is a gun ban, and then contend that you would be able to campaign politically against the government after it was over is folly. The government would know that you at one time owned guns, it would put people on you to make sure you don't access any "secret arms cache" and it would also try to invade your privacy and deny you freedom to movement. If you tried to fund an organization committed to stopping the gun bans, it would freeze your assets.

We're talking about something much grander than simply a gun ban. We're talking about a civil rights ban. The only reason to disarm people entirely is because you feel they are a threat to what you have planned.

Many gun owners are also adherents to the priniciples in the BOR and the COTUS. In fact, the ones who would probably hold their weapons through a gunban would be those most likely to have a strict adherence principle. And if you plan on trampeling those principles, the last thing in the world you want is to have a bunch of armed people who don't see any method usable via the ballot or soap boxes. You take away the cartridge box, and they are nothing more than a bunch of discontents, easily marginalized, and brought in on trumped up charges.

That being said, a gun ban happens. It would have huge fanfare, and a mass of extremely angry protestors. The voice would be resounding in favor of stopping the ban from taking effect. Then, when it went down, there would be a near total silence on the issue.

Then, there would be two forms of resistance. One would be violent. (take that to mean whatever you wish). The other would be non-violent. It would be people staging protests, getting time on TV, etc.

The government would freak, attempting to go after those using legal peaceful channels to quell the violence. It would only succeed in polarizing those who are non-violent. And, as the violence continued, alot of fence sitting gunowners would begin to realize the mistakes they made when they turned in their weapons. Because of the lengths the government would go to to stop the opposition. These people would see that those "fringe" people were right.

It would lead to even more violence. The government guns down yet another "domestic terrorist" and another jbt is blasted. Reprissals would get worse and worse until either the government let up, and got off people's backs, or there was a full blown Revolution/Civil War.

The numbers involved would be comparatively small at first. But as things got more serious, the numbers would increase for both sides. It would be alot like the first Revolution. i.e. both sides had minorities in support of their goals while the majority was fence sitting, waiting for the whole thing to end.

 

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, jnormanh, but your statement, "The truth is that the Federal government, state governments and local governments are free to regulate gun ownership in any way they see fit. There is no constitutional right to bear arms, or such laws would be ruled unconstitutional." shows you haven't ever read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Apparently, not many people have.

I note that the Preamble is included in the replica documents at US Post Offices, here and there around the country.

It states the purpose of the entire Bill of Rights as a package: To prevent the abuse of power by the State. State, in this usage, = what we now call the federal government.

Ask yourself: How can a restraint upon the government also be restraining of the citizenry? If the citizenry does not have the physical means--"arms"--to restrain said government, what's the point of having a Bill of Rights in the first place? Would you prefer to call it the "Nine Privileges"?

At the time of the writing of our fundamental documents, ALL arms were military in nature and were so used. Even private citizens owned cannon and owned ships armed with cannon. That's history, not opinion.

"Try walking down the street with an M-16, or a bazooka, or a grenade launcher."

How is that relevant to any discussion of rights? Beyond a discussion of having the State taking the physical power to restrain one's rights...Anyway, they would be merely the modern equivalent of the aforementioned cannon. Would you say the First Amendment only applies to the use of quill pens, but not ballpoints, typewriters, word processors or computers?

And please remember that the Bill of Rights enumerates rights; it does not grant them. The rights would exist even in the absence of a government.

Art

 

[XDKingslayer]

Funny you should mention it. I just walked down the street yesterday, 4 houses down to a buddies house, with, essentially, an M16 in my hands.

Nothing happened...We even spent the next hour in his front yard while I showed him military shooting positions in front of the whole world.

Again, nothing happened...

Then I walked back to my house, grabbed my combat shotgun and proceeded to walk back to his house.

Wait for it...

Nothing happened.

 

[scout26]

How far are you willing to go to defend 2A ?

Won't know until I'm pushed that far.

 

[jnormanh]

<<<Quote:
The truth is that the Federal government, state governments and local governments are free to regulate gun ownership in any way they see fit.

No. They are not. The quotes being thrown at you are not from the NRA, but most are either from the Constitution or from those who WROTE the Constitution.>>>

Sorry, <insult removed by Art> but yes, all governments are free to reglate gun ownership in any way they choose. They can outlaw full auto, short barrels, concealed weapons, teflon bullets, and anything else they want with respect to private citizens. You can't name one court case where gun regulations have been ruled unconstitutional. Not one. Know why? Because the Supreme Court has held that the second amendment applies ONLY to bearing arms as part of a MILITIA (which the court has defined as the National Guard). Individual citizens have NO constitutional right to bear arms. Federal state and local governments may ALLOW citizens to own arms, and may not, as they choose.

As far as quoting anything from any other source - immaterial. The Supreme Court has spoken and that over rules the statements, claims and opinions of everyone.

The NRA? Laughable. They scare the **** out of gun owners for money...and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[the pistolero]

You can't name one court case where gun regulations have been ruled unconstitutional. Not one. Know why?

Courts' mis-interpretation and usurpation of the Constitution for their own nefarious purposes. Does the phrase "black-robed tyrant" mean anything to you?

 

[jnormanh]

<<Funny you should mention it. I just walked down the street yesterday, 4 houses down to a buddies house, with, essentially, an M16 in my hands.

Nothing happened...We even spent the next hour in his front yard while I showed him military shooting positions in front of the whole world.

Again, nothing happened...

Then I walked back to my house, grabbed my combat shotgun and proceeded to walk back to his house.

Wait for it...

Nothing happened>>

"Essentially" an M-16? If it was a full auto weapon, and you are not a class III FFL, then you were in violation of the law. A police officer didn't happen to see you and no one reported you, so you got away with it. You can write hot checks and shoplift too, and maybe get away with it. That doesn't make it legal. Keep on, you'll get caught.

 

[Tommygunn]

Methinks we're being plagued by a troll .......

 

[jnormanh]

<<Courts' mis-interpretation and usurpation of the Constitution for their own nefarious purposes. Does the phrase "black-robed tyrant" mean anything to you?>>

Black-robed tyrants? There have been a hundred or so Supreme Court judges since US v Miller in 1939. Any later court could have reversed Miller, but they have not done so. They're all "black robed tyrants"? That's what you think of our three-part system of government and the Constitution which created it? That's what you think of some of the finest jurists our country has produced? Where is you respect for our Constitution and government? Sounds like you'd prefer another country.

 

[Tommygunn]

Yeah, we all worship at the feet of nine guys wearing robes.....