Individual's Right to Bear Arms at Issue

The Second Amendment means what it says. It gives
ordinary people the right to keep and bear arms.

Its in the Constitution! If some scum is going to try to break into my house on a crack high you can BET he'll have a gun and I'm going to make sure I even up the odds! These days legitimate, working citizens have to work harder than ever for every little thing they own. I think we're entitled to protect are families and belongings.

While I agree that the 2nd amendment should allow for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, the Washington DC law is unreasonable. I feel that outlawing the sale and use of magazines that hold more than 8 or 10 cartridges does make sense. Banning "assualt weapons" makes no sense, because how do you define an "assault weapon?" Some guns don't fit the "image" of an "assault weapon" but they are as lethal (or more so) than an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M16). A blanket ban on handguns makes little sense, especially given the simple fact that violent crime has NOT been shown to decrease in cities that blanket bans on gun ownership, particulary Washington DC, and Chicago IL.

Wayne wrote:

While I agree that the 2nd amendment should allow for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, the Washington DC law is unreasonable. I feel that outlawing the sale and use of magazines that hold more than 8 or 10 cartridges does make sense. Banning "assualt weapons" makes no sense, because how do you define an "assault weapon?" Some guns don't fit the "image" of an "assault weapon" but they are as lethal (or more so) than an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M16). A blanket ban on handguns makes little sense, especially given the simple fact that violent crime has NOT been shown to decrease in cities that blanket bans on gun ownership, particulary Washington DC, and Chicago IL.

WHAT DO THE WORDS; "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" mean?

The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirgi...

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

“Afforded us by God & Nature”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AffordedGo...

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature...

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/God&Natu...

Life, Liberty and Property
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LifeLibertyP...

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/George...

"the overruling law of self preservation"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser...

'for the common defence'(?)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRi...

"The Right to Self Defense"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right...

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat...

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:

Origins
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.ht...

Precedent
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&am...

After The Fact
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Conte...

Amendment II and the Law
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/Contents.htm...

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment:

The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AProclamat...

The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.... It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights", Oct. 24, 1787
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & 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. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & 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 & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

That's RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL 'gun control laws' are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you, Charlton Heston...

Some people are so far off base it is ALMOST commical. First of all, what does limiting a magazine to 10 rounds do? Nothing, it was proven and the law is no longer in effect because of that simple fact. How many gun crimes do you hear of with a so called "assault" weapon? Literally none. Again, proven that that law did nothing and it is no longer in effect. And, finally, CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. THAT IS WHY WE CALL THEM CRIMINALS. They don't follow the laws now, so why in the world would you think they would start now with new ones? Enforce the existing laws harshly. All these "feel good" laws do is punish law abiding citizens.

Remember when seconds count the police will be there in minutes.
Concealed carry is the way to go...

Get ready Chitcago and mayor Dick, your next on the list to get sued.

"D.C. reported 143 gun-related murders last year. In 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted, the district's medical examiner said 135 homicides were firearm-related."

The Supreme Court and that pesky Constitution has little bearing on what King Richard does in Chicago.

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
WHAT DO THE WORDS; "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" mean?

Does it really matter?

That is NOT what the 2nd amendment says. What you quote, is only what the NRA wished it only said.

And what about the collectors of guns who store them safely and legally today? Are you going to criminalize some poor guy who may not have a round of ammo in the house, but has an old M1 Carbine in a display case (15 round magazine - the HORROR!).

Is an WW1-vintage SMLE rifle (.303 British cartridge, 10-round magazine, loaded with 5-round charger clips) just THAT more dangerous than, say, a WW2 US GI M-1 (.30-06,8-round "en bloc" internal clip)?

Shows you how pointless some legislation can be.

Shoot, I'd hazard a guess a sizeable portion of the public doesn't even know what "semiautomatic" means.

Sound Reasoning wrote:

<quoted text>
Does it really matter?
That is NOT what the 2nd amendment says. What you quote, is only what the NRA wished it only said.

PROVE IT. Back up your meaningless and errant claim with FACTS.

The reality is, that back in the 1700's, our founding fathers were worried about the possibility of a strong person taking over the central federal government, and ceasing power as an American Dictator.

If you don't think that is a reasonable worry, then just look at Germany. It happen there. Germany was a democracy, and a personal named Adolph Hitler managed to gain control of the central government, and cease power as a Dictator.

Anyway, back to the real 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the concerned individual states, the right to fight back against any possible dictator. How would they fight? Within the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment to maintain their own well-regulated militia, and that the members of those well-regulated state militias, to store required defensive arms in their homes. Basically, stopping the central federal government from going house to house, ceasing arms, in an attempt to disarm the state militias.

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER meant to give any American the right to store an arsenal in their home, for their own PRIVATE needs.

Those are the facts, no how inconvenient they are for the NRA and its members.

As far as the 'NRA' goes:

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth. NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22.

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts."

— American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 [NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, by Angel Shamaya, March 29, 2002.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NRAGu...

“...As a matter of official policy, NRA does not call for the BATF to be abolished. In fact, the Association does not object to many of the federal laws against violent criminal behavior committed with firearms that BATF is charged with enforcing. Since we support certain federal laws relative to firearms, it only stands to reason that we would not promote abolishing the federal agency tasked with enforcing those laws....”

“...Furthermore, it has long been NRA's position that a greater emphasis should be placed on enforcing existing laws that target violent gun crimes. In fact, NRA spent much of the eight years under Bill Clinton admonishing his Department of Justice for its failure to aggressively prosecute violent criminals who are caught violating federal gun laws. As part of that campaign, NRA began promoting the "Project Exile" prosecution model. In case you were not already aware, Project Exile is a cooperative effort between federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutors that calls for the full prosecution of violent gun crimes....”

- Amanda H. Millward, NRA-ILA Grassroots Division, Letter dated Nov. 20, 2006.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/jpfon...

The 'NRA' is THE #1 supporter of Constitutionally PERVERSE 'gun control' PERIOD

N - Negotiate
R - Rights
A - Away

Sound Reasoning wrote:

<quoted text>
Does it really matter?
That is NOT what the 2nd amendment says. What you quote, is only what the NRA wished it only said.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights itself:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BillOfRights.htm

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

...Amendment II

DECLARATORY; (Common Defense)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

RESTRICTIVE; (Self-Defense/Preservation, The First Law of Nature).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right...
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser...
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

PROVE IT. Back up your meaningless and errant claim with FACTS.

It is pretty easy for any to check out the full context of the 2nd Amendment.

Anyone who does, would quickly find that you are once again IN ERROR. That you are once again making up LIES.

You can't re-write the 2nd Amendment to say what you personally (and the NRA too) wish it said, and get upset when anyone (including me) catches you on it.

Sound Reasoning wrote:

<quoted text>
Does it really matter?
That is NOT what the 2nd amendment says. What you quote, is only what the NRA wished it only said.

Consider the PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the British-American 'subject' BEFORE the Constitution. As explained by a very knowledgeable and well known authority;

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Commentari...

Then, let us give our attention to how the new American Citizen's Right was dramatically improved AFTER the Constitution was ordained and established;

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/BlackCommTuc...

Kind of looks like YOU don't know what you're talking about, DOESN'T IT?