Gun Rights and Control

[Guest072311]

should we?
could we?
what about controls?

[Longermonger]

Give a modern example of a WELL REGULATED militia.

[john_galt]

There is no good modern example of a "well regulated militia" that the founders would recognize. Let's talk about what they thought a "well regulated militia" was. In the 1780s a militia consisted of every able bodied man between the age of 16 and 46 years of age. Sometimes the members were younger and older but that is the definition. Well regulated meant that the members should train and possess adequate weapons. That would require a hiearchy (command structure) and an armory. Weapons would be fairly new, in good working order and come with adequate balls, flints, and powder. There was no prohibition for a village to purchase a muzzle loading artillery piece if they could afford it. It was not unusual for a man of means to establish his own little unit for the protection of the region.
Does anything like this exist today? Not really.

[kccountryboy]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/love...-firearms.html

Big fan of this little video. Unfortunately in today's society, any one who is stockpiling munitions or weapons is sought out and usually found to part of a cult or some other terroistic group and subsequently shut down. I do feel that everyone is entitled to their opinion and I can respect that. I am not saying that someone with a different opinion is wrong. They just have a different opinion, nothing more nothing less. We all interpret information differently and come to our own conclusion. Any one can provide statistics to say whatever they want. I hope it is well known that a good statistician can make those statistics say whatever they are supporting. I have found that arguing politics is much like arguing religion, all but pointless. I chose only to vote how I see fit and would hope that others do the same. I would consider myself to be a conservative. I understand that many others are not and that is why we have the election process. It only fails, and frequently, because people do not excercise their right to vote and then when the politician gets into office they get hit with lobbyists and special interest groups. Unfortunately, the culture of politics is such that this is accepted and accelerated so corruption runs rampant. I know one man that I would love to see in office is the LT. Gov. of South Carolina, Andre Bauer. We apparently have at least one of the same views. Another one would be fired ESPN blogger Paul Shirley for his comments on Haiti. Perhaps he went too far in his blog with his letter to Haiti, however, many points, I feel ring true. It should be the individuals responsibility for themselves. Not someone elses RESPONSIBILITY to help them. The blog is well quoted, but only in segments all over the web and the media. I do not have the link right now but a simple google search should reveal it.

Do not misunderstand, I have compassion for those in need. I do not have compassion for those in need who feel it is someone else's responsibility to aid them. Anymore, countries today feel that America is supposed to help them, that it is our responsibility. It is not. We have enough trouble within our own boundries that I would rather see help for than in other countries.

I am not a proponent of large government involvement. Look at what happened with the brothel they took over in Nevada. It was shut down because the government couldn't make money. The government could not make money selling alcohol and pussy, both renewable resources. Remember, as Thomas Jefferson once said: " A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take it away."

Now I am sure that I will have enraged some and for that I will not apologize. I have my opinions, and you have yours. Let us only agree to disagree. Please be respectful with replies so that the thread does not become locked and keep it civil. The great thing about opinions is that they are like buttholes, everyone has one. So please do not try to force yours on me, I am not trying to force mine on you. Take care and have a good day.

kc

[Guest052813-01]

Amendment II (fact)

"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."

The following is opinion:

AFAIAC, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means that it is a right to keep arms. It doesn't say "the right to shoot others" or "the right to intimidate" or even "the right to defend yourself", which is the original intent. Therefore, until Amendment II is itself amended, if you wish to own firearms, you should.

[BigMikeinKC]

Ever notice how the Supreme Court won't tackle this? Anything remotely dealing with gun control, they give a very narrow scope in their decision making.

If you want to own a gun, I don't really care. I don't like conceal carry - I want to see who has the gun, so I can guage my interactions accordingly.

I have hunting rifles, but no hand guns. Something about that their sole design is to kill another human being.

Best weapon for home defense - shotgun - you aren't going to miss!

[BigMikeinKC]

Here's the ACLU stance:

"Even though gun control isa desirable social objective, and it would be nice to find a civil liberties rationale for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation, the
Committee noted that the ACLU has never supported particular remedies for
particular crimes, and as such, we cannot support gun control legislation."

While they feel the second admendment doesn't guarantee individual ownership, they do not support gun control.

[dirty dog]

Mike the supreme court took up this cause when they found that the Washington DC law banning guns was unconsitutional based on the second amendment. As for conceal carry permit holder protected himself recently during a car jacking attempt at a car wash in kansas city kansas. It would have been very difficult to have used a shotgun during that situation.

SS as for gun control regulations, there are more than enough regulations available now to control legal guns. Illegal guns cannot be regulated by gun control laws. I say this from personal experiences. As many of you may know I spent 7 years in Federal Prison, I was convicted of interstate trafficking in firearms. I can tell you from personal experiance that I got my guns i.e. AK47's, G3's etc. and all types of handguns from Mexico.

These guns were transported up here along with drug shipments for some former KC citizens. I bought hand guns from a sherrif deputy who confiscated them from bangers. I am sure that they had been stolen from someone who legally bought them somewhere along the line. My point is this in over 10 years of business I never once purchased a single weapon from a gun store, gun show etc. Why? they dont sell full auto weapons at these places, and any purchase would be recorded. Should there be regulations on the purchase of firearms, yes, and they are already in place. Felons dont by their guns and gun stores. The best type of gun control is alreay in place and that is the heavily enforced felon in possession laws which put felons back in federal lock up for long terms. If anyone would like to ask me any questions feel free to PM me, if i recognize your handle I will get back at you.

[lacrew_2000]

Here is the entire amendment:

"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."

At the time of ratification, I imagine much of the colonies could be fairly lawless. There were probably armed groups of bandits, similar to what happened later in the western states...and groups of 'volunteers', who may have been 'deputized' would be necessary to counter these bands...again similar to the old west.

While that is not the exact situation today, the acknowledgement that freedom is impossible without force still rings true today. I wouldn't feel completely 'free' if I lived in a major urban area that restricted gun ownership. Guess what, our major cities are still fairly 'lawless'. No matter how big I am, there is always somebody bigger and stronger. No matter how little I have, there will always be somebody out there who would like to take it. No matter how many police we have, they won't always be able to protect me.

Looking at city-data for Washington DC, it looks like you have a 1.3% chance of getting robbed or assaulted in any given year. I don't like those odds; and, I wouldn't consider myself to be free if I lived in a city like that...and was prohibited from protecting myself.

The amendment is very explicit - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are alot of people who don't like it or agree with it. It CAN be changed...by amendment. Why is that unlikely right now? Apparently, when push comes to shove, the vast majority of people want the right to have a gun, even if they don't presently own or carry one.

Until an amendment is passed, I really don't see any utility in parsing words over what 'regulated' and 'militia' mean. Same goes for claims that the amendment is 'antiquated' and 'from a different time'. Doesn't matter - the constitution is perfectly clear. Don't try to change it by parsing words - amend the constitution.

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Mike the supreme court took up this cause when they found that the Washington DC law banning guns was unconsitutional based on the second amendment. As for conceal carry permit holder protected himself recently during a car jacking attempt at a car wash in kansas city kansas. It would have been very difficult to have used a shotgun during that situation.

Yes, but the Supreme Court limited its decision so tightly that the DC case gave no precedent for any other gun control case.

If the gun was in plain sight, not concealed, who the attempted car jacking take place. I think they would have looked for an easier victim.

Shotgun - I said home defense - you are in tight quarters. I was actually advised about that by a member of KC's finest.

[kccountryboy]

I cannot recall at this time where I heard it or from whom, or for that fact who the originator was but, " An armed society is a polite society." I feel this rings quite true. There are no federal or state laws that regulate open carry, carrying a weapon where it is visible, that I am aware of. However most local ordinances do not allow open carry. This would be considered disturbing the peace I believe. While I would not be intimidated by open carry, many are. They feel that if someone is carrying openly, that they are a threat. I do not feel this is the case. The individual is merely letting others know not to mess with him or her.

I do agree concealed carry. I think it makes criminals a little more timid about crimes against others because he or SHE might be armed. In both Kansas and Missouri, a person must complete a saftey course and show proficiency in marksman ship from multiple distances for the class to be passed. The individual then has to apply to the state for the permit and pay a fee.

KS: http://www.ksag.org/page/concealed-carry

MO: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000101.HTM

These are the Kansas and Missouri resource pages. Notice, not everyone can carry, legally that is with a permit. However, if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Goes don't kill people, people do. If guns did, then, pens and pencils would misspell words. On the same thought process, alcohol and cars should be outlawed because they kill people when a drunk driver kills another individual.

As DD pointed out the case of the car wash, there was another in Missouri. The man in the northland who shot the attacker that tried to rob him while he was at the ATM machine. I have not compasion for the attacker. If it comes down to me or my family going home versus the dirtbag trying to get something for nothing. I will kill him, no questions asked, and not even think twice of it. I do have my concealed carry permit, and I have had to draw my weapon on multiple occasions. I have not had to discharge that weapon as of yet, and will show no remorse should I have to. Each time just the image of the weapon is enough deter since I am no longer an easy target. There are a number of women who obtain concealed carry for their own protection as well. There are a number of statistics available on the Kansas page including revocations, suspensions and issuances of the permit. It used to give age break down as well as gender, but in a quick skim, I did not see that information today.

I know some are against guns in general. That is your choice, and that I understand. But in hostile, yet hypothetical situation, I would be happy to put a sign in my yard saying that I have them and you dont, it would be in my own self interest and self preservation. Nothing personal against an individual. I choose not to make myself an easy target or a victim. I choose to find back with all resources available. Never bring a knife to a gun fight, you will loose.

Kansas also has passed a law allowing the purchase of both fully automatic weapons, as well as silencers, or suppressors as they are called in the statute.

http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/46.pdf

http://cjonline.com/stories/031408/sta_257711292.shtml

I cannot find the statue on full auto, but these should do. Do I feel that we should have full auto. Not necessarily. Anyone who has ever fired a weapon in full auto, will tell you it is not very practical due to accuracy. The recoil will change the trajectory for the next bullet that comes out of the chamber because it will push back against the user and they will not be able to keep zeroed in on the target with much accuracy. This does not however negate the "coolness" factor of being able to fire several hundred rounds in less than a minute. What I hate is the reloading process. It can take quite a while. Practical for individuals to own, or even law enforcement, not really strictly because of accuracy. Cool to own. HELL YEA!!!

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by kccountryboy

I do have my concealed carry permit, and I have had to draw my weapon on multiple occasions. I have not had to discharge that weapon as of yet, and will show no remorse should I have to. Each time just the image of the weapon is enough deter since I am no longer an easy target.

Not questioning you right to carry. But I am curious what you do or where you go that it was nessecary for you to draw you weapon on mutiple occasions?

Does have a gun make you more likely to get into a sticky situations, as it adds to your confidence?

[Longermonger]

Believe it or not, I think we're about 90% in agreement. We wish the founding fathers were more clear when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. If they'd just stated that gun ownership was an individual right it would have saved us a lot of trouble. They didn't. They used the phrase "well regulated militia" and then used the word "militia" again in the 5th Amendment. We've been left to guess what that meant to all of the different signers over 200 years ago.

Galt was correct when he pointed out that there is no modern example of a well regulated militia that is trained and has a command structure. That's a problem because that's the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The sentence structure is horrible and it helps if you read it with "For the purpose of..." before "A well regulated militia". Alternatively, you can make it clear by chopping off the first half of the sentence but you end up with a different meaning entirely.

DD, we pretty much agree. But don't the felon in possession laws violate the 2nd Amendment?

The only other fine point that I might disagree with is the "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" line. What kind of gun? Is it holstered? What kind of knife? Check out the SWAT team video on YouTube or Google "21 foot rule".

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by kccountryboy

Kansas also has passed a law allowing the purchase of both fully automatic weapons, as well as silencers, or suppressors as they are called in the statute.

http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/46.pdf

http://cjonline.com/stories/031408/sta_257711292.shtml

Actually KC it has always been legal to own a full auto weapon or a suppressor if you have went throught the atf and received your tax stamp. I believe the fee is $200.00. You will not be able to purchase a full auto weapon without this stamp even in Kansas.

[dirty dog]

Monger you lose your civil right once you have been convicted and they are not returned unless you petition the court after you have completed your debt to society and it has been at least 7 years since your discharge from the system.