Gun Control

[Aenlic]

One thing I would like to see is barrel ballistics signature typing done at the factory. All arms manufacturers already do extensive Q&A of their barrels, each and every one. It wouldn't be all that difficult to add in a process to signature type each barrel, so there would be a record of the individual ballistics markings from every gun to match its serial number.

Gun manufacturers already want to be absolved from civil liability. Make such a ballistics typing a condition of such liability. Also make it mandatory to duplicate the serial number in a second less accessible location so it can't be removed so easily. They want to be free from any civil liability, then they ought to at least put some effort into lessening their liability.

At least that way, all future guns sold would have a ballistics record on file. With that information, instead of needing both gun and casing after a crime has been committed, law enforcement would only need the casing. With that they could match it to a ballistics file for the gun and at least trace the gun to the last legal owner. The only time your gun's ballistic file would be needed, or even accessed, would be if a bullet casing turned up at a crime scene that matched your gun's barrel.

It doesn't put any burden on the gun owner, unless his or her gun is used in a crime. And even then, only if the gun owner wasn't sensible and law-abiding. Sensible gun owners know where their guns are. If their gun is stolen, they bloody well better report it as being so.

[Redleg]

Boy Red, I'm so stupid I Didn't know what that means Mabye you Don't know what Concede means, since you the one who looked it up .

No Redleg, it seems like you demonstrated the ablity to change your Opnion around, but then accuse people of not understanding, when you yourself are the one making things more stupider then it already is.

If I had been obtruse I would understand your attempt here. However Ihave not been obtruse in this thread.

Again do you understand what the term concede means - because it seems clearly to me that you do not given the nature of your comments from this point forward.

Again did I state that I support military weapons in the hands of citizens or did I state I concede the point that AK-47 and M16's are considered personal arms? Read carefully before thinking I am speaking incoherient in this thread.

However if you wish to pursue this tract of logic then I of course will have to believe that you do not wish a honest discussion on the issue at hand.

[Crazed Rabbit]

One thing I would like to see is barrel ballistics signature typing done at the factory. All arms manufacturers already do extensive Q&A of their barrels, each and every one. It wouldn't be all that difficult to add in a process to signature type each barrel, so there would be a record of the individual ballistics markings from every gun to match its serial number.

Gun manufacturers already want to be absolved from civil liability. Make such a ballistics typing a condition of such liability. Also make it mandatory to duplicate the serial number in a second less accessible location so it can't be removed so easily. They want to be free from any civil liability, then they ought to at least put some effort into lessening their liability.

At least that way, all future guns sold would have a ballistics record on file. With that information, instead of needing both gun and casing after a crime has been committed, law enforcement would only need the casing.

I am compelled to disagree. This thing can be very easily beaten:
Getting a revolver, or picking up some loose casings at the range.

It would increase costs and represent more information the government has on you, and be, essentially, a registeration program - which have been used before guns are consficated.

CR

[Redleg]

I would agree one does not need an AK-47 for home defense against simple burglars or the like. But I would contend that rights are not granted upon need; we don't need to prove we need any firearm.

You are correct.

And what if the vast majority of the military obeys the gov't, for whatever reason? What if those who desert don't bring with them any military ordance?

Again can 1% of the population control the majority of the people if the people are against the 1% no matter how well that 1% is armed? Its a circuler arguement in which one pursues when stating that the people must be armed to protect themselves from the military in the United States. The military consists of citizens that are willing to serve to protect and serve the United States and its constitution.

You are, it seems, trusting in the standing army to protect us against the tyrannical use of such an army. To me, that seems odd, s the whole point of the second is that citizens can arm themselves - they don't have to rely on stolen state weapons or deserters.

I shall refer you to the enlistment oath and the oath of office for an officer in the United States Military. Plus I refer you to the safe guards alreadly proscribed by law concerning the use of the military within the terrority of the United States. The whole point of the second amendment is two fold - to insure the security of the nation through a well regulated militia, and to provide for the arming of the people to insure that security. Military arms are not needed to defend the people's freedom.

Again, I think you are assuming too much to justify your argument.

You would first have to discount the assumption to reach that conclusion.

The state controls the national guard weapons, and I doubt they would look kindly upon them being stolen. The national guard is not a militia in the sense the founders meant. Also, the military is not the only agent of force the government can employ; think of the police officers and large police forces in cities.

Yes the individual state controls the national guard weapons - that is correct. What happened during the last insurrection of the people against the government? Do you need military grade weapons to defeat the police forces of cities. Where once again its less then 2% of the population that is attempting to maintain law and order on a rather peaceful group.

I believe you are neglecting a right because you think we don't need it.

You would be incorrect in that assumption. I don't believe the founding fathers meant that all forms of arms should be in the people's hands. That the founding fathers meant for personal arms should not be banned.

In the amendment, the phrase 'well-regulated' means well prepared, not controlled by the gov't - such gov't control over the arms of the people would be contrary to the very meaning of the amendment.

Well regulated has several meanings. I am not saying your interpation is necessarily wrong, but to believe it means only well prepared means one must discount the militia clauses in the Legislative Section of the constitution

The gov't does not have to 'issue' people weapons, it merely has to get out of the way and let people make, buy, and sell them.

Again I refer to the body of the constitution, the amendment does not state issue nor does it make, buy and sell.

I recall from one of the federalist papers an argument against requiring the people to train as a militia - it would take too much time.

Correct, do you also recall that the second amendment was a compramise between the drafters to take in account all parties concerns about the militia, the maintaining of the free state, and the protection of the people.

In summary, I think you put too much trust in the military, you assume too much power for the government, and that you don't seem to support the true meaning of the second - preparation of citizens should they ever have to actually fight against a tyrannical government.

I trust the military to react like the citizens of the nation that they are. That they have pledge to protect and defend the constitution and the nation foremost over the actions of the tryannical government.

THose that believe the second amendment means that the government can not regulate certain aspects concerning weapons have missed the intent of the constitution to support only one amendment to it. The 2nd amendment was written in such a way that certain aspects concerning weapons can be controlled. One important judicial decision alreadly mention by Anelic confirms that interpation over all other interpations.

To read anything else into my arguement is an assumption.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

[Redleg]

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

The question is not why should you be allowed or not allowed to own a fully automatic weapon. But what was the intent of the drafter's of the constitution? Did they intend the people to have access to every possible type of weapon, or as men of their time did the intend the people to have the ability to rightfully defend themselves with personal arms.

Think back to the 1994 Assualt weapon's ban, Why did congress place an automatic expiration date into that piece of the legislation? Was it because - unlike the Machine gun ban of 1934 - they knew that the legislation would not stand up to judicial review? Then there is the Miller case where the court also ruled in favor of government restriction on weapons.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

[Kagemusha]

Why should I not be permitted the use of an automatic weapon to defend my home?

I am responsible for that weapon's proper storage, safe use, and injuries infliceted thereby -- as I would and should be with any other weapon -- so what is the problem?

If I use a baseball bat to crush the skull of an intruder, a kitchen knife to puncture the intruder's lung, or a burst from an M-60 to take that intruder out, what is the difference?

Does possession of an automatic weapon somehow decerebrate the individual, forcing them to become a crazed killer who simply has to take the gun out for a stroll and hose down a school bus on full rock and roll?

Does the prohibition of such weapons somehow prevent, in practice, the whack-job who would commit such a horror from acquiring such a weapon?

We live in a world where you can acquire weapons of mass destruction with a trip to your local feed & seed store and a stop at Radio Shack. Zip home, download the instructions from the net and make your kill. Crazies don't run off to become hermits anymore -- they go for the media splash.

Since that is the world in which we live, I don't think gun control laws accomplish what they set out to do.

Perhaps we should go the other direction: a legal requirement for all non-felons who are physically/mentally able to own, be trained to use, and carry a firearm. I bet social politeness would be "in" real quick. Perhaps not?

How about a fact that a light machine gun like M-60 shoots bursts. When a trained machine gunner shoots a short burts he fires 2- 6 bullets per burst. Now when someone breaks into your home and in panic you start firing with your M-60,which have no single shot mode, how many rounds do you think mostly likely shoot? 10,15, half of the ammo belt? Would it be possible that after the few first rounds hit the intruder the rest how many you ever may happen to release start hitting walls,neighbours walls and windows and maybe one of the neighbours kids or your family members head,torso or limb?
Now if you had lets say shotgun or that baseball bat you could have stopped the intruder without endangering others. So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

[Redleg]

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

Your getting very close to what I have stated, expect your missing one key point.

There is nothing that states that an M16 nor an AK 47 is not a personal arms. In fact in the United States Military the M16 is considered a personal weapon.

If one agrees that the 2nd Amendment means personal arms, one must concede that all personal arms fall within that definition. Light Machine Guns such as the SAW do not fit within that definition, however military issued personal arms do fit within that definition. For instance are you not allowed to purchase the exact same handgun that the military issues as a personal sidearm? Are you not allowed (this is in the past) to purchase Military issued shotguns? Is not the M1 allowed to be purchased? Is not the M14 allowed to be purchased? All these weapons were considered personal issued weapons in the military.

I believe full heartly that the 2nd Amendment applies to all personal weapons - rather I like it or not, I must concede that it includes military assualt weapons and their civilian counterpart models such as the AR15. How else can you explain the automatic expiration date of the Assualt Weapons ban?

I wonder if you understand the difference given your earlier comments?

[AntiochusIII]

In all practicality, shooting an AK-47 in "self defense" would result in quite a few "collateral damage," a few limbs for that passer-by, a head shot on poor shopkeeper nearby, etc., may be also little Susie if she happens to be in the range as you "defend your house" from that rascal of a burglar.

Oh, and there's the thing about police force being armed with at most a rifle, mostly a pistol; only the specialized units have the more warlike machinery. I'm sure dealing with gangs, criminals, and the occasional some-random-dude-go-crazy would be far more serious with an M-16 assaulting the school instead of a pistol or a katana.

Just pointing out. Take it what you will.

[Kagemusha]

In all practicality, shooting an AK-47 in "self defense" would result in quite a few "collateral damage," a few limbs for that passer-by, a headshot on poor shopkeeper nearby, etc., may be also little Susie if she happens to be in the range as you "defend your house" from that rascal of a burglar.

Just pointing out. Take it what you will.

Well there is single shot mode in AK-47.Just joking.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes we are allow to defend ourselves with Personal Arms RedLeg, but nothing is saying that we should be given AK-47's to defend our homes and families, and end up having a half a hour gunfight with a few gangbangers that also broke into your house with M-16's.

Correct; one would have to buy the AK-47.

Military arms are not needed to defend the people's freedom.

How can you know that? What if you are wrong - should we limit our rights because we don't think we'll need to use them in full?

How can one read the second and surmise that military arms can be banned? Military arms are still arms - "the birthright of every American". They are the only arms that matter.

You make much of the military being one percent of the population. Iraq has about 26 million people, and we have about 141k soldiers in Iraq. While not a model for complete control, we are maintaining some sembalence of control with less than 1%, in a control where the insurgents have RPGs and other military weapons.

Did they intend the people to have access to every possible type of weapon, or as men of their time did the intend the people to have the ability to rightfully defend themselves with personal arms.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

Do you need military grade weapons to defeat the police forces of cities.

Rights are never about, and have never been about 'need'. But considering the increasing militarization of large police forces - SWAT teams, M4s in squad cars, body armor, your question might not have the answer you intended.

Think back to the 1994 Assualt weapon's ban, Why did congress place an automatic expiration date into that piece of the legislation? Was it because - unlike the Machine gun ban of 1934 - they knew that the legislation would not stand up to judicial review? Then there is the Miller case where the court also ruled in favor of government restriction on weapons.

Perhaps because they didn't have the votes for a permanent ban - democrats tried recently to make the ban permanent, you know.
The miller case allowed restrictions on the sawed off shotgun only because they didn't view it as a military weapon.

I trust the military to react like the citizens of the nation that they are.

I would not place my freedom entirely in the trust of other men, beacuse then I do not have it.

Well regulated has several meanings. I am not saying your interpation is necessarily wrong, but to believe it means only well prepared means one must discount the militia clauses in the Legislative Section of the constitution

You mean this?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

You could argue government can control the arms it gives the militia, not what arms people can purchase.

I respect you Redleg, but I must strongly disagree.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

How can you know that? What if you are wrong - should we limit our rights because we don't think we'll need to use them in full?

Without the proper training most military weapons are more dangerous to the user versus the intended target. The militia clause in the 2nd Amendment address this issue.

How can one read the second and surmise that military arms can be banned? Military arms are still arms - "the birthright of every American". They are the only arms that matter.

There is no birth right to ordance in the constitution only arms. I am addressing what I believe to be the orginal intent of the drafters. Arms primarily dealt with the weapons that were available for individual use. Cannons were often refered to as ordance in the time period that the constitution was drafted. If one takes a good look at the constitution and the case law that has followed the government has routinely banned military weapons for private use. For instance while you can buy a tank or a cannon - it has been de-militarized. In otherwords it can not be used as it was orginally designed to fire munitions.

You make much of the military being one percent of the population. Iraq has about 26 million people, and we have about 141k soldiers in Iraq. While not a model for complete control, we are maintaining some sembalence of control with less than 1%, in a control where the insurgents have RPGs and other military weapons.

Your discounting the Iraqi forces in country and the other nations forces. The insurgents are primarily armed with personal weapons, and Improved Explosive devices. The RPG's yes they have, but notice the pure havoc they are creating with the standard equipement of the militia, a shoulder fired rifle. Then your forgeting the mortars that came available from the military that just faded away versus fighting. Which goes to my point.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

You might want to read into the wording and the reasons of the 2nd Amendment a little more clearly. I linked an article already that states otherwise, you also have posted a link that states otherwise also. Defense of nation was the primary purpose of the clause - which is what I believed what I stated first. The purpose to overthrow tyranny is a side-benefit to the clause. I might of misspoke and stated self-defense was a primariy cause - and if I did, it was incorrect.

Rights are never about, and have never been about 'need'. But considering the increasing militarization of large police forces - SWAT teams, M4s in squad cars, body armor, your question might not have the answer you intended.

Actually it does have the intended answer. Well placed rifle fire defeats many modern things - does that equipment make it difficult - you betcha, but if the government has become a tryanny that your imaging - law and order has alreadly broken down if the people are revolting.

Perhaps because they didn't have the votes for a permanent ban - democrats tried recently to make the ban permanent, you know.
The miller case allowed restrictions on the sawed off shotgun only because they didn't view it as a military weapon.

Miller is cited as showing that the 2nd Amendment allows for restrictions. The Machine Gun law of 1934 or is it 1938, is cited as it gives a prime examble of a law that has stood up to challenges concerning restriction of ownership of weapons.

The automatic expiration date was there to prevent a constitutional challenge in my opinion.

I would not place my freedom entirely in the trust of other men, beacuse then I do not have it.

I place my freedom in my own hands and the country's freedom in the hands of all citizens.

You mean this?

yep

You could argue government can control the arms it gives the militia, not what arms people can purchase.

The point is it can be interpated either way. The 2nd Amendment does not over-ride that clause. With the wording of the constitution, the amendment, and what arms was normally meant at the time of drafting, one can logically argue that military weapons are not meant for the people. Which is indeed what is the norm in the United States. You can not purchase many of the pieces of equipment that the military uses.

I respect you Redleg, but I must strongly disagree.

Crazed Rabbit

Disagreement is fine, civil discourse to discuss that disagreement is what democracy is all about.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

How about a fact that a light machine gun like M-60 shoots bursts. When a trained machine gunner shoots a short burts he fires 2- 6 bullets per burst. Now when someone breaks into your home and in panic you start firing with your M-60,which have no single shot mode, how many rounds do you think mostly likely shoot? 10,15, half of the ammo belt? Would it be possible that after the few first rounds hit the intruder the rest how many you ever may happen to release start hitting walls,neighbours walls and windows and maybe one of the neighbours kids or your family members head,torso or limb?
Now if you had lets say shotgun or that baseball bat you could have stopped the intruder without endangering others. So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

Very Much Argeed, I don't feel like getting off with Self-Defense after killing someone who breaks into my house, but then get a mansualghuter charge for killng the next door neghbior's kid

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no birth right to ordance in the constitution only arms. I am addressing what I believe to be the orginal intent of the drafters. Arms primarily dealt with the weapons that were available for individual use. Cannons were often refered to as ordance in the time period that the constitution was drafted.

Can you tell me one weapon of that era that was used by the Army that was forbbiden to american citizens? I dont know of any.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

Not only that the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit the power of the government not the people. If we read it as many here suggest, even Redleg we get just the opposite result.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Many Gawain, We can name many that are banned, or was banned anyhow..

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

So machine gun for self defence is not only unpractical becouse its heavier then normal rifle,shotgun or pistol, but also unpractical and dangerous, becouse its ment to be platoon,squadron or team support weapon not a self defence weapon.

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

[Aenlic]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?



And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

That's what the claymore mines, razor wire, bunker and chain gun are for!

(sorry couldn't resist!) wink:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?



And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

SO What. What is the chances of that happening?? If SO, go ask ym grandfather, he got so many bullets and guns, he could Give a gun and 40 rounds out to everyone on page 9 of this fourm

But Really, That what Claymores,Landmines and barbred/Razor wire is for....


and AK-47's
you buy on the Blackmarket

[Crazed Rabbit]

SO What. What is the chances of that happening??

One should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Besides, ever heard of the LA Riots?

That's what the claymore mines, razor wire, bunker and chain gun are for!

Hey, I'd trade a M60 for that.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Really? You know he was talking of the era right after the Revolutionary War?

Really, I guess you rather ignore the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that happened. Care to guess how many drafts were debated concerning what became the final version of the 2nd Amendment?

Then it seems some are missing the interpations that have stood up to court review.

And what if you've got an angry mob headed towards your house, in the middle of widespread riots?

Crazed Rabbit

One does not need a machine gun to handle an angry riot. There are several effective means to handle an angry mob that does not involve using machine guns.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

One should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Besides, ever heard of the LA Riots?


Hey, I'd trade a M60 for that.

Crazed Rabbit

Yea I did. Don't need Machine guns for a Angry Mob Rabbit.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Really, I guess you rather ignore the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that happened. Care to guess how many drafts were debated concerning what became the final version of the 2nd Amendment?

Then it seems some are missing the interpations that have stood up to court review.

Again I ask what weapons were forbiden to US citizens at the time of the writting of the 2nd amendment? And isnt the purpose of the bill of rights to limit the power of the government and insure the rights of the people?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Consider the following list of quotations, drawn (for the most part) from those writing during the founding of our republic or shortly after its creation.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html

It would seem that many did view the right to keep and bear arms not only a tool of personal defense, but a potential defense against government tyranny. Some even defined "arms" as any of the tools of the soldier.

I may choose to foregoe the ownership and use of my own M60 for personal defense -- there are a few practical drawbacks -- and the claymores are a little finicky for long-term emplacement, but its hard to view restrictions on weapons ownership as constitutionally correct for any non-felon.

[Redleg]

Again I ask what weapons were forbiden to US citizens at the time of the writting of the 2nd amendment?

Cannons were limited. If one reads some of the older laws, one will quickly find that merchant ships could not be armed if they sailed from the United States. This changed because of the War going on between Britian and France where both sides were regularly capturing American Shipping.

The third common effort of the mercantile citizenry was self-defense. The greatest irony of the Navy's early sparseness was the multitude of extant vessels whose owners begged the government to arm them to protect the nation's ports and cargo. When considering the resources available to the nation for the defense of commerce, historians often forget the potential for arming the merchant vessels themselves, which were otherwise completely defenseless against a privateer's cannons. Existing laws prohibited the docking or departure of any armed civilian vessel from American ports, which had the dual effect of protecting the harbors for enemy powers and denying protection to domestic ships on the high seas. As early as October 1797, President Adams considered waiving this restriction on American merchant vessels, but Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, whose customs collectors enforced the law, was cool to the idea. On 19 March 1798, Adams withdrew by executive order the requirements for local customs officials to restrain armed American merchant vessels from leaving port.[35] Congress finally responded on 25 June, the same day it passed the subscription ship bill, by approving legislation that allowed private vessels to sail armed out of American ports. Furthermore, the act empowered merchant crews to "oppose and defend against any search, restraint or seizure…by the commander or crew of any vessel under French colors." It placed only one condition: owners must post bonds to the government, which would be repaid only if the ship did not use its arms against neutral vessels.[36] (The restriction ensured that these vessels were not privateers, free to hunt and capture French cargo ships. The U.S. government authorized 365 privateers in the Quasi-War, about one-half of which were registered in Southern states, and one-third from New England. However, none of these saw any action in the West Indies.)[37]

http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH42/Swan42.html

And isnt the purpose of the bill of rights to limit the power of the government and insure the rights of the people?

Yes indeed.

The standard rethoric of we have to have weapons to defend ourselves from a tryannical government, doesn't bode well when the military and the police forces of this nation together do not exceed 2% of the population. Nor has anyone been able to demonstrate that weapons legislation did not exist prior to the 20th Century. As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population. If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment.

The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist debates during the drafting of the constitution demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment had several interpations, and yes even drafts even while it was being ratified. Weapon control legislation has been ongoing for some time now, and it passes review of the courts and congress multiple times when it deals with any weapon outside of those that are considered personal arms.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Consider the following list of quotations, drawn (for the most part) from those writing during the founding of our republic or shortly after its creation.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html

It would seem that many did view the right to keep and bear arms not only a tool of personal defense, but a potential defense against government tyranny. Some even defined "arms" as any of the tools of the soldier.

I may choose to foregoe the ownership and use of my own M60 for personal defense -- there are a few practical drawbacks -- and the claymores are a little finicky for long-term emplacement, but its hard to view restrictions on weapons ownership as constitutionally correct for any non-felon.

Of Course there would be drawbacks for having a M60 or M-16,whatever. Depending on the gun, I don't think it be nice for you to be shooting at a Murderer in your house, and ending up killinng him and shooting your next door nebiour in the back by a stray bullet..

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Cannons were limited. If one reads some of the older laws, one will quickly find that merchant ships could not be armed if they sailed from the United States

That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '


So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?

[Redleg]

That doesnt apply as it only limits arms outside the borders of the US. Any citizen could own any cannon he could afford.

Sorry Gawain - it does apply because it was American Flagged Merchants that were living out of American Ports.

'As the link provided above shows that yes indeed their was legislation to prevent the arming of the civilian population.'

If you notice they quickly saw the folly and error of this. They we were about vessels from another nation docking not american ones. On top of that it again didnt apply to what a citizen could 'carry' in the US only in the harbors.

They were forced to notice the folly of the legislation because of the action resulting from war. Even though they changed the legislation it does show that the founding fathers had some restrictions on arms. Which goes to the arguement about gun control.

'If we had a higher percentage of the population under federal arms then that arguement might hold sway with me - however research would indicate that from the very beginning their were two main positions on the 2nd Amendment. '


So as we increase and decrease the size of the armed forces and police the meaning of the 2nd amendment changes?

[/quote]

Not at all - nice attempt but that was not what I stated. The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government. One can not adequately demonstrate to me that when the people desire to overthrow the tryanny of the government that the lack of military grade weapons has prevented the overthrow of the government. The are plently examble were inadequate equiped rebels overthrew a government that they no longer could tolerate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist debates during the drafting of the constitution demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment had several interpations, and yes even drafts even while it was being ratified. Weapon control legislation has been ongoing for some time now, and it passes review of the courts and congress multiple times when it deals with any weapon outside of those that are considered personal arms.

And are you arguing that court approval of laws make them right?

As Gawain said, there were no restrictions on owning cannons in the USA.

The arguement about the tryanny of the government as evoked by the police and the military does not hold sway with me. In otherwords I simply reject that arguement. One can not adequately demonstrate that the size of the military prevents the people from revolting and overthrowing the government.

Once again, need does not matter in the slightest. We are talking about a right enshrined in the constitution- we do not have to demonstrate need. Your belief is based on several assumptions - what if those do not com true?

Why should we restrain ourselves from fully exercising our rights because of a belief we do not need them?
This is especially problematic when we talk of the 2nd amendment - the one that was designed for a 'doomsday scenario'. That means, to arm ourselves for scenario we cannot forsee. Prudence dictates we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Arguing that we shouldn't prepare for the worst because we're pretty sure it won't happen is not smart.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

And are you arguing that court approval of laws make them right?

Legal presendence has standing do to the fact tha we are a nation of laws.

As Gawain said, there were no restrictions on owning cannons in the USA.

As shown that is incorrect - the drafters did indeed place restrictions on weapon ownership.

Once again, need does not matter in the slightest. We are talking about a right enshrined in the constitution- we do not have to demonstrate need. Your belief is based on several assumptions - what if those do not com true?

Once again I did not state need - your reaching. Are you assuming that citizens in the military who are citizens just as you are will defend a tryanny?

Why should we restrain ourselves from fully exercising our rights because of a belief we do not need them?

Again reaching for an arguement I did not make. If you continue this course then I will have to assume you have no farther arguement to present.

Nowhere have I stated that one should not fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms. What I have stated is that the founding fathers intent was toward personal arms - not every weapon in the current military structure.

This is especially problematic when we talk of the 2nd amendment - the one that was designed for a 'doomsday scenario'. That means, to arm ourselves for scenario we cannot forsee. Prudence dictates we prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Arguing that we shouldn't prepare for the worst because we're pretty sure it won't happen is not smart.

Crazed Rabbit

Again taking a position I have not taken is a "strawman" arguement. Again I reject the "doomsday" arguement you have presented as justifing owning tanks, nuclear weapons, and all other non-personal weapons. The 2nd Amendment itself is not being rejected nor argued against. Its the interpation that it means all weapons versus personal arms. Can you adequately demonstrated a popular rebellion not being successful when the people decided to overthrow a tryannical government.