The Second Amendment stipulates freedom to bear arms within the confines of a well-regulated militia, like the army or police. It was never intended to allow all people to own whatever weapons they want.

Let me get this straight… We need to possess assault rifles (define the term however you like) so that we can either 1) Kill the Chinese, or 2) Fight the folks in the black helicopters.

Consider, at least, the possibility that there is a greater chance of these weapons causing unnecessary deaths than either of these factors occuring.

Furthermore, public support for gun control (nationwide) is generally in the majority. These Congressmen you mention were not defeated (again, generally) because they went against the wishes of their consituents—they were defeated because the NRA is a bad mother**cker.

Finally, if you take on the lofty goal of using facts and logic as the basis for your column, avoid using juvenile terms like “ultra-left.”

You fucking morons! Read what the intent of the 2nd Amendment really is!

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.” —John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” —Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

“[W]hen 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.” —George Mason, Virginia’s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” — Within Mason’s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” —George Mason, later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams, Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” —William Grayson, Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

“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 people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” —Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” —James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46

“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.” —Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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.” —Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” —Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” —Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 29

“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” —Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” —Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty… Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” —Elbridge Gerry, Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” —Patrick Henry, Virginia’s U.S. Constitution ratification convention

Hey guys, it’s Adrian, the article’s author. I’ll be checking this from time to time, and would love to discuss/debate things, in a civil and polite manner of course (no name calling please, it upsets my wife).

So, let me address a few things: 1st poster wrote:

“The Second Amendment stipulates freedom to bear arms within the confines of a well-regulated militia, like the army or police.”

If you read US code, here is your definition of militia:

“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Then, you can go back in history and read the federalist/anti-federalist papers and see what the forefathers really intended the 2A to mean. You can also read the other ammendments in the BoR and see they all apply to INDIVIDAUL rights. The third poster had some awesome quotes.

SECOND POSTER WROTE:

“Consider, at least, the possibility that there is a greater chance of these weapons causing unnecessary deaths than either of these factors occuring.”

It’s not the guns, it’s the people. My AR has never killed anyone. But, God forbid, if it ever has to, it will be ready to do so. Look at the FBI UCS: less than 1% of firearm crimes involve semiautomatic rifles. I hate gun crime, more than anyone else. Some punk thugs are hurting my rights as a gunowner. Lock them up for a long time, but preventing me from owning my AR will not stop crime, in fact, it may drive crime.

You also wrote:

“Furthermore, public support for gun control (nationwide) is generally in the majority.”

Sure, I believe in gun control - to the extent of keeping them out of the bad guy’s hands. That is RESPONSIBLE gun control, anything else is reckless and unconstitutional.

“the NRA is a bad mother**cker.” They are the only group that fights to protect gun owners rights. If the politicians wern’t so clueless, we wouldnt need the NRA.

“avoid using juvenile terms like ‘ultra-left.’” perhaps I should have, but Feinstein supported things like national ID cards with DNA, fingerprint, retina and all sorts of identifying information. How 1984 is that? Sounds pretty commie to me.

And for what its worth, I have voted for lots of democrats, and I consider myself to be independent, judging candidates by their personal stance on ISSUES, not party platform or stuff they did (or didnt do) 30 years ago.

Third poster - AWESOME quotes, many of them I didnt have. Thanks!

Thanks for the comments, I’ll check back later.

-Adrian

one clarification, I wrote

“but preventing me from owning my AR will not stop crime, in fact, it may drive crime.”

I don’t want that to be taken the wrong way, like I’ll freak out and go nuts, but rather, I won’t have that tool to prevent crime if it ever happens on my doorstep. (like it did to those girls during that mob beating the other day in Madison http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/09/23/studentsrelayhorro.php). If someone had came out of the house with an AR, with a big, bright flashlight attached to the end of it, and simply pointed it at the thugs, they would have stopped what they were doing VERY quickly).

-Adrian

I seriously doubt that the United States will be invaded on its own soil anytime in the near future, and I see that argument as inherently faulty, however I still do not see the ending of the AWB as necessarily such a bad thing. Assault weapons, or weapons of any kind, are never going to cease being bought and sold. I would rather have them bought and sold legally under government juristiction than worry about nomrmally law abiding citizens, such as myself, having to buy them off of a black market therefore supporting criminal activity.

An overwhelming fear of guns and gun related culture doesn’t help anyone. Only education, caution and responsibility can prevent gun related violence from happening, not a government issued gun ban.

-LBR

http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/article.php?id=2591

Consider the following. Marijauna, cocaine, heroin and many other narcotic drugs have been made illegal, or banned, by the US government. Has this stopped their use or made it impossible to obtain these drugs? No. Rather, it has created a black market in which violence and money rule. An assault weapons ban has the potential to do the same. A black market will emerge in which violent crimes will most certainly take place. An argument could be made that a total ban on assault weapons would in fact increase the amount of violent crime commited with these guns. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars would be spent to find gun dealers and try to stop them, just like the drug war.

I don’t mean to sound as though I support narcotics use or legalization, but only wish to point out the similarities between these two situations. An AWB will not be successful in decreasing violent crime, but rather cause more gun violence, take money away from worthy government programs, and suppress the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families.

MJA

As a friend of the author’s and a fellow member of Madison’s Student Alliance for Firearms Safety and Education (SAFER) I would first of all like to say thank you to everyone who has posted on this article. If nothing else, there is a severe shortage of open minded conversation about this topic around Madison. I thank even those who don’t totally agree with Adrian’s and the group’s point of view, because open conversation, free of violent emotions (which this arguement often brings out), is the first step toward mutual understanding.

Secondly, I would like to respond to reader “LBR.” I also have no expectations of the United States being invaded anytime soon. Though some people might argue, quite effectively, that 9/11 came close to just that, I refuse to be a “dooms-day” addict and therefore will not defend my firearm ownership as a means of defending myself from terrorists who might be coming any day to kill us. However, history has shown us that the invasion of a superpower by other countries is not an unheard of event, I don’t think I have to cite examples of this. So we are in total agreement that the “foreign invasion” argument might not be the most immeadiately pertinent pro-gun argument. However, I think it is an easily justifiable position that if we can help prevent something as terrible as an invasion (foreign OR domestic) with a solution so simple (we wouldn’t have change our everyday lives) that those steps should be taken, no matter how miniscule the chances of the event taking place are. It’s like the guy who doesn’t have fire insurance on his house, because he’s lived there for years and there’s never been a fire he survives quite well. But if, God forbid, the fire ever comes, he’s going to wish he had it.

Whoever the third poster is, who are you and why are you not part of SAFER? I am very impressed in case I didn’t make it known before. With an extensive list of 2A quotes from our founding fathers like that, I almost think you are a history professor.

Maybe you’re not into firearms, but you should come shooting with us sometime, or let me buy you lunch.

-Adrian http://safer.rso.wisc.edu

Why do we see police officers carrying assault rifles in their cars these days? Aren’t pump shotguns good enough for the police and citizens to use for home/self defense?

Thank you. This was a very informative article! I’m starting to rethink some of my (perhaps faulty) notions that I had about these firearms.

Excellent story!! Finally someone gets it and is spouting the truth, for once, and not some drummed up liberal agenda!

Well put. Excellent points. This was a ban that needed to go…

Take a picture of a “pre-ban” gun, and compare it to a “post-ban” gun of the same type. Aside from some VERY minor cosmetic differences, they are the same rifle.

Now, show me how crime was reduced by removing essentially a bayonet, and a telescoping stock. So…….no more bayonet knifings…pfew..was worried bout that one. And shorter people had more problems holding a rifle.

A simply useless “feel good” law.

Assault Weapon Ban' thankfully passes by Adrian Andrijasevic Friday, September 24, 2004

This is the most accurate article I have read to date on the 1994 Gun Ban. With most of the media never doing any research on what they print I had lost hope in anyone printing the truth. I am glad to see your paper is the exception. This piece is well written and to the point. I hope to see more like it.

Wow, very well put. I see there’s been alot of people who have no clue how the world really works that have left feed back. Let me just say that gun control does work. Ask anyone who was in Germany in the 1930’s, when 13 million Jews were killed. Or how about in the Soviet Union in the 1920’s when 20 million people were exterminated.

very good article. superb. it’s good to see that there are in fact some students out there who do have some decent sense. some TRUE common sense. not political common sense.

I want to say that I am apalled by the number of people who blindly parrot out what other liberal anti-gun scum tell them. I saw up towards the top how they were barking about how it was for army and police only. WRONG! Since when does a government need to give ITSELF permission to use arms? that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Whoever posted that must have no sense whatsoever. Criminals are called criminals for a reason: they defy laws and break them. Why is it people think with the AWB gone that the streets are going to flood with weapons? I mean when’s the last time you ever saw a crime with a true assault weapon(full auto) let alone a so-called assault weapon(cosmetic crap)? Probably not for a while. I know CNN and the like spout bull about how they’re everynow. they’re not. Keep in mind, the SKS is not an assault weapon, contrary to what the news and media say. They’re lying.

I also find it sickening that these same people barking for freedom of the first amendment are screaming for bans of the second amendment. Are these the same hypocritical scum that I saw protesting the RNC? I remember seeing a democrat and republican screaming to each other out there. One was calling it 1st amendment rights because he was supporting the protest and saying that the other person arguing against him was a fascist simply because he was speaking for the RNC. I mean how stupid is it that. I’m normally not this civil on issues(check my website http://spack-fu.ath.cx/~voldermortist to see my profanity) but I’d prefer to keep this politically correct(tyranny with manners) in order to prevent it from being erased.

Also why do people think the guns are going to go straight to the crminals? I mean is a criminal honestly going to walk into a gunshop and buying one for a 1,000 dollars when he can just buy one from the black market for 300 bucks? I mean come on people, you can go to mexico and buy an m-16 from a corrupt federales idiot soldier for 100 bucks come back here and sell it for 300 on the black market. I’ve seen them for sale myself there. It’s just like the drug trade it’s never going to end. You should support arms in law abiding citizens’ homes. In fact you should support automatic weapons as well. Because of the fact guns will never go away it’s good to be armed with something as powerful as the criminal has or BETTER… The only thing that is going to stop an armed criminal is an armed citizen. that is it.

Also for those of you liberals out there who are so covetting of your constitutional rights, keep in mind it’s the second amendment that protects them all. Once that’s gone I guarantee you they will commit wholesale slaughter on the bill of rights and there will be NOTHING you can do but sit there and take it.

Violence is never a pleasant thing. In fact I’d be very worried about a person who truly thought it was. Sometimes it is however, unavoidable. That fact needs to be respect and the insane irrational fear of guns and weapons needs to go away. Sigmund Freud once said that fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity. Think on that.

• Voldermortist

P.S. before anyone goes barking about how I have an evil name and that i’m just a “sinister conservative”, the name simply means “flight from death.” it’s not evil. so shut up already.

“The Second Amendment stipulates freedom to bear arms within the confines of a well-regulated militia, like the army or police.’

Yes, the police and the military. The exact people that would be cracking your skull without an armed citizenry. I sure hope you are a peace activist/protester. I laugh uncontrollably every time I see you people getting shot with rubber bullets by those well-regulated police while you attempt to defend (peacefully, of course) your 1st Amendement rights. Oh, the irony.

great article

Glad to see that someone else in a predominantly Liberal University has great common sense!

Fantastic Article, and it states factual information! Rarely do such articles get published in the not-so-fair-and-balanced newspapers we commonly see on our college campuses.

This factual article was a refreshing change from the fecal scent of anti-gun rhetorical bull-s#it! Thanks!

Signed,

iNuhBaD Former President of the Armament Club at the University of Minnesota (Now Disbanded)

PS. Glad to see you posting on “elsewhere” as well now… ;-)

If the 2nd amendment was intended for use only by the army (the government) or the police (the government), then why have all of the other rights been viewed by SCOTUS as applying to the individual?

Of course, it could be worse… we could be surrounded by certain rude folks from Canada.

Hi Adrian,
It’s Jimi, great article bro, well put. I enjoyed the commentary as well. To anyone who disagrees with you, just have tm prove their point with facts and statistics, not emotional conjecture and supposition. Baseless fear of weapons is known as “hoplophobia”. Those afflicted should not worry about lawful owners of firearms, but about the criminal element who are the true thing to be feared. Best Wishes

What an awsome article!

It’s about time we purge this worthless law that was pushed through by Klinton and his Kommunist Cronies!

http://www.clintongunban.com

Hey Adrian,
Stop posting for your self, 2/3 of the stuff above is the same content and wrting style as column itself. Cut the BS. Besides, if everybody agrees so much with you, then why did you write the article. If the idea is not new to anybody, what did you contribute with this column?

‘It’s not the guns, it’s the people.’

Right.

And it’s not the abortions, it’s the women.

It’s not the drugs, it’s the addicts.

It’s not the dirty bombs, it’s the terrorists.

(etc.)

As a practical matter, what is the use of an assault weapon? Do you want to go hunting and pump some deer full of lead? Do you want to shoot some random intruder in the chest 20 times in two seconds?

I’ll be the first to admit that the assault weapons ban had its faults, but these guns provide absolutely NOTHING of any worth to our society while making it substantially easier to execute a school shooting or terrorist attack.

In response to the third poster:

We all know what an instrumental part GEORGE MASON played in the drafting and passage of the constitution.

And I love the fact that your first quotation- by Adams - would appear to run ENTIRELY CONTRARY to your argument. He says that to bear arms - except for self-defense or under the jurisdiction of a state-controlled militia - is to “lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man.” Hmmmm.

I guess if you use an AK-47 for self-defense, there’s no way I’ll ever trespass on your property. But that’s really not the point.

The etymology could not be clearer in the context of the 18th century:

“one did not bear arms against a rabbit.” - Garry Wills

It had to do specifically with military service.

And, to state the obvious, the founders obviously were dealing with muskets, not rapid-fire assault weapons. There’s a pretty distinct difference between the two.

Does anyone really believe that an armed group of individuals within the U.S. has any conceivable chance of defeating the most powerful military in the world? And doesn’t the democratic process itself provide the best possible safeguard against governmental tyranny? You people are nuts if you think your semi-automatic assault weapons will enable you to overpower the FBI. (see waco)

Who needs an “assault weapon”? What legitimate use does an “assault weapon” have?

Well, consider that there were over 17,000 alcohol-related traffic deaths in America in 2003 (way more than firearms-related deaths). Should we now say that there is no reason for anyone to drink more than X ounces of alcohol in a 24 hour period because it poses a threat to public safety? Should we pass new laws restricting certain types of alcohol under the illusion that it will reduce the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths?

Existing law does not control alcohol consumption. Rather, it controls the behavior of those who consume it. Existing law punishes those who operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. It does not draw a wide net over the entire population by controlling alcohol consumption. That would uneccessarily infringe upon the rights of individual citizens.

“Does anyone really believe that an armed group of individuals within the U.S. has any conceivable chance of defeating the most powerful military in the world? And doesn’t the democratic process itself provide the best possible safeguard against governmental tyranny? You people are nuts if you think your semi-automatic assault weapons will enable you to overpower the FBI. (see waco)”

… And see Iraq. How much trouble are insurgents with AK-47s giving the coalition forces?

Yeah, yeah, yeah… You know what really matters? We, the gun owners of America won. The assault weapons ban is dead. So watch out because I hear there has been a marked increase in drive by bayonetings.

Alcohol abuse is not an relevant analogy by any means. I’ve never heard of anyone drinking SOMEONE ELSE to death.

You and I both know that the Iraqi insurgents would be crushed if the U.S. had the political willpower to make it happen.

This is, of course, a moot point, because we live in a democratic society. You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to protect your personal liberty.

I attribute the followng comments to another freedom advocate - I didn’t write this but it expresses my thoughts to a tee:

God gave us the gift of life. It is the most precious gift ever. To be unarmed is to be helpless to protect that gift. That is outright irresponsible. Certainly it is a right and a moral obligation to stop evil from ending or compromising our life or the life of any innocent.

That there is an arguement to this truism is an indictment to the soullessness of those like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry who would legislate forced helplessness of good people. I am appalled that these blind anti-gunners remain entrenched in this mindlessness.

Make a stand. This experiment in self-government, I believe, requires “we the people” to be activists. Now more than ever, we must discard the ball and chain of apathy, get involved in a meaningful, effective dialogue on a daily basis,expressing our beliefs on every quality of life issue in order to take back America.

Until the time comes when the Second Amendment is, in actual practice, the concealed weapons permit it was designed to be, America will be shackled by intellectually bankrupt “feel good” hysteria that will benefit the blood suckers among us and punish those who instinctively know in our hearts and souls that the American Dream is supposed to be about being the best that we can be - not how much the criminal or the soulless can benefit from those who dedicate themselves to being productive members of the last best place in the world…

[email protected]

the purpose of a weapon is by definition to kill. and i never suggested that all firearms should be banned. sure, alcohol is legal, but heroin isn’t. and for good reason - it’s far more lethal. there’s your analogy.

question: if someone shoots you in the head, of what use will your firearm be in protecting your ‘god-given right to life?’

The above comment wins the award for the most clueless author of the year.

And if the entire world blows up, following your logic, then my need for a firearm no longer exists either.

Maybe you should step back and gather a sensible point.

”question: if someone shoots you in the head, of what use will your firearm be in protecting your ‘god-given right to life?”

Ummm shoot them first? Duh… (:

FYA!!!!!

“question: if someone shoots you in the head, of what use will your firearm be in protecting your ‘god-given right to life?”

here we go with the emotional crap. No reasonable arguement so switches to emotional conflict. how nice.

Also in regards to muskets vs assault weapons. I’ll respond to that. Arms is arms. and it is protected by the constitution indefinitely and unrestricted. how do I know this? because within every law/amendment that can be moderated you usually find a phrase such as “..unless prescribed/prohibited by law.” This amendment has none. There is no other reason to have them. Admitting that a ban does nothing but still wanting to ban those simply because you don’t like them is fascism. There is no other way to put it. It’s the beginning of domination and political correctness. Basically it’s window dressing. It’s as pitiful and stupid as banning people from wearing red t-shirts on tuesdays or from driving cars that are blue on a friday. it’s emotional stupidity. Emotion acting without the benefit of intellect.

But if you want to talk about deaths caused by inventions, lets talk cars. There’s no reason to own a car that goes 100 mph. yet everyone has them. I don’t see anyone striving to ban them especially since car deaths are three times what gun deaths are and there is NO constitutional amendment protecting car/vehicle ownership, but there is one for firearms. You wanna know why everyone is getting hit by violence? it’s because they are UNARMED. Violence and crime is like a parasite. It’s going to have the biggest effect on the most defenseless victim. If you have a weak blood cell being attacked by the flu and a fortified one being attacked as well. which one is going to win? it’s that simple, folks. Whether you like it or not.

-Voldermortist

“As a practical matter, what is the use of an assault weapon?” “… these guns provide absolutely NOTHING of any worth to our society while making it substantially easier to execute a school shooting or terrorist attack.”

You just answered your own question, though you apparently failed to realize it. When the police respond to such situations, do they come waving their doughnuts, or do they come carrying so-called “Assault Weapons”?

If a terrorist or some other form of low life scum can use a rifle to shoot you, then by definition, you can do the same thing to him. Or does logic and reason escape you completely?

“We all know what an instrumental part GEORGE MASON played in the drafting and passage of the constitution”

Um, that would be JAMES MADISON. Check your history books. George Mason was a secondary contibutor. Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.

“It had to do specifically with military service.”

No, it had to do with militia service. Two distinctly different concepts back in the 18th century. Once again, try reading some history books. Real ones, not the pap they feed you in school.

“And, to state the obvious, the founders obviously were dealing with muskets, not rapid-fire assault weapons. There’s a pretty distinct difference between the two.”

By that logic, you no longer have freedom of speech or of the press, because you use high volume priniting presses, rapid fire laser printers, computers, television news broadcasts and such, none of which were envisoned by the Founders. So I would appreciate it if you would kindly shut up now and line up for your speech license.

Oh, and since we’ll be requiring registration of all speech tools that have certain features that allow “regular” citizens who are not part of the police or miltary to speak too freely, or at too rapid a rate, you’ll be required to go down to the local PD and register your high powered computers and printers. If you don’t, you’ll be subject to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and your speech tools will be confiscated by the government. Oh, and for good measure, your personal assets will be subject to forfeiture.

Souns like BS to you? Sound like something that no citizen of the US, protected by a Bill of Rights that has stood for over two hundred years, should have to put up with? Well, welcome to the world of gun owners, this century’s negroes.

Our rights, enshrined in the Constitution, and clearly stated that they “shall not be infinged”, are trampled on daily by people just like you, and no one seems to bat an eye. But just wait until they get around to something that you do care about! Then the wailing and the gnashing of teeth will begin in earnest, I assure you. But at that point, what will it matter? All the people who might have done something about it, all the people with guns, will be pacified or jailed, thanks to people just like you. And then what will you do?

At a guess, I’d say you’ll cry a lot. And not much else.

AZBiker

Whoa - easy there buddy. EVERYTHING I have posted I have signed my name under it. I am not afraid to do that considering I wrote the original article. I sent the link of this article to some friends, who probably passed it on to others, and gunowners are generally very supportive of one another.

I am confident that if this article didn’t get a single comment, it would still be a very good article because it is based on FACTS and LOGIC.

-Adrian

“Does anyone really believe that an armed group of individuals within the U.S. has any conceivable chance of defeating the most powerful military in the world?”

You are aware of how this country came to be in the first place, yes? An armed group of individuals defeated the most powerful army in the world, and the USA was born. Didn’t they teach you that in school?

The “most powerful army in the world” got it’s collective head handed to it in Vietnam by a bunch of farmers armed with AK-47s and SKSs. Real assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, not the semi-autos that make the Brady Bunch wet their panties. They are currently experiencing much the same problem in Iraq. I have some good friends that went through hell in Vietnam fighting those very same rag tag farmers, and they will be the first to tell you what an awesome opponent they were. Perhaps you ought to speak with a few of them before you make judgments based on what you read in a book or saw on TV?

The motivation of a guy defending his home and family with a rifle is far more powerful than that of a soldier paid a few dollars to travel many miles away from his own family to fight and die because some guy with a higher rank than he told him to. If this isn’t self-evident, a cursory study of history should show you this. If it hasn’t, then you aren’t paying attention, or you’re in denial. That, or your excessively left wing professors have toasted your brains.

“And doesn’t the democratic process itself provide the best possible safeguard against governmental tyranny?”

We don’t live in a “democracy”. We live in a “republic”. Perhaps you ought to actually read the Constitution? Then follow it up with a glance at a dictionary maybe?

“You people are nuts if you think your semi-automatic assault weapons will enable you to overpower the FBI. (see waco)”

Yes, I did. The perfect example of why we should make sure that they never get our guns. An out of control federal agency massacres 80 men, women and children because they claim that someone didn’t pay a $200 tax on a full-auto firearm. If you think that they could pull that off on a national scale, think again. This is why they call it “concentration of force”. They are good at massing 500 men into an area where they have a much smaller number in opposition. They are particularly good at it when they have convinced said opposition that negotiations are under way, and everything is fine. Right up until the tanks roll in.

How do you suggest that they will handle a situation where the whole community has turned against them, and people have taken to popping them off, one by one, at any opportunity?

Go rent the movie “Michael Collins”, and come back and talk to me when you’ve learned something.

AZBiker

“Alcohol abuse is not an relevant analogy by any means. I’ve never heard of anyone drinking SOMEONE ELSE to death.”

Than you’ve never heard of the thousands of deaths caused on the highways every year by drunk drivers?

What planet are you living on, exactly?

AZBiker

“You and I both know that the Iraqi insurgents would be crushed if the U.S. had the political willpower to make it happen.”

Easy to say. How do you propose that we actually do it? Nuke the whole country? Short of that, there is no practical way to separate the good guys from the bad. Can you tell them apart?

All you folks who believe this pap should talk to a Vietnam or three about the fun and games they had trying to figure out who was on “their side” back then. If you really think it’s so easy, then I’d suggest that you get on down to the nearest recruiting office and sign up. Or is just your mouth that’s brave?

“This is, of course, a moot point, because we live in a democratic society.”

No, we live in a republic. Check the Constitution, as I said above. Nowhere does it say that this is a democracy. Democracy is simply mob rule, 50% of the population +1 gets to vote on who gets put on the trains to the camps. If that’s what you want, better be careful what you wish for. You might be next on the list to be outvoted.

“You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to protect your personal liberty.”

First, anyone who must use profanity to make their point doesn’t have one. While I can curse like a sailor if I so desire, I don’t ever have to. If you can’t make a decent argument without resorting to cussing, than don’t make one at all.

Second, since you’re such an expert on all the world’s needs, care to tell us all just what is suitable for defending our personal liberty? I mean after all, governments the world over have access to AK-47s, and not just the semi-autos the we mere peons can buy. They get the full-auto jobbies. The bad guys, like the terrorists everyone seems to be so afraid of, well, they can get the full-auto jobs too, with ease. So it seems that the only people you would see put at a disadvantage are the law abiding common folks like ourselves.

Why is that? Do you have something against your friends and neighbors, that you would see them defenseless against predators of all stripes? Or is it just a case of wanting them to be at a disadvantage to the bad guys? Do you not trust your fellow man, or do you only trust them when they pin on a government badge? After all, we all know that people employed by the government never do anything wrong, and are paragons of virtue that can be trusted to always do the right thing … right?

Of course, the 100 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone should probably be swept under the rug at this point. Countries like Russia, China, Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, Turkey, Gerrmany, etc, etc., ad infinitum, had better be disregarded here, because we wouldn’t want to shatter anyone’s illusions, now would we?

But just in case anyone is interested in reality, it would take the entire population of the world’s criminals over 300 years of wanton murdering just to catch up to those governments. So which is the greater danger?

You do the math …

AZBiker

the thing about george mason was sarcasm. madison’s first quotation speaks for itself

“the thing about george mason was sarcasm.”

Ah. You need to work on your presentation.

“madison’s first quotation speaks for itself”

Indeed it does. The Federalist #46 is one of the strongest arguments that Madison made for an armed and aware populace. Though the quote above is indicative, it’s only one of many from that piece that shows us where his heart lay on the matter. Some others …

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion 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 of 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.”

Here Mr. Madison, using the population numbers of the nation at the time of the writing, attempts to show us that the notion of the armed might of a national army being able to overcome the armed citizenry that composes the militia is ludicrous, given the vast differences in proportion. Something some of the posters above might want to make note of.

“On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.”

Here he assures the reader that should the federal government overstep it’s bounds, the state governments, alone or in concert, would be there to act as a check upon the desires of the encroaching feds. Since the people, who make up the foundation of the government after all, would be armed, who do you think they would be supporting? The state government that they are closest to, or the federal government that is making the attempt at usurping power?

Maybe you ought to read the Federalist Papers? Bearing in mind, of course, that they were written by those Founders who wanted a strong central government. Their version of strong, of course, would bear very little resemblance to the leviathan that we have brooding in DC now. But I’d imagine that you would, at the least, come away from such study with a bare understanding of what the Constitution is actually about. It would certainly be an improvement over your current situation.

AZBiker

good point adrian. i just want to make it clear that i was calling you on the national defense, doomsday-sounding argument you made (even though brief), because arguments like that tend to sound alarms in people leaning towards the anti gun persuasion as being a very weak reason for keeping guns around. i would have argued for more personal self defense issues such as, something us liberals love, having women arm themselves against attackers and refusing to be victims.

i am personally pleased about the sunset, even though most people would probably consider me far left in my politics. i see no problem in being responsibly armed. people are going to get their hands on guns no matter what kinds of laws are in place, i would much prefer that safe reputable weapons and training were avaliable than having to buy my weaponry from a source that was likely supporting other criminal activity. it is a lot more difficult to commit and get away with a crime using a gun you bought legally than something off a black market.

and just for the posters in general: i hate this whole “anyone who is liberal has to hate guns” and “anyone who likes guns has to think liberals are whiny and stupid” bullshit that has been going on in one way or another forever. i think if we kept up the civil debate that has been going on for the most part here (and, come on people on the “left”, you have to admit that your gun owning counterparts have been a lot more civil in this debate than you have) maybe we could all get over this demonizing of something that can be used both for a really satisfying recreation and for self defense.

-LBR ([email protected] sorry forgot to include email last time)

|avoid using juvenile terms like “ultra-left.”

Fine, then avoid using terms like “bad mother**cker.” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

how do you guys feel about concealed carry?

I can understand your opposition to the assault weapon ban, but sometimes good people do stupid things, and guns will only exacerbate the problems. BTW, I always thought pepper spray was an adequate means of defense for those poor, defenseless women out there.

also, i for one think that my 2nd amendment rights ought to include hand grenades and rocket launchers. arms is arms. the fact that the founders didn’t prophesy these technological developments doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be protected, does it? i mean, if my girlfriend is mugged by some jackass criminal, why shouldn’t she blow that motherfucker to smithereens? it’s her god-given right!

SHAME ON YOU!!!! Using a word like the f-bomb! Outrageous! Guns are fine in the public square, but not four letter words! Think of the children! The children!

Holy cow, the BH isnt going to have any bandwith left. I don’t have time to read all the new stuff that’s been posted, but a couple things I’ll comment on. Just above someone wrote

“and just for the posters in general: i hate this whole “anyone who is liberal has to hate guns” and “anyone who likes guns has to think liberals are whiny and stupid” bullshit that has been going on in one way or another forever.”

I’ve got to agree with that. I was a liberal gun owner for a long time, and I do know liberal gunowners myself, not many, but there are some. I don’t like generalizing about anything - it just gives people more reason to generalize that Im a dumb, redneck right wing gunowner (and Im college educated, soon to be white collar family man).

Concealed Carry - excellent idea. Just look at how well it has worked in the other 46 states. No blood in the streets. Why? Because the people who go through the work to get a license are responsible gun owners. The other people who carry guns are crooks and don’t follow laws anyways. I have an out of state permit, and carrying a firearm has made me more aware, more polite, and even a better driver. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

WI definitely needs the PPA to pass. All these beatings could have been avoided most likely with someone simply displaying their gun, not necessarily even drawing it. Most firearms that prevent a crime are not even drawn, much less shot. And, in the worst case scenario, a 100 lb man or woman has a fighting chance against 10 or more thugs.

Lastly - someone asked why we should have rocket launchers and nuclear weapons or something. C’mon, that’s ridiculous. The way the 2A works (in my opinion) - the entire populace is allowed to bear small arms. This way, only a MASSIVE mobilization would be able to change the gov’t - meaning something must be REALLY wrong. If anyone could own b2 bombers, one person who gets angry at the govt could cause lots of trouble (Tim McVeigh). Look at Waco. They had lots of automatic weapons, but they couldn’t do anything, their cause was not supported by the general populace. Only a massive popular mobilization could change the gov’t, not some half-bred rag tag group of rebel commie scum.

That’s my take on everything.

-Adrian

sorry, that should be “why we shouldn’t have rocket launchers….”

-Adrian

“massive popular mobilization”, thats what we far lefties love to hear :)

i went shooting with S.A.F.E.R. today, it was my very first time ever handling a gun, and i can’t think of a better or more civil group of people to have spent a morning with, not to mention the excellent instruction. just goes to show that people’s preconceptions about both “gun toting nutcases” and “freedom hating liberal p*ssies” can usually be dissuaded by actually having dialogue with one another, but hey, that’s a pretty idealistic expectation.

-LBR

think of how many people armed with pistols it would take to overthrow the government…something would have to be really, really, really wrong!!!!!

if i had a machine gun, i could walk down to state street and kill 200 people right now. drawing the line at hand grenades, rather than AK-47’s, strikes me as pretty arbitrary on your part.

what are ‘small arms?’ all the arms you own, or want to own? This has far more to do with your own desires than the actual needs of the populace. The U.S’ institutional safeguards against tyranny are adequate. Our entire history as a nation ought to provide plenty of proof for that.

“i was calling you on the national defense, doomsday-sounding argument you made (even though brief), because arguments like that tend to sound alarms in people leaning towards the anti gun persuasion as being a very weak reason for keeping guns around.”

While this may be true, it does not in any way diminish the truth of the argument. Ask anyone who survived the Holocaust what a government can do to a disarmed populace. Your opinion of the argument does not affect it’s essential validity.

“i would have argued for more personal self defense issues such as, something us liberals love, having women arm themselves against attackers and refusing to be victims.”

Also a valid argument. We gunnies are fond of reminding people that “gun control” is essentially equivalent to taking the position that it is morally superior to find a dead woman in an alley, strangled with her own pantyhose, than it is to find a dead rapist in that same alley, with a woman standing over his body holding a smoking pistol.

Those who believe in “gun control” believe in the rule of the strong over the weak, whether they know it or not. As the old saying goes, “God may have created men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal.”

“i hate this whole “anyone who is liberal has to hate guns” and “anyone who likes guns has to think liberals are whiny and stupid” bullshit that has been going on in one way or another forever.”

True enough, but you must admit, you have a fundamental problem due to the politicians who represent your side of the political spectrum. The vast majority of those who support “gun control” come from the left side of said spectrum, and this leads to such perceptions. If you want to change those perceptions, you need to change those politicians.

Try to look at it from my perspective. As a small “l” libertarian (i.e. philosophical, not a member of the political party), I tend to fall on the right side of the spectrum on some issues, and the left side of the spectrum on others. That means that there are darned few legiscritters of any stripe that make the cut for me. Those that support my Second Amendment rights typically want to strip my First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights away via the so-called Patriot Act and other such stupidities. Many of those that want to get rid of said Patriot Act would, at the same time, pass idiocy like the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban”. Talk about a Hobson’s choice!

The only practical solution is to get rid of all of these freedom stealing idiots on both sides of the equation, and replace them with people who actually understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the whole concept of freedom and individual responsibility. Until that happens, all we can count on is more of the same.

AZBiker

“how do you guys feel about concealed carry?”

It works in 38 states. The gun grabbers’ predictions of “blood in the streets” have not come to pass, after years of waiting and seeing. Crime has dropped farther and faster in those states than in the rest. And CCW holders have a far lower crime rate average than the “average” population.

What is there not to like?

“I can understand your opposition to the assault weapon ban, but sometimes good people do stupid things, and guns will only exacerbate the problems.”

This was true before guns existed, and will be true after they are gone. One can not legislate human nature away, no matter how much one would like it to be so. True, a gun may exacerbate a problem. It may also solve it. The vast majority of defensive gun uses involve simply showing the gun to a bad guy. He then promptly runs off, and no one is hurt. If, God forbid, you have to use it, I ask you, is it better that you or your family should be the ones to die, or the bad guy? It’s the bad guy that made the choice to engage in a criminal act. Shouldn’t it be the bad guy that has to deal with the consequences? The bad guy will most likely have a gun. Why should the law abiding be the only ones at a disadvantage? Does that make any sense to you?

“BTW, I always thought pepper spray was an adequate means of defense for those poor, defenseless women out there.”

Did you know that when one is trained to become a police officer, you are required to be sprayed with pepper spray? Same for corrections officers. Before they will let you carry it, they want to know how you will handle it if it’s turned on you.

Pepper spray is a non-lethal alternative to a firearm. It is not a substitute. It’s designed to pacify an aggressor who is not determined to fatally injure you. It will, if used properly, likely ward off an attacker who’s not too determined to get to you.

If, however, your attacker wants to kill you, than he is likely to shrug off pepper spray, and try to do so by any means necessary. At that point, you’d better be making holes in his or her center mass. The largest possible holes you can make, in order to stop the attack. Because if you don’t, that attacker will kill you. And he or she will cover approx. seven feet per second at a trot on order to do so.

I know it sounds ugly, and disturbing, and not nice. It’s all of those things. But it’s even worse in a dark alley, late at night, when you’re all alone, and the nearest cop is a lot farther away than the few seconds it’s going to take that bad guy to reach you.

Go for the pepper spray, the cell phone, or the gun? Seven feet per second, and the clock is ticking …

You make the call …

AZBiker

“think of how many people armed with pistols it would take to overthrow the government…something would have to be really, really, really wrong!!!!!”

Um, just FYI, the government estimates that approx. 80-100 million people own approx. 250 million firearms in this country. That would include both hand guns and long guns, i.e. rifles and shot guns. The reason they estimate is because they don’t really know, since we don’t register firearms in this country, and that is as it should be.

If you added all of the military, armed federal agents, cops, etc. together, you’d come out to somewhere around 8-10 million, nationwide.

That enough, do you think?

Yes, something would have to be really, really, really wrong. That’s kind of the point.

“if i had a machine gun, i could walk down to state street and kill 200 people right now. drawing the line at hand grenades, rather than AK-47’s, strikes me as pretty arbitrary on your part.”

I suppose you could at that. Why would you want to? Are you psychotic?

I live in AZ, where civilian ownership of machine guns is perfectly legal, though incredibly expensive and very difficult, logistically, due to federal regulations. Since they are entirely too spendy for me, I don’t own any. I do, however, know quite a number of people who do, and I go out shooting with them frequently. Not a one of them has ever gone out walking down the street randomly killing people. Funny how that works, eh?

Just FYI, it’s not your law abiding friends and neighbors that you need to worry about. It’s the criminals. And they don’t obey the buildings full of laws that the legiscritters pass, day in and day out. They ignore them.

Contrary to what you see on TV, the mere presence of a firearm does not turn an otherwise normal person into a lunatic. If it did, the country would be full of lunatics, as it’s already full of firearms, and the number of them has been increasing for years, while the crime rate has been going down. How do you explain that, if what you see on TV is true?

“what are ‘small arms?’ all the arms you own, or want to own? This has far more to do with your own desires than the actual needs of the populace.”

Look it up. Generally, the definition is “arms that can be carried by a person”.

“The U.S’ institutional safeguards against tyranny are adequate. Our entire history as a nation ought to provide plenty of proof for that.”

True. Why do you think that is?

A Japanese General was asked after WW2 why they didn’t invade the mainland after Pearl Harbor, considering how weak and unprepared our national defense was at the time. His answer?

They didn’t want to risk the massacre of their troops, considering that every other home and farm in the US had a rifle in the closet.

The first and foremost “institutional safeguard against tyranny” that we have is the Second Amendment. The Founders understood this, as is clear from their writings. It’s a shame that you don’t.

AZBiker

Holy Christ you gun nuts are fucking crazy. Every goddamn one of you. Frankly, ban all guns period, every fucking one of them, make possession a crime, and shut your traps. You people scare the fuck out of me. In no way should anyone who supports gun ownership be allowed to 1. vote or 2. breed. Jesus hates you all.

Just to add to AZBiker’s post. I believe the exact quote from the Japanese General was, “There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass.” I don’t know about you, but that fills me poetic patriotic pride.

I am the poster who listed all of the quotes from the founding fathers.

For those of you who lack the cognizance to decipher what John Adams wrote, he was arguing in favor of the individual right to bear arms for self-defense and to act in accordance and in defense of the constitution by partial order of the local or state governments. This is exactly what the militia is, and what the 2nd intended and created - an armed citizenry capable of defending themselves and their lawful government from those who would attempt to take either by unlawful means.

-M’D

Someone wrote:

“Holy Christ you gun nuts are fucking crazy. Every goddamn one of you. Frankly, ban all guns period, every fucking one of them, make possession a crime, and shut your traps. You people scare the fuck out of me. In no way should anyone who supports gun ownership be allowed to 1. vote or 2. breed. Jesus hates you all.”

Someone else wrote:

“I went shooting with S.A.F.E.R. today, it was my very first time ever handling a gun, and i can’t think of a better or more civil group of people to have spent a morning with, not to mention the excellent instruction. just goes to show that people’s preconceptions about both “gun toting nutcases” and “freedom hating liberal p*ssies” can usually be dissuaded by actually having dialogue with one another…”

So chill out man, stick to the issues - I think everyone here has been having a pretty straight forward and fair conversation. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a bad person. Good grief. I’d invite you to come shooting with us, but your temper is a bit frightening. I don’t know if you would do well with weapons.

M’D - you should come shooting with us, seriously (if you haven’t already). I’m really impressed.

-Adrian

“Holy Christ you gun nuts are fucking crazy. Every goddamn one of you. Frankly, ban all guns period, every fucking one of them, make possession a crime, and shut your traps. You people scare the fuck out of me. In no way should anyone who supports gun ownership be allowed to 1. vote or 2. breed. Jesus hates you all.”

A perfect example of why some people should not own weapons. I would still, nonetheless, never support laws that make it impossible for the sane amongst us to defend ourselves, regardless of the presence of such people in society. The simple fact is that we will never be rid of those who would seek to control everyone else’s lives, even though it’s evident by their words and deeds that they’re incapable of controlling themselves. Hence we should not bother to try, else we run the risk of harming the very people we’re attempting to protect.

C.S. Lewis may have said it best …

“”Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.”

Such people can’t make a cogent argument, so they resort to cussing and blowing instead, trying to substitute bluster for rationality, and invective for logic. Sorry, but it doesn’t fly.

And please don’t drag Jesus into it. Just the mere fact that you suggest that Jesus hates shows that you have absolutely no understanding of Him. And to clear up the little matter of Jesus and weapons …

“When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace.” — Jesus Christ (Luke 11:21)

“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” — Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36)

And so on. Perhaps you ought to try reading the Bible, as well as the Constitution?

AZBiker

I don’t understand why any one would think that making all guns illegal would stop gun violence. Banning guns would only result in a huge black market in guns, just as there is in drugs. Saying ” When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” is very true. The outlaws have guns now and they weren’t all obtained legally. Look at Washington D.C. which has had a ban on guns for years. Not only is it our nation’s capitol, it is the murder capitol of the nation also. Wake up people. A well armed populace is much safer against criminals then to be sheep led to the slaughter.

D.Page