I'm not too familiar with the constitution, how are the militias regulated in america?

Originally Posted by Missileer

Of all the rights you outlined as being limited, none except this one is in the Constitution:

Amendment II

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.

Notice, the word "arms" was not specifically defined for a reason. The better the arms, the better the defense of the Nation. Smart guys those Founding Fathers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Again the keyword is control. Control does not mean a ban, but everyone assumes it does. First of all there is no politician in Washington that wants to ban firearms completely. Not even the most ardent flaming left, anti-gun politican has signed on to that.

First of all you are not completely right on your first point. A NC-17 movie is a film, filmmaking is considered art. Art as we know, is an expression of free speech and expression (protected by the 1st Amendment). And yet there are some (not many) restrictions on art. So just because something is in the constitution doesn't necessarily mean its an open and shut case.

The Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say that Congress cannot control what weapons are available. It just forbids Congress from instituting a total ban.

Lets be honest, the Founding Fathers were referring to flintlock muskets. That was the only type of 'arm' that was available in 1789. So if you want to go by a literal intrepretation of the constitution, the only weapon the Constitution gaurentees you is a muzzle loader. It does not guarantee you the right to a AK-74, or even anything that might be considered a firearm accessory. My guess is the Founding Fathers never imagined the Constitution would be used 200 years later.

And of course their are some that would argue (like the ACLU) that the Second Amendment is only meant for the creation of the state militia. Not for the individual. That doesn't happen to be my opinion, but the question remains unanswered.

While the Constitution is a critical document, one must remember that it was written for the year 1789, not for 2007. Situations do change in 200+ years. Despite what it might says (or what you think it says) sometimes rules must be modified to fit modern society. Precisely why we don't stone adulters to death ot cut off the hands of thieves the way the Old Testment would tell us to.

In reference to firearms, Having been born and raised in a big US city, I can tell you that big cities and assault rifles (guns in general) is a REALLY bad mix. -I speak from personal experience. Most of you seem to be in the country, but whats right with the country is not right for other parts of the country.

Finally, gun control is hardly a new subject. Ever been to the OLD WEST? Dodge, Silverado, etc? You can still see the signs "No guns in town" "No guns in saloon" etc. If memory serves me, wasn't the shootout at the OK Corral over the refusal of a group of cowboys to hand over guns whilest in city limits.

I don't want to know any democrat's stupid opinions.

Then why are you here?

I lived in New York City for 5 years. I don't see how assault rifles in the hands of regular citizens would make anything worse. It would be much more difficult to use it in a crime as opposed to, say, one of those $50 GLOCK 17s with the serial numbers scratched off you can find anywhere in the city.

Well, folks as a POLICE OFFICER. I feel that the civilian population should be able to own weapons such as the AR-15 or AK-47.

Less than .2% of gun crimes use weapons like these. .2%.

When people say that only the military and police should have high capacity magazines. I laugh in their faces. Why should I be allowed to have them for my own defense yet a fellow law abiding citizen cannot?

Tell me why? You can't....

If you want to ban an item that causes death. Ban automobiles, 5 gallon buckets, and swimming pools. More adults are killed by driving and more childern are killed by drowning than by firearms combind.

Lastly, as a Police Officer and prior service member of the US Army. I took two oaths to uphold and defend the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not just a select few of them but all of them.

Driving isn't a right it's a privallge, firearms are a God Given Right.

Next time you talk about the fact that civilian don't need weapons like those that they want to ban. Read up about the LA Riots, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Katrina, and look at places where firearm rights were banned and taken away from their civilian population.

On a side note. The Criminal element does not use the AK-47 for crimes. They use firearms like Hi-Point or Jennings. Cheaply made firearms that can fit into their pockets. Not a freaking rifle that cost between $450-$1000.

Here is the price range for all of the firearms that they want to ban.

AK Series - $450-$1000
AR-10 - $1000-$2000
AR-15 - $900 - $3000
AR70 - $1500 - $3000
Calico - $1000 - $2000
Dragunov - $700 - $1500
FN FAL - $500 - $3000
FN FNC - $1500 - $3000
Hi-Point - $250 - $500
H&K Series - $1000 - $10,000
Kel-Tec - $500 - $700
M1 Carbine - $800 - $10,000

So on and so forth. Most of the firearms are over $500 easily. Most criminal use weapons that cost $100 or less.

In my short career as a Police Officer I have never arrested someone with a rifle. Our Major, who has been with the PD for 32 years has never arrested someone with any listed weapon.

Lastly, the section of the ban that states "a forward grip" is every long arm made. That is where you place your hand while holding the longarm so you do not burn you hand.

Every nation on Earth that has abused it's people has disarmed them.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Franco, etc.... has disarmed it's civilian population.

In the end, if you are for this than you are against the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Hey mmarsh, the Founding Fathers did not mean the Flintlock Musket. They meant arms for self defense.

Back in the day you can own Cannons, Flintlocks, Sowrd, and such.

The Cannon at that periods of time was the most powerful weapon on the field of battle.

As for those saying that the people have no rights because the 2nd Amendment means the Militia and not the people. Think again. Every other amendment that mentions "People" means we the people. Not the militia, not the state government, not the fedreral government. IT MEANS WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

If you don't want to own arms. Go right ahead. I'm not going to stop you. But the moment you and your kind steps on my rights. ANY OF MY RIGHTS. That's going to lead to a fight. Because I did not fight and bleed to lose those rights. My friends did not give their lives to lose those rights. All of us in uniform did not take an oath to protect and defend those rights just to see someone with a traitor's mind to take away those rights that we fought and died for.

I will fight to the death to defend my rights.... That's all you need to know.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

If you cannot defend yourself after the first half dozen shots, you probably shouldn't be owning a gun anyway.

Ever consider the possibility of multiple assailants? I've heard stories of people being beaten in their own homes when 20 cars rolled up and unloaded black gangstas. Of course, you'd probably have to be involved with them for something like that to happen.

You serve to protect your countymen only to have one killed by a legally owned weapon? What a waste. Stop with the god given right stuff as well, the constitution is one made by man, not one of the 10 commandments.

If people want to own these weapons then they should be required to be put into government controlled armouries and only be allowed to be used there at the range.

Originally Posted by major liability

Ever consider the possibility of multiple assailants? I've heard stories of people being beaten in their own homes when 20 cars rolled up and unloaded black gangstas. Of course, you'd probably have to be involved with them for something like that to happen.

Major liability

Actually it happen to me. A friend and I had just closed shop of our store very late we were approached by a group of 4 thugs with a switchblade. (This was in pre-Guiliani NYC era). My friend pulled out a (illegal) 9mm from his belt. They immediately backed off. We didn't need an assault rifle.

I have no idea when you were there. But I grew up in the high crime rates when guns were legal and later they were banned after Guiliani (a Republican) banned them. I can tell you the difference was noticeable.

5.56

If you have never seen a AK-47 (or a copy) in crimes you have never been to L.A. Its quite common.

Yes they were talking about flintlock weapons, Because nothing else had been invented yet. And times have changed. In 1789 a soldier carried his personal weapons into battle. It hasn't been that way in over 180 years. Nowadays when you join the militia (National Guard) they give you a rifle, you don't need to bring your own.

If your really an LEO, then you would know that guns a migratory species. They start up in the hands of law biding citizens but can end up in the hands of criminals. They also start in the country or suburbs and then migrate to Big Cities. Most weapons used in crimes are stolen. Thats why certain guns and items should be out of civilian hands.

I have never heard of cannon being under private ownership, even in 1789 most of them belonged to state arsenals.

Do you know why its called a fire 'arm', it means a weapon that you can carry in your arms. A 6 pound Napoleon Cannon doesn't qualify. You'll have to provide some evidence to the contrary.

And the right to a firearm is NOT a God-given right, its a constitutional right. The only God Given rights are to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Your not listening. As I said (about 3 times) nobody is suggesting a total ban.

Show me a single politician that wants to ban ALL Guns. Not even Hillary has suggested such a bill.

What is suggested is controls, just as their are controls on most other things. Remember this is 2007, not 1789. Society if very, very, different.