quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

But although the implications of striking down the D.C. gun ban are limited, a decision upholding an unqualified individual right in Heller would still be a significant victory for individual rights and constitutionalism. To shrink from enforcing a clear mandate of the Constitution -- as, sadly, the Supreme Court has often done in the past -- would create a new precedent that would be far more dangerous to liberty than any weapon in the hands of a citizen.

Source

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

Or what? You'll shoot me?

Thank you for proving my point on your arguments

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

Luke 22...

35 He also said to them, "When I sent you out without money-bag, traveling bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Not a thing," they said.

36 Then He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn't have a sword should sell his robe and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what is written must be fulfilled in Me: And He was counted among the outlaws. Yes, what is written about Me is coming to its fulfillment."

quote:

ORIGINAL: lindsayanne

I didn't read all the comments because quit frankly, I was starting to feel sick. I'm just wondering - do any of you live in DC??? I live about 1 mile from the DC line in MD (lived right across the street from the line in one of the roughest parts of town for a few years). I can tell you the people of DC are sick and tired of the violence and the killing. Guns are everywhere and in the wrong hands as it is. Overtruning the ban will only make things worse. Yes, the COnstitution does allow for the right to have guns, but the Constitution was never perfect. If the Constitition as written was still in effect, the civil rights we have today would be gone. I realize it is easy for gun enthuists in other states to give your opinions, but do your kids have to wait at the bus stop in a drug and gang ruled area? I'm guessing not. DC citizens have been denied the rights that we are spending trillions of dollars to the give to the Iraqi people, so please don't be so thoughtless as to pass a quick and uninformed judgement on why the people of DC (and PG county) feel to strongly about this issue.

quote:

Guns are everywhere and in the wrong hands as it is. Overtruning the ban will only make things worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie

Should guns be available for purchase by anyone, no questions asked? Like right next to the paper towel or ketchup at Kroger?

No and show me anyone who says otherwise.

I didn't mean to imply that it said that somewhere. I asked a question.
I wonder what restrictions or questions would not be a violation of the 2nd amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lindsayanne

I didn't read all the comments because quit frankly, I was starting to feel sick. I'm just wondering - do any of you live in DC??? I live about 1 mile from the DC line in MD (lived right across the street from the line in one of the roughest parts of town for a few years).

quote:


Overtruning the ban will only make things worse.

quote:


Yes, the COnstitution does allow for the right to have guns, but the Constitution was never perfect. If the Constitition as written was still in effect, the civil rights we have today would be gone.

quote:


I realize it is easy for gun enthuists in other states to give your opinions, but do your kids have to wait at the bus stop in a drug and gang ruled area? I'm guessing not. DC citizens have been denied the rights that we are spending trillions of dollars to the give to the Iraqi people, so please don't be so thoughtless as to pass a quick and uninformed judgement on why the people of DC (and PG county) feel to strongly about this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Closie

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteveSund

Id like to see the same 'strict scrutiny' standard that is applied to some Constitutional issues applied to the 2nd Amendment. A gun law should satisfy all three prongs to pass the standard:

1. Compelling governmental interest.
2. Narrowly tailored to achieve the goal.
3. Least restrictive means.

I don't understand. Can you clarify what you mean by those goals as it relates to the 2nd Amendment?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomTurn

Have people in my life that dislike firearms so much that to even hold one they get chill bumps, even ill. And you know what? I respect their dislike and do not try and put one in their hands. And they respect that I exercise our right to arm ourselves. What seperates them from the Christian socialist or Christian with socialist ideals is that respect.

The Christian Socialist or leaning that way in areas will attempt to push their ideal on you wrongly, even to the point of twisting Scripture. Just as the socialist reaches for your wallet and with a smile on their face says "it is for the children and poor, surely as a Christian you are not against helping children and the poor?". The Christian socialist or one with those ideals will disagree with you, as in this area of exercising our right to arm oursleves with that same smile and as reaching to remove your right will say, "surely as a Christian you do not want that right? Don't you trust God?"

They have absolutly no concern about your trust in God. They just have a socialist ideal that does not conform with a freedom and that freedom has to go, at any cost, any misstatement, any untruth, any twist of scripture. And when faced with truth, look as empty as their argument then start with the taunts of "are you going to shoot me?" Very childish and am just not interested in hearing anything they have to say. It is rubbish both of mind and spirit.

So back to discussion of the 2nd Amendment

The rights granted to us by our Creator and affirmed in the Constitution are rights that limit goverment, not empower it. So I ask again of anyone who trys to argue that the 2nd Amendment is about an armed government militia, how can that be? Why would the 2nd be the only one to take away a right of the people and give it to the government? The only one that would give teeth to the others. Why would the founders of the U.S., who were escaping a tyrannical government mean to remove a right from the people and give it to a government run milita? Who do you go to for arms for defense when the bad guy is the government and holds the arms? Seems the founders understood that to be rather stupid but many desire to be a slave to government. The founders understood there would always be those who would want to a subject, not a citizen and to protect citizens from them put to paper a document affirming that our rights do not come from their whims or the whms of government and can not be removed.

Do admit they are slowly being carved at and the day will come when most are gone but at this time I personally do not tremble in fear of what the Supreme Court will rule in this, that day is not here yet. Not enough people have fallen to the ideas that you can rob another of their incomes and freedoms all in the name of a false equailty and a false security but it is interesting to discuss, other than what is mentioned above.

quote:

Sen. Proctor (36 Cong. Rec. 125 (Dec. 9 1902): "The old law makes every able-bodied man in the country a member of the militia, and provides no further organization. This bill separates and makes a class which can be called into active service."

Proctor, at p. 305: "The National Guard is in full organization; it is already created and would naturally be first called upon if wanted for a limited time, and then the militia would be called upon."

At p. 299-300, Sen. Pettus objects that creating the volunteer reserves might exceed Congressional powers over the militia, since their officers are approved by federal authorities and the States have no control over use of these units. [The Constitution provides that the States shall appoint officers of the militia] Sen. Proctor responds "The troops provided for in section 24 are not militia. They are volunteers. They are called the national volunteer reserve, as the Senator will see. They are not called militia."

At p. 303, Sen. Foraker backs Proctor: "[W]hile this reserve is part of the militia, in the sense that all men are a part of the militia who are between the ages of 18 and 45, it is not a part of the militia in any other sense.."

P. 354, Sen. Bacon, in opposition, says that if this volunteer force were the militia, it would clearly violate the letter of the Constitution. He continues, "There is no possible question about the fact that it is not part of the militia, so far as the letter goes. But I think it is violative of the spirit and intent of the Constitution in that it makes a part of the regular establishment that which the Constitution intended should be the militia."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

The militia in it's original was every able bodied man and it's still in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The organized militia definition was added to the Code after the Spanish-American War in 1898 by the Militia Act of 1903. Over 100 years after the Constitution was written. Women were added even more recently. During the debates the National Guards and Reserve components were not considered to be part of the militia despite the definition.

quote:

Sen. Proctor (36 Cong. Rec. 125 (Dec. 9 1902): "The old law makes every able-bodied man in the country a member of the militia, and provides no further organization. This bill separates and makes a class which can be called into active service."

Proctor, at p. 305: "The National Guard is in full organization; it is already created and would naturally be first called upon if wanted for a limited time, and then the militia would be called upon."

At p. 299-300, Sen. Pettus objects that creating the volunteer reserves might exceed Congressional powers over the militia, since their officers are approved by federal authorities and the States have no control over use of these units. [The Constitution provides that the States shall appoint officers of the militia] Sen. Proctor responds "The troops provided for in section 24 are not militia. They are volunteers. They are called the national volunteer reserve, as the Senator will see. They are not called militia."

At p. 303, Sen. Foraker backs Proctor: "[W]hile this reserve is part of the militia, in the sense that all men are a part of the militia who are between the ages of 18 and 45, it is not a part of the militia in any other sense.."

P. 354, Sen. Bacon, in opposition, says that if this volunteer force were the militia, it would clearly violate the letter of the Constitution. He continues, "There is no possible question about the fact that it is not part of the militia, so far as the letter goes. But I think it is violative of the spirit and intent of the Constitution in that it makes a part of the regular establishment that which the Constitution intended should be the militia."

The courts have always rejected a collectivist interpretation in regards to the term "the people" otherwise there would be no protections for any individual liberties.

BTW why would the government have to grant themselves the right to use arms in the first place? That makes no sense at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

BTW, You also keep referring to having to form a militia to defend yourself against a tyranical government. Is the US gov't tyranical in your view?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

BTW, You also keep referring to having to form a militia to defend yourself against a tyranical government. Is the US gov't tyranical in your view?

quote:

I noticed an interesting sentence in that the Constitution says that the states appoint the officers of the militia. So there would be control by the states over these militias as I would interpret that statement.

quote:

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms...

quote:

You have the right to own a gun. I was just asking for a religious/Biblical defense of that view.

quote:

BEN FRANKLIN (member, Continental Congress, signed Declaration of Independence, attended Constitutional Convention, 1st Postmaster General)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993)

TENCH COXE (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

PATRICK HENRY "Millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. ...The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is the vigilant, the active, the brave. ...Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, 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." Excerpts of speech made before the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1775

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?.... 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 use, as in our own hands?" (3 Elliot, p. 168-9)

quote:

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

quote:

ORIGINAL: torath

In the context you just used mapachito13, yes the state could limit the type and amount of weapons. But since current military forces are armed with an automatic assault rifle, gernades, a side arm with 1 in 5 or so having a gernade launcher and teams commonly having sachel charges or other explosives, I have trouble seeing any entity limiting their fighting force to bolt action single shot weapons.

quote:

I guess the answer is no, there is nothing in the Bible supporting owning a gun. It would honestly be a little odd if God chose to say in the Bible that my Desert Eagle .50 was an acceptable or unacceptable thing, since guns were not invented yet.

God makes no mention of microwaves, cars, television, desks, carpet or jeans in the Bible but I have used/been in/worn all of the above.

I challenge you, please share with me a verse prohibiting owning a weapon of any form. There is nothing in the Bible I know of dealing with owning a weapon of any form, let alone a gun specifically.

quote:

BEN FRANKLIN (member, Continental Congress, signed Declaration of Independence, attended Constitutional Convention, 1st Postmaster General)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993)

quote:

TENCH COXE (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

PATRICK HENRY "Millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. ...The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is the vigilant, the active, the brave. ...Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, 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." Excerpts of speech made before the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1775

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?.... 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 use, as in our own hands?" (3 Elliot, p. 168-9)

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Taken from JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
http://www.jpfo.org/

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Is America a tyrannical government? Was pre-Hitler Germany? Not so much. I would have you ask 20 million people if the support gun control, but God does not let us talk to the dead.

According to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearm related deaths in the US in 2005(most recent year searchable) with 789 being unintentional and 17,002 being suicide.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html while no death is a good thing, guns are not the epidemic the media would have you believe.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

So should we allow the people to be armed any way they see fit since the exact language is "shall not be infringed"? Does this make explosives and an M1A1 parked in the driveway fair game? (Hyperbole) Although, the definition of infringe is "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another".

So who has the authority to define the scope of this right? The state? The Supreme Court? Well regulated means well covered by laws, doesn't it? Since the state can appoint the officers of the militia, this also infers that the states can exercise control over it and over the militia's guns. Then, what if the state by enacting a law limits that right to a hunting rifle? Or no handguns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

I'm a former Air Force Officer. The oath for officers is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.