No kidding, that's the title of todays Washington Post editorial. > "One of the perennial arguments against reasonable restrictions on guns is that legal guns dont often get used in crime. It is, the argument goes, not the owners of legal weapons who actually end up killing innocent people but those who are already in violation of federal gun laws. The flaws in this argument were tragically highlighted this week when Bryan Uyesugi of Honolulu allegedly took one of his many registered guns and killed seven Xerox employees at his workplace. The reality, of course, is that legal guns are no less deadly than legal ones. A society that tolerates the easy collection of large stashes of powerful weapons also makes an implicit descision to tolerate large body counts as some number of gun owners let the tensions of their lives overtake their self-restraint." I won't waste more energy typing(my only fault)the rest except this blatant challenge; "What level of gun violence will be required before the ideological opposition to stronger gun laws gives way to common sense?" And... "We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them"(guns)

-- King of Free Estimates (your@town.USA), November 05, 1999

Answers

A large stash wasn't used in the killings...I believe that only one weapon was misused...and registered, at that.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), November 05, 1999.

The Constitution is dead.

Realize this fact. Get it through your skulls.

The Rule of Law only applies to the Commoner.

The Elites, like the Washington Post, exempt themselves from the Constitution, and the Law.

THEY are now the arbitrators and protectors of "Rights" in this country.

And you have let them do it America.

The Representative Republic has dwindled. The rise of pure Democracy is ensconced and being perfected by TPTB. The Constitution is Dead.

America by-in-large hasn't realized it yet because they've been slow- boiled into trading freedom for government security.

The assaults on Freedoms of speech, religion, property, wealth, pursuits and firearms are met with blank stares from a stupified public about to become slaves. They WANT to be coddled and nurtured. They WANT to be led by smooth and easy sayings.

"The hell with the Second Ammendment. We don't need it anymore, that's why we have militarized police units and the elimination of Posse Commitatus. I want to feel secure knowing no one but my government is armed, and that none of my fellow countrymen have an advantage over me, be it firearms, financially or otherwise. Screw the hunters, the animals need saving anyway, after all - no one gave us the right to kill a harmless animal. I'll be happy to keep getting my Steaks and chops from Krogers.

"I want the rich to pay more of their share that they immorally heisted from the workers and poor like me. I want to get millions in damages for health problems I suffered because I chain smoked for fifty years. I want free health care. I want free daycare for my kids, so I can work all day and blow my cash wad on Lotto tickets and restauranteering over the weekend. I want to feel better. I want to feel there are others prepared to care for me, and I want to do it with your money. I want the world to have a big group hug, and then I want to destroy our arms to show them that the U.S. is not a threat to them. I want to save the rainforest, and I want to get fresh fruits and vegetables in January.

" I want all these things, I want to be saved, and never have to work hard....and to do this, we need to ban all guns, knives and baseball bats so I don't have to worry about violence anymore."

Hell, why we're at it, let's shitcan the First Ammendment for only "approved speech".

Oh,.......I forgot........ we already have done that. It's called Hate Crimes legislation, sensitivity training and universal standards.

They're working on the Thought Crime and Hostile belief Systems legislation as we speak.

Check your local Court dockets for the litigated restriction of your freedoms near you.

What a pathetic shell you've become America.

Shame on you for letting these liberal Elites shame you all into silence and complacency.

You've been hoodwinked.

Wake up. Recognize the agenda being played out.

Night is quickly falling.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 05, 1999.

The peaceable part of mankind will continually be overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside..Horrid mischief would ensue were only one half the world deprived of the use of them;.the weak will become prey to the strong.

Thomas Paine

They can babble on all they want about how the second amendment doesn't apply anymore. It's B.S.

-- cavscout (they won't h@ve them. when they need them), November 05, 1999.

I hope this can be read clearly.The "quotations" are theirs. It looked legible when I wrote it, but it kind of runs together now.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 05, 1999.

INVAR,

Thanks for the excellent summation.

-- cavscout (well@said.invar), November 05, 1999.

Seems to me they're trying just a little too hard. The assertion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to personally bear arms is simply distortion. NOBODY BELIEVES THIS, least of all the people who claim that it's true. They know it's a lie, but it's useful to them.

Relativistic values have cut us all adrift: "the truth" has become whatever you can get away with. This has always been the way of criminals; now it's enshrined as the basis of "post-modern" anti-ethics. Where did this "post-modernism" come from? The "Cultural Studies" movement in academia. Where did "Cultural Studies" come from? International Marxism.

Lies are now politically correct: Y2k is not a problem. The President is not in the pay of a foreign power. Americans never have had the right to keep and bear arms. I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

We ARE Monica Lewinsky. If it's not vaginal penetration, it's not "sex." If the all-powerful leader does not have a funny moustache, it's not "totalitarianism." It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Could mean anything. What do you WANT it to mean?

-- Dr. Polymorph (youknowmore@thanIdo.com), November 05, 1999.

It is really very simple, the second amendment is the second amendment because the first amendment is the first amendment... King ol' boy, digest that... If you fail to understand what I just wrote, you loose the first amendment and your right to make very uneducated statements.

-- (...@.......), November 05, 1999.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms, their remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natures manure."

Thomas Jefferson

Got ammo?

-- cavscout (sickofliber@l.tripe), November 05, 1999.

..@...

You need to go and read the original editorial; King was just quoting the author, not defending the opinion. He just did a crappy job of wording it.

-- cavscout (oneofthosecr@zygun.owners), November 05, 1999.

I have a dog named Rudy. Rudy sets by my feet as I type away to you idiot doomers. I believe Rudy is smarter than most of you doomers. He likes it when I bring home a whooper from work, and when he has been a good boy I bring him home some fries too. I love my Rudy. He is my best friend.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999.

cavscout,

You're welcome. By your handle, I'll assume you have served or are still serving us. It is I who instead, thank you.

Dr. Polymorph,

Brilliance.

Succinct perfection.

Bravo.

and Amen.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 05, 1999.

"whooper?"

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), November 05, 1999.

Whooper=bitch?

-- cavscout (wondering@boutY2k.pro&hisdog), November 05, 1999.

INVAR Right on! Got ammo and going to get more!

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), November 05, 1999.

"After the first, the rest are free"

-- henry (inth@missery.woods), November 05, 1999.

It is really very simple, the second amendment is the second amendment because the first amendment is the first amendment...

I'm afraid you have that backwards...The first amendment is the first amendment because the second amendment is the second amendment. All of the amendments are ther still because of the second amendment. It is the "Liberty teeth" of the constitution. Without the second, you would have none.

The enemies of this nation could not be more happier than to have everyone believe that the constitution is dead. Sorry, INVAR, I must disagree with you on this point. The constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and unless you live by it and know what it says, and why, then it will be dead to those that don't. The enemies of this country simply want to pervert the document, and they've done one hell of a job at it. Thet've installed activist judges that make law as opposed to interpreting as they should. They have also convinced many people that they must trade their rights for "privledges" from the state. What the state gives , the state can take away. My rights come from my creator, and they are inaLIENable, (meaning no one can put a lien on them).

I for one would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 05, 1999.

If everyone carried, it would not be so easy to massacre unarmed people

-- (dont@tread.onme), November 05, 1999.

For all practical purposes Patrick, the Constitution is dead when taken in context of the current culture we find ourselves in.

For those that have read, understood and hold the Constitution sacred as you and I and some others do, then we shall indeed die free men, on our feet before an enraged populace that will be turned on us to feed the agendas of those holding the emotional manipulation strings.

I can say the Constitution is dead, due to the lack of respect for it from the President himself (who uses it daily for shitpaper), the adbication of duty by the Congress, the willful manipulation of law by the Courts and the apathy and utter ignorance of a brainwashed public.

It may burn bright in our hearts Patrick, but too many of our people have been dumbed-down as to our history while the rest have been shamed into silence.

There is a powerful zeitgeist that transcends sensibilities here Patrick. I guarantee that those of us that wrap ourselves in the documents of Liberty bequeathed to us by God and written down for Posterity by our Founders...will become enemies of the state and pursued and eliminated one by one. Look how many have been shamed into silence already.

Anyone that advocates standing for freedom and taking our government back from the corruption that has engulfed it, is now considered a "militant extremist, an insurrectionist, dangerous to the public, and a zealous, misguided terrorist".

Have you truly counted the cost? Are you ready to endure untold scorn, ridicule, and abandonment? And are you willing to lay the lives of yourself and family on the alter of freedom?

I fear the answer for most is already loud and clear.

And the remaining Executive in The White House, serves proof to that assumption.

Night indeed is quickly falling.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 06, 1999.

Y2K Ho--

That dog is probably your only friend. Don't feed the dog that crap, you'll kill him, or at least shorten his life span.

At least stock up on food for the dog, or else he might eat you!! Poor dog.

-- dog is smarter than you (bill@tinfoil.com), November 06, 1999.

This stuff is just great. Every gun grabber essay I have ever read is so riddled with logical holes you could drive a crowded German cattle train through it. The author insults the logic and wisdom of the Second Amendment, and in the next breath feeds us these gems:

"A society that tolerates the easy collection of large stashes of powerful weapons also makes an implicit decision to tolerate large body counts as some number of gun owners let the tensions of their lives overtake their self-restraint".

See how the media whores chip away. The legislative implication is that the quantity of guns owned should be restricted because large stash = high body count = bad. Then note the implication that legal gun ownership is as suspect and therefore as likely heinous (guilt before the fact) as illegal gun ownership, because some percentage of the population cannot be trusted (let's ban all automobiles while we're at it because of drunk drivers). Finally note that this further implies that no one but government can be trusted with arms, which history records to be a total crock. The deduction is that no gun law is workable except the only gun law THESE people and their mouthpieces are after -- a total ban.

"What level of gun violence will be required before the ideological opposition to stronger gun laws gives way to common sense?"

For 'stronger gun laws', read, ultimately, no guns. For common sense, he means HIS idea of common sense, which history has shown to be the insanity of government-imposed personal and collective defenselessness.

"We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them (guns)."

The author should actually read the Constitution instead of parroting this claptrap. Every word of the Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL rights. I have to believe this level of ignorance is neither sincere much less accidental.

One man, committing criminal acts with a gun, regardless of how that gun was acquired, is a criminal, and should be dealt with appropriately. There is no basis in law to abridge the rights, especially the Constitutional rights, of the blameless along with the guilty. Any variance from this policy is a variance from our form of government, period.

I would submit that, as the man who kills without legal basis with a firearm is criminal, those who would leave the law-abiding citizen defenseless against lawless man and lawless government is as much a criminal...or more. In short, those who would steal and diminish our rights are criminals. They're evil. Never lose sight of this.

If the Constitution is as irrelevant as these people want to pretend, then let's get it out in the open, once and for all, now. End the blatant manipulation of public opinion and stop the lies. Those elected officeholders and political appointees who have SWORN to uphold the Constitution should resign immediately. If they didn't want the job and it's duties, responsibilities, and oaths, they shouldn't have taken it. Otherwise, if they wish to overturn our 200- year Constitutional legacy, they should plainly say so and be counted so that they can be dealt with accordingly. If the Constitution is and always has been a sham, or a convenience and now an annoying encumbrance, they should plainly say as much so that those citizens who wish to live under the grace of a constitutional republic can go about their business as a free people. If you don't like the foundations of this country, leave it to us in peace before we lose patience. Leave us now and spare us the continuous stream Totalitarian BS fouling the air.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), November 06, 1999.

This stuff is just great! Every gun grabber essay I have ever read is so riddled with logical holes you could drive a crowded German cattle train through it. The author insults the logic and wisdom of the Second Amendment, and in the next breath feeds us these gems:

"A society that tolerates the easy collection of large stashes of powerful weapons also makes an implicit decision to tolerate large body counts as some number of gun owners let the tensions of their lives overtake their self-restraint".

See how the media whores chip away. The legislative implication is that the quantity of guns owned should be restricted because large stash = high body count = bad. Then note the implication that legal gun ownership is as suspect and therefore as likely heinous (guilt before the fact) as illegal gun ownership, because some percentage of the population cannot be trusted (let's ban all automobiles while we're at it because of drunk drivers). Finally note that this further implies that no one but government can be trusted with arms, which history records to be a total crock. The deduction is that no gun law is workable except the only gun law THESE people and their mouthpieces are after -- a total ban.

"What level of gun violence will be required before the ideological opposition to stronger gun laws gives way to common sense?"

For 'stronger gun laws', read, ultimately, no guns. For common sense, he means HIS idea of common sense, which history has shown to be the insanity of government-imposed personal and collective defenselessness.

"We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them (guns)."

The author should actually read the Constitution instead of parroting this claptrap. Every word of the Bill of Rights enumerates INDIVIDUAL rights. I have to believe this level of ignorance is neither sincere much less accidental.

One man, committing criminal acts with a gun, regardless of how that gun was acquired, is a criminal, and should be dealt with appropriately. There is no basis in law to abridge the rights, especially the Constitutional rights, of the blameless along with the guilty. Any variance from this policy is a variance from our form of government, period.

I would submit that, as the man who kills without legal basis with a firearm is criminal, those who would leave the law-abiding citizen defenseless against lawless man and lawless government is as much a criminal...or more. In short, those who would steal and diminish our rights are criminals. They're evil. Never lose sight of this.

If the Constitution is as irrelevant as these people want to pretend, then let's get it out in the open, once and for all, now. End the blatant manipulation of public opinion and stop the lies. Those elected officeholders and political appointees who have SWORN to uphold the Constitution should resign immediately. If they didn't want the job and it's duties, responsibilities, and oaths, they shouldn't have taken it. Otherwise, if they wish to overturn our 200- year Constitutional legacy, they should plainly say so and be counted so that they can be dealt with accordingly. If the Constitution is and always has been a sham, or a convenience and now an annoying encumbrance, they should plainly say as much so that those citizens who wish to live under the grace of a constitutional republic can go about their business as a free people. If you don't like the foundations of this country, leave it to us in peace before we lose patience. Leave us now and spare us the continuous stream Totalitarian BS fouling the air.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), November 06, 1999.

Washington Post isn't smart enough to figure out that guns don't kill people...people kill people.

-- Dian (bdp@accessunited.com), November 06, 1999.

What the Founding Fathers Said About the Second Amendment and Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms "Laws that forbid the carrying of armsdisarm 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, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764). "Arms 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). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution(1776). "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784). "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." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787). "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...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the UnitedStates of America (1787-1788). "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every othernation." James Madison. "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 . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer53 (1788). "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution(1788). "The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify theConstitution (1788). "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers,No. 46 "Suppose that we 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: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, TheFederalist Papers "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" -- Gazette of the United States,October 14, 1789. "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434,June 8, 1789. "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750,August 17, 1789. "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3Elliot, 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 No. 46 at243-244. "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 in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, atp. 56 (New York, 1888). "...but if 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." --Alexander Hamilton speaking of standingarmies in Federalist No. 29. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2col. 1. "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 government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20,1788. "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, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975. "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386 "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." --Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646"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, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,1836 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "That the said Constitution shall never be 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, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce &Hale, eds., Boston, 1850). "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p.20, S. Padover ed., 1939 "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. --Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed.,reissued 1967. "The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." --Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894). "...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" --from article in the Philadelphia Federal GazetteJune 18, 1789 at 2, col.2. "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) "[The American Colonies were] all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. [European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." --George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)."It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." --JamesMadison, Federalist No. 46. What the Courts Have Said About the Right to Keep andBear Arms "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52,at 54 (1878)] "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W.927, at 928 (1922)] "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] About the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The CompleteJefferson, p. 322 "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October7, 1789. "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," --James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46. Other Quotes About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms andFreedom "Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle "If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-- never --never--never!" William Pitt(1777) "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." --Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into PublicErrors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]."Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." --William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) "Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, in his edition of 'Blackstone's Commentaries,' 1:300 (1803). "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]. "If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, AmericanBar Assn. (1939) "If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people." --James Madison "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible."--Senator Hubert H. Humphrey " 'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt "To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." --Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England andNew York [London 1823] "The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individualsIt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October7, 1789. "Gentlemen may cry, 'peace, peace'--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Is life so precious, or peace so dear, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" --Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed.Philadelphia, 1836) "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John StuartMill "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.--There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live asslaves." Winston Churchill "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of men and women." -- Thomas Paine, The Crisis, Intro. (Dec.1776). "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."-- Thomas Paine,Common Sense, (1776), Chap. 1. "When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir." Thomas Paine, 1788. "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton, English historian,1907 "It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd." Henry Miller, American author,1947 "You can never have a revolution to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution." G.K. Chesterton, English journalist andauthor, 1955 "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee, date unknown "You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." --Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince." "You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." --Niccolo Machiavelli in "ThePrince." "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J.O'Rourke

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@yahoo.com), November 06, 1999.

damn formatting.....

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@yahoo.com), November 06, 1999.

Quoth Mrs Lane: When they outlaw guns and ask for them back, we will become lawbreakers. It's that simple. If the PTB today looked at what ws in her house growing up it would have IMMEDIATELY become compound. A couple trading muskets, an early garand the factory offered ANYTHING for and was denied, sadle guns, shotguns, varminting rifles, dear rifles, selected pistols, etc. (Oh yeah, a couple hundred pounds of powder in multiple versions including Black.

Night train

-- jes a shootin footballer (EVERYBODY gots to have an off season hobby) (nighttr@in.lane), November 06, 1999.

At the time of the American Revolution, the Patriots were a minority (a 'faction' in the parlance of the day). A scant 20%, composed of hotheads, zealots, fanatics and extermists. But they had Right on their side, and they were well armed. They endured much at the hands of the Tyrant. But, it was not until they were commanded to lay down their arms, and the Redcoats were on the march to effect the confiscation, that the battle was joined. And the Patriots prevailed BY FORCE OF ARMS.

We, as a nation, now number some 280 million souls. What is the percentage of Patriots today? Is it still 20%? 15%? 10%? Even if only 10%, that is still 28 million well-armed persons, committed to their belief in the Constitution. As are the vast majority in the U.S. Military.

This is what scares the Hell out of the welfare statists. And this is what will ultimately stop them.

The only question is: How far will we let the Tyrant go this time?

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), November 06, 1999.

Following is simple warning not to give up your arms. Israel was unarmed for battle, yet they beat the enemy.

(1 Sam 13:-22) "Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his ax, and his mattock. Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan: but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found."

Notice that the king and his son had arms. The elite!

We win!

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), November 06, 1999.

y2k pro,

You are fortunate to have a friend like Rudy. He is probably the only protection you have. Please take care of him. No greasy fries, please, it will give him the squirts, and he will probably wipe on your carpet.

-- shiney (foil@tinfoilhats.tin), November 06, 1999.

Invar: I'm with you, I stand ready to fight the evil that is coming from our "leaders", and I see wht needs to be done. I know of a few others who can also see the darkness decending, but sadly most are blind to the rising evil, and they will not understand until they reach the point of no return... May God help us... we need it... I feel that time is short...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 07, 1999.

Food for thought as all minds on this board are already in one camps or the other on the 2nd admendment.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

OK, what does this mean? Does it mean that all people should have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?

Pro-gunners disagree on the limits of this bill: some people believe it should be absolute, and any and all arms should be legal. Some pro-gunners draw what seems to be obvious limitations, for instance, the owning of a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction should be illegal. Some go even further, and declare that such heavy military equipment such as tanks, bazookas, etc., should be illegal, and then some believe that reasonable controls on items such as automatic machine guns are all right.

So, there is obviously much disagreement already about the limitations of the 2nd. One thing is clear, though, and that is it can be limited to a certain extent, morally and legally. First, lets look at the moral arguments:

The moral arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

First, it important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure, for example the president of a major company, is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue. It would be called libel, and it is a valid abridgment of my rights. The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury.

The reason abridgment of rights is sometimes valid is that rights can very easily clash. In the example above, my right to free speech clashes with the people in theatre's rights to not be trampled. The same analysis can be applied to the 2nd Amendment. If the right to own a gun interferes with public safety, that right can morally be abridged, in order to protect public safety. And the courts have agreed with this position, as follows.

The legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

Recently, although the Supreme Court has not issued a clear cut ruling on 2nd Amendment rights, a 1992 decision by the conservative majority stated that "Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992). This opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Chief Justice William Renhnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, indicates that the Supreme Court has a right to limit 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is clear that the 2nd is not absolute, and thus cannot be used as a prima facie reason why any gun should be legal.

Above, I referred to the debate even within the pro-gun camp over the limits of the 2nd. If the 2nd truly gave the right to keep and bear arms without any infringement, then surely such high-intensity arms such as nuclear missiles and tanks should be legal -- or your 2nd Amendment "rights" are being abridged! Obviously, allowing free and easy access to any kind of armament would be a bad idea, so there should be some practical limitation. The question then becomes, who decides what these limits should be? The answer, of course, is that the people decide, through their representatives and the limited representation of the Supreme Court.

But what about the intent of the 2nd? Many pro-gunners believe that the 2nd is the Constitution's way of making sure that our government never becomes tyrannical, and ensures that if it does, we will be able to overthrow it.

There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument. First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect. Other democratic means exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has over 270,000,000 citizens at last count. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.

There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have at least ten thousand a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.

Finally, there is the old canard about slavery; that only people with guns can avoid being slaves, and that only slaves lack the right to basic self defense. The response here is quite simple-when as many people die of gun related incidents as do every year, you are already a slave. You are a slave to a system in which you feel you need to carry a gun for self-protection. You are a slave to the chaos that mankind has worked for millennia to civilize. Perhaps we are all violent beasts at heart, and that will never change. But evidence of peaceful, relatively violent-crime-free societies such as Japan indicate that perhaps we can "all just get along."

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com`), November 07, 1999.

y2kDave,

Essentially, I agree with your sentiment that the world would be much better off without arms. Who wouldn't. Unfortunately, reality rears it's head. If, by your logic, the individual should be unarmed, since we're all so civilized now, then so should the police and the criminal element. All standing armies should be abolished and all arms caches and military development programs should be halted. As none of this, sadly, will ever occur, your basic premise is pure fantasy.

Don't look to the courts to legitimize the erosions of the Second Amendment, either through their tacit approval or infrequent ruling. The Constitution is above the courts. The Bill of Rights are individual rights. Therefore, the individual, in responsible and reasonable exercise of his rights, is above the courts as well. In other words, we have these rights, even without the Constitution, and especially without the courts' creative re-interpretation of the Constitution and our rights.

The right of self-defense is a basic, innate right of all living creatures, including man. You want to talk absolutes. Well, the right to self-defense is an absolute. Any tool that reasonably enhances that individual right is appropriate, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, and select-fire machine guns, as carried for self- defense by today's common foot soldier. In fact, the handgun is perhaps THE most appropriate and discreet form of self-defense devised to date. State militias should be free to own the heavier defensive arms. I'll give you the nukes. Only a totally insane, fascist-bastard government would ever use one (or two) against defenseless citizens.

The "militia does not equal individual" argument is as old as dirt and is easily shown to be wrong, as the intent is clear at the drafting of the Constitution by simply reading the debates at that time.

The old "FIRE! in the crowded theater" argument is illogical. You're comparing a dangerous action, yelling "FIRE!", with mere possession of firearms, as if mere possession were imminently dangerous. To frightened gun grabbers, that may be the case, but it is far from reality and a poor basis for making an argument. By this logic, everyone with lungs and a voice box should turn them in immediately to the state because they MIGHT yell "FIRE!".

As for the collective, strategic intent of the Second Amendment, I believe you've missed the point entirely. The mere presence of arms in the hands of the citizens forces the nascent tyrant move much more cautiously. You claim that "America has over 270,000,000 citizens at last count. No dictator could 'take over' without popular support of these citizens." Well, one only needs look at the takeover of the similarly sized population of Russia, preceded first by individual disarmament. China has billions, yet was first disarmed only to be oppressively controlled by a few. I know historical fact is an annoyance in this debate, but it really cannot be ignored.

Certainly, change by peaceful, democratic, Constitutional means is always preferable. But the kind of change the tyrant wants is not usually accommodated peacefully. The Second Amendment in this capacity is a last resort. By your argument, why bother with a defense budget? No EXTERNAL force could ever take over America, because it has 270 million people. As this is patently false, the same, perhaps even greater threat exists by an INTERNAL force. Over time, through the tyranny of the majority, the constitutional republic will eventually fail. Meanwhile, leave us the means to personally defend ourselves and, when the time comes, collectively build another.

You may feel you are slave to the existence of the Second Amendment because you have perhaps a 1 in 100,000 of being killed by a firearm. Actually, unless you commit robberies, rapes, murders, deal drugs, or are in the police or military, your odds are a lot lower than that. We're all freer, much freer, with the Second Amendment than without it. Gun prohibition simply enables both the criminal individual and the criminal government to accomplish their evil acts without interference or personal risk.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), November 07, 1999.

y2k dave,

The argument that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the States ability to form a militia is an insincere one. After all, the Bill of Rights deals EXCLUSIVELY with the rights of individual citizens. Does it make sense that the founding fathers would, in the middle of such a bold document, provide for the ARMING of a government while DISARMING it's citizens? I don't think so...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), November 07, 1999.