Is the right to bear arms outdated.

You said they will never do anything to stop the murder.. sorry, but training law enforcement is helping... Trying to get the government to get tough on criminals... That will help.

Do you know why donations go up, it's to help fund LE training, its used to educate the uneducated including ignorant politicians.

And sorry, you are wrong, a good guy with a gun is a start, not "all we need."

Well, I'm tired of typing on my phone so I'm going home. Have a great weekend.
 
I have just read all 261 posts in this thread and I am deeply saddened. I own about 20 firearms, including two AR-15s and 4 AK-47s. I have over 20,000 rounds of ammo in my basement. Call me a gun nut if you want...I really don't care. I am saddened when members of this forum for whom I have great respect simply can't understand why I or anyone else would want "assault weapons." The nanny-state rants of Craik I expect, but when the majority of people for whom I have genuine respect question a right that I hold dear I begin to wonder if I am simply too old and too set in my ways...an anachronism if you will, much like some claim our second amendment is. Please allow me to try to make a few points to explain my position.

First, the Newtown shooting was a horrible tragedy. Last Friday, shortly after I started hearing news of what happened, I gave my 15-year-old son a big hug when he came home from school and asked him if he had heard about what happened. He didn't. We talked about what his school policy is regarding a "yellow alert" and we discussed in very frank terms what he should do if something like this were to happen at his school. We agreed that the best thing he could do is get the hell out, and the the worst thing he could do is huddle in a corner hoping for the best. He said that he felt terrible about what happened, but he also said that the chances of that happening at his school are statistically insignificant. And he's right. At the risk of sounding callous, mass shootings are an extremely rare event, but the media has had a feeding frenzy with this one and played our emotions like a Stradivarius. And most in this thread seems to have bought right into the emotions and abandoned rational thought and discourse. I am sickened by the fact that both sides of the gun control debate have played upon emotions...with new calls for gun control, which will only bee heeded by law-abiding citizens (AKA future victims) on one side and calls to invoke a police state in our schools advocated by the NRA. They are both full of shit.

Second, the Djin is out of the bottle. There are over 200 million firearms in the US, and many of them are variants of the AR-15 or AK-47..."assault weapons" if you prefer to use that term. I prefer to call them what they are: rifles. Like it or not, guns are a legacy of American culture, and they're not going to disappear. Even if an Aussie-type confiscation could be implemented without fomenting outright revolution, the law abiding citizenry would be immediately disarmed while it would take several decades or even generations before criminals would start to find it difficult to get access to these firearms. As such, those of you who advocate bans on certain types of weapons are telling me that I am to be disarmed while those who would do me or my family harm would still have access to a thriving black market. I do not like the idea of the criminal element being the "haves" while my law-abiding brethren are the "have nots." I have the right to defend myself, and I will not forfeit that right.

Third, is that pesky second amendment. I wish the "gun control" people would simply be honest enough to try to repeal the second amendment. Someone in this thread, I forgot who, said this should happen. Although I disagree with you, I applaud your honesty. Meanwhile, some of you think that "shall not be infinged" can be interpreted to allow for imposition of liability insurance on gun ownership, restrictive bans on certain firearms based on their appearance, or outright confiscation. How would you feel if similar restrictions were imposed on the free-speech and freedom-of-religion rights protected by the first amendment? If this is what you want, then marshal the political will to repeal the second amendment. I'm tired of this death-by-a-thousand cuts bullshit.

As for the revisionist interpretations of the second amendment, I suggest some reading of the federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers and their peers to understand the historical context from which the 2A sprung. That could be an entire lengthy thread all by itself, but suffice it to say that a bloody war was fought by armed citizens who comprised only about 3% of the population of the American colonies at the time. The Kentucky rifle was a state-of-the-art firearm with it's rifled barrel, and compared to the smooth-bore muskets it was the "assault weapon" of its day, as armed militia members were able to put a .50-caliber ball through the chest of a redcoat at 300 yards. Ordinary citizens owned these firearms, which were on par with the best military-issued firearms; privateers owned canons and ships of war, and
these were the exact type of weapons that were contemplated in the second amendment. And the term "well regulated" meant well-trained and capable, not "required to store their firearms at an armory." Seriously, if you don't understand the context under which the Bill of Rights was drafted, you should refrain from hitting the "Post Reply" button.

Then we have this:
Dipshit said:
The NRA will never do anything to stop the murder, in fact the slaughter of cilderen is like Chritmas to them!
Craik, you are a reprehensible piece of shit. I detest the NRA's press release and proposal to militarize our schools, but to say something like this, even you have jumped the shark. Do you think it is at all possible that some wry smiles were exchanged last Friday between gun-control statists inside the beltway upon hearing of this tragedy? It's pretty obvious that the Obama administration and the Brady Campaign have opted not to let this crisis go to waste. Once again, the media is complicit in their treachery.

Lest I be accused of having a Laissez-faire attitude toward appropriate restrictions and safeguards associated with proper firearm ownership, I do think there are some things we can do to try to minimize the possibility of future Newtown events. As someone earlier said, maybe the media can stop hyping this crap and giving unstable individuals reason to think that they can go out in a blaze of homicidal glory. This would have to be voluntary, because of that pesky first amendment. Fat chance. Maybe in addition to a "gun control" discussion we should have a "lunatic control" discussion. But that might mean that a few of the precious snowflakes who are schizophrenic sociopaths might have their rights or privacy trampled upon. Better to have the enumerated rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners trampled upon, right?. And while many gun owners might cringe at this idea, I think it might make sense to require all gun owners to properly secure their firearms. This might have prevented the Newtown shooting, as well as the ones in Colorado, where the shooters or their accomplices stole the guns. Proper storage in a good safe could deter a lot of this. I use a biometric-activated safe to keep a handgun at ready access in my bedroom - I can access my gun in just a couple of seconds. Fortunately, I have never needed it and probably never will. This probably freaks out those of you who live outside the US. It's a cultural thing.

One thing nobody seems to be talking about is why these things seem to happen with greater frequency nowadays. Firearms have been readily available in this country since it was first colonized, yet only in the last generation have we had to deal with these horrible shootings on a somewhat regular basis. What's wrong? What's different now? Video games? Lack of personal responsibility? Anti-psychotic meds? Clearly, there is a sickness growing in our society, but it's just easier to take a simple-minded approach and blame the guns. Heaven forbid we as a society engage in some introspection.

Lastly, let me make a standing offer to forum members who live outside the US: if you plan to be in New England send me a PM and I will take you to the shooting range. You will probably enjoy yourself and you may gain a different perspective.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Here we have an orginazation that makes a profit from every gun related mass murder! Not only that, the more heinous the slaughter the more outrage, the more massive their income.

But wait, that orginazation not only profits from these deaths, but actively promotes and strongly defends the very cause of the deaths. They take some of that profit and "educate" politicions, everyone else calls it buying influence.

Then when forced to finally say something about the most recent slaughter, after several days, their answer, more guns!!!! Like Custer needed more Indians.

Yes they recommended putting guns in every school, the one thing proven not to work, there were two armed guards at Columbine.........

OK Mark tell me what I said that is not true?

What word could possibly be vile enough to describe these people?
 
Last edited:

Dave Wood

Lifetime Supporter
Here we have an orginazation that makes a profit from every gun related mass murder! Not only that, the more heinous the slaughter the more outrage, the more massive their income.

OK Mark tell me what I said that is not true?
Don't know you Jim, but from your posts here it is apparent that on this topic you are very myopic. Do you not think the gun control groups make money off these incidents, of course they do and likely as much as the detested organization you mention. But that isn't reported the same, and it's alright because they are on your side. If it is wrong for one group, who are concerned about their rights, to make money off this type of tragedy it is as or possibly more wrong for the other side. They are, after all, attempting to make some people people FEEL safe while attempting to gut the constitution. If you think that the other rights will stand without the second, good for you, I don't. By the way, I am an American and have never belonged to or contributed to the NRA. I will acknowledge that when they first addressed foid cards here and others were saying that was just the beginning, I didn't believe so. I was wrong, much like you are now...maybe not so blindly. That was over 40 years ago and the bureaucracy just continues. If they KNEW any damn thing, they wouldn't have such a financial mess at their feet. It was pretty easy to get the masses all pumped up to invade Iraq, not quite as easy to get them out after it was realized that it was the incorrect action. It is always easier to get a mob action than to disipate it. That's what I feel about opportunists using this type of tragedy to further their own agenda. By the way, I don't consider defending the constitution as an agenda item.
 

Mike

Lifetime Supporter
What a idiotic question and stupid thread!

The latest tool to join the toolbox along side several fine H&K assault rifles and Glock handguns...

FN SLP

 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Mark, a well thought out and reasoned post. Which Is what I was hoping for when I started this thread. As I have previously stated I am a gun guy and was pissed off when my Government stole my weapons.
And you are correct only the law abiding citizens handed in their guns.
Gun crime in Australia has increased since the ban was imposed.
Some try to manipulate the statistics because suicide by guns has decreased, but not armed hold ups or home invasion.
Banning anything is not the answer. Nor is expecting and wanting governments to care for you, regulate your life and give you hand outs when your perception is you are disadvantaged.
What is the answer? I'm not sure, but a return of respect for others would be a start.
Here in Oz we are being more and more regulated and more and more laws are being passed every day, to what effect and for what reason? Methinks control of the citizenry?
Every day more and more freedoms are being taken away from us hopefully your constitution will protect you guys from that.
 
Pete - A very good observation. In short the ones calling for control will be the very ones who will be controlled. As for Mark's post, I am, as previously stated, of the firm opinion that the hype piled on these disasters by the media is a large contributing factor in encouraging a psychotic to act in this manner and through this method. Rationally, the best method for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep those guns effectively secure. A thorough background check, including mental status is also required. But removing the private ownership of guns will only leave criminals as sole gun owners. As also previously stated, it will take many years to retrieve the illegal guns from circulation, if ever. Eliminating private ownership will only raise the value of illicit firearms and result in contributing crimes. And, as long as the drug trade exists, guns, as tools, will be in the picture. The high numbers of gun murders are concentrated in these areas with high drug traffic, not the high profile events like the school massacres.
Unfortunately, both opposing camps seem adamant in their stance and all we have here is a 14 + page stalemate. With that, I will end involvement in this thread and, whatever your opinion, wish all of you and your families a Merry Christmas. Remember to hug your kids and tell them they're loved.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes; we need them every hour."

-- George Washington

I'm really not trying to pick on you, sir. 'Just trying to point out some of the individual trees that make up the whole forest...so to speak.
The above quote is most likely only true in 2nd Amendment fantasy land.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
And it seems Larry and Mark (and a few others) need a bit of an education when it comes to the history of the 2nd Amendment. If you only get your information from NRA snippets on the history, things tend to get a bit, well, distorted.

Basically, the story (laid out in a fair amount of detail in the dissent in Heller, the DC gun control case) is as follows.

Prior to the Constitutional convention, the Articles of Confederation did not contain a right of the people to bear arms. The states themselves were split. Some state constitutions did not mention the right, some had it but limited it to a "collective" right in the form of a miitia, and a few had individual gun ownership rights.

The Convention did in fact address this issue. Indeed, a very express version of the 2nd Amendment was submitted for approval that did contain a clear individual right to own a gun. There was great debate about this, and it was modified, as Jim R. has indicated above, and vaguely tied to the concept of an organized militia.

Effectively, what seems to have happened is that, like on the issue of slavery, the founders "punted." They couldn't resolve the split over whether they should grant an unlimited individual right to own a gun, or a collective one.

Frankly, the NRA propaganda on this (reflected primarily in Larry's post above and to a lesser extent in Mark's) is malarkey. The idea that the founders believed in unrestricted weapon ownership of all kinds -- cannons, frigates, etc. -- is false. For example, either Larry or Mark mentions the arming of private warships during times of war. Yes, that was done, but under a very special procedure called Letters of Remarque where the arming was specifically endorsed by Congress.

Morever, at that time, the miliary really had no weapons of significantly technological advantage over that available to private citizens. Back then, the gulf between musket and muzzle loading cannon was infintesimal compared to the gulf between Bushmaster and M1A2 tank, or "carrier battle group." So while I do agree that the founders believed guns (some in the form of a militia, some in the form of individual gun ownership) could be used to deter the tyranny of the government, that concept became a complete anachronism shortly after the Revolutionary War as the US developed a professional army and navy and as military technology began to advance.

So now, back to our domestic gun rights. What happened between say 1787 and 1939 to resolve the issue -- collective v. individual ownership -- left open by the founders?

Honestly, almost all decisions by the Supreme Court were in favor of any reasonable gun control enacted by Congress, without much serious dissension by the people or the political process.

Well into the 1930s, the Supreme Court allowed almost all forms of gun control and at the same time specifically refused to recognize an individual right to own a gun.

Then came Heller and its revisionist majority opinion that there had always been an individual right to own guns espoused by the founders and captured in the 2nd. There had not.

Now, I do agree, that a modern interpretaion of the 2nd given our history of individual ownership should be that you have a reasonable right to own certain types of personal firearms subject to reasonable restrictions. Those words -- "reasonable" and "certain types" -- throw 2nd amendment absolutists like Larry into a tizzy. Of course, that is the only POSSIBLE interpretation, because reading the 2nd Amendment absolutely means that criminals and the mentally handicapped have a right to own pistols, machine guns and tanks. Just silly.

Moreover, where our Tea Party patriots often get very confused is on the idea that the rights in the Bill of Rights have always been unrestricted. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." No, the founders did not mean that you could print all the child pornograph you want, or yell fire in a crowded theater, and so on.

The founders always intended there to be reasonable restrictions on the enumerated rights in teh Bill of Rights, and that is the way the 1st and 2nd Amendments (and others) have worked from day one.

I know this, in part, because I'm one of the few attorneys here in the US lucky enough to have tried two 1st Amendment cases -- one an establishment clause case involving a 10 Commandments display in a court house and the second a free speech distribution case involving the right to distribute news papers in airport terminals. In all cases, the founders envisioned and the Courts have allowed Congress to pass reasonable restrictions on these rights. Bill of Rights absolutism is not only unworkable, it is not supported, at all really, by the historical record.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Thanks Jeff, very enlightening.

This just in....................

CHILD HIT WITH ROCK IN SCHOOL

The NRA call for rocks in every school!
 
Last edited:
Well Mr. Craik,

I was trying hard not to respond...but alas logic demands it.

Using your logic of blaming a problem (crime) on non-crime committing people (law abiding citizens) would be like blaming all drinkers for the drunk drivers, all drivers for the reckless drivers, and my favorite...all appraisers for the housing bubble and housing crash.
 
There's a maxim that says something to the effect that it is pointless to argue with idiots on the internet because they will drag you down to their level. Thus, I will refrain from further responses in this thread to Craik's blathering moronic rants. I'll let his words stand on their own.

Jeff Young said:
So while I do agree that the founders believed guns (some in the form of a militia, some in the form of individual gun ownership) could be used to deter the tyranny of the government, that concept became a complete anachronism shortly after the Revolutionary War as the US developed a professional army and navy and as military technology began to advance.
Jeff, we'll probably have to end up agreeing to disagree on some of this, but I would appreciate any links you could provide that support the conclusion that the founders may have considered the second amendment, unlike all other rights in the Bill of Rights, to be a collective right and not an individual one. I'd find your assertion to be much more compelling if you could show me what the attendees of the constitutional convention and their peers said and wrote rather than scholarly articles written 150 or more years removed from the fact. And given how the founders felt about standing armies, I seriously doubt that they would agree with you about the utility of an armed populace having the means to overthrow a tyrannical government is nothing more than an anachronism. Seriously, they had just fought and won a war of independence that would have been impossible without an armed citizenry, and they despised the idea of a standing army. How could they have possibly intended the second amendment to be anything other than an individual right? Regardless, this has been settled, hopefully for good with the Heller decision. Revisionsist? Please. That term more appropriately applies to the minority opinion in Heller. The majority opinion was rendered by constructionists. And it scares the crap out of me that it was a 5-4 vote. Unbelievable.

Honestly, almost all decisions by the Supreme Court were in favor of any reasonable gun control enacted by Congress, without much serious dissension by the people or the political process.
Not much out there other than Miller, which I think you'll agree was a sham in that it must be one of the most poorly argued cases ever to be heard by SCOTUS. Like I said, we could have an entire thread devoted to these issues so I don't want to spend any more time on this. I do, however, appreciate your respectful insight and analysis, even though I disagree with much of it.

Merry Christmas everyone.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Mr. Young,

It appears you should read more from The Founders, et al:


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
(Note: He said a-r-m-s. Not this or that specific type or catagory of - just "arms".)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry)

(Probably my two favorites)
"...No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people" (William Rawle)
" The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams)



Is it really necessary to add more, sir?

Likewise, will any rational purpose be served by continued 'debate' on the subject?
 
Is the right to bear arms outdated?

Of course not and there are already so many weapons in this gun loving country that any future restricitons may be pointless. No one is talking about sending the military out to collect all firearms from all private citizens. We do have to look at all options though and at least have this discussion. We owe it those families in CT.

The NRA's response was terrible and a waste of everyone's time. Are they going to spare some of their lobbying cash to pay for an armed guard at every school. As you can see right here on this forum, the hardcore gun enthusiasts tend to freak out at any mention of change. We get all the usual arguments......more guns drives down crime, an unarmed population will be exploited by its government, guns don't kill people-people kill people. If you are still listening at that point, you are bombarded by quotes from our founding fathers and have your patriotism questioned.

I question your sanity if after a trajedy like Newtown, you can not at least consider that we may need to make some changes to how we sell guns and the types of weapons that are sold to the public. It is only one factor of a complex problem but we can not discount it entirely.

The right to bear arms will remain intact in this country so calm down and stop channeling your inner Charlton Heston.

I have to say guns themselves are a little dated though. If you really want to protect yourself and your family then I would head straight to the basement and start building your very own drone. The chances that you will ever get to blast away a bunch of bad guys with your AR and save your family including your daughter who will pledge to forever remain a virgin are pretty slim. I used to have fantasies like that when I was twelve.

I also enjoy those lenghty gun lectures from an overweight smoker who is telling me how no one is going to mess with him and his family. I can't run up a flight of stairs but I've got this shiny pistol....... wanna touch it?
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
"I question your sanity if after a trajedy like Newtown, you can not at least consider that we may need to make some changes to how we sell guns and the types of weapons that are sold to the public." - Chris

As has been said at least a million times: Once this-or-that weapon is outlawed, only criminals will have them. Similarly, only criminals will carry guns into "gun-free zones". Only criminals and/or LOONS will commit mass murder. It's NOT law abiding people whom we need to worry about, nor do we need to pass restrictive laws against them. THEY are not the problem...'never have been. So, WHY pass more laws that further mess with/restrict THEIR gun ownership/carry rights??? Seriously, what the devil is GAINED by doing that???

The point? Taking away the right of law abiding people to own/carry any particular gun will not prevent criminals from getting/owning one, nor will it change a darned thing with regard to what criminals do with that weapon. If they want one - they'll get one...and, if they want - they'll use it.

I suggest that The Founders had a far more rational/realistic/no nonsense/accurate view of what the 2nd Amend says, what it means, and the limits it puts on govt. After all, they wrote the darned thing. Therefore, logic dictates it should be their views that ought to be heeded with regard to it.

'Just my $.02.
 
Last edited:
I just shake my head when our politicians talk about additional legislation to take the illegal guns off the street. Maybe making them doubly illegal would help get them out of the hands of people that are not supposed to have them...

I have an AR and other guns, and the AR is my favorite to shoot. It's accurate, doesn't kick much, feels good in the hands, and is relatively inexpensive to shoot.

I heard the mayor of San Francisco say that he wanted to implement New Yorks stop and frisk law. Now what would be the chances of passing that in the city council...
 
Hey Scott, is that Birch furniture on the Garand?
I am working on my Rem 870 LE that I removed the black synthetic stock and replaced with Walnut (1960's take-offs) found in Kenai, Alaska.
Refinishing with analine stain and Minwax Antique Oil. Only six more rubdowns to go!
Managed to get that faint "Winchester Red" color too...

Sorry for the drift..
 
"I question your sanity if after a trajedy like Newtown, you can not at least consider that we may need to make some changes to how we sell guns and the types of weapons that are sold to the public." - Chris

As has been said at least a million times: Once this-or-that weapon is outlawed, only criminals will have them. Similarly, only criminals will carry guns into "gun-free zones". Only criminals and/or LOONS will commit mass murder. It's NOT law abiding people whom we need to worry about, nor do we need to pass restrictive laws against them. THEY are not the problem...'never have been. So, WHY pass more laws that further mess with/restrict THEIR gun ownership/carry rights??? Seriously, what the devil is GAINED by doing that???

The point? Taking away the right of law abiding people to own/carry any particular gun will not prevent criminals from getting/owning one, nor will it change a darned thing with regard to what criminals do with that weapon. If they want one - they'll get one...and, if they want - they'll use it.

I suggest that The Founders had a far more rational/realistic/no nonsense/accurate view of what the 2nd Amend says, what it means, and the limits it puts on govt. After all, they wrote the darned thing. Therefore, logic dictates it should be their views that ought to be heeded with regard to it.

'Just my $.02.
Hey Larry

Thanks for the response. I think some of that makes perfect sense and you are right that someone who wants a weapon will always be able to find one.

I am not suggesting we put the issue of gun control on the table to stop bank robberies, home invasions, or car jackings. We are talking about trying to limit an angry, mentally ill, white adolescent's ability to randomly kill a large number of people in less than 5 minutes. Maybe its not the answer and maybe it will not prevent the next shooting, but we have to at least explore all avenues.

I am not proposing or supporting any specific changes to gun laws. I am open minded and want to hear what some of the ideas are. It seems many firearm aficionados are not capable of listening and only want to talk. This is nothing new, but I am just surprised that its the same story after a massacre like this. If you could no longer buy a high capacity magazine would that be the end of the world?

Also some of those founding fathers were slave owners. Many of their views would not be popular today and they certainly were not infallible. That argument just does not hold water.
 
Top