EDITORIAL: 'We want them registered'

[MaverickCowboy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/13/39we-want-them-registered39/

EDITORIAL: 'We want them registered'

Democrats are going after guns

By | Monday, April 13, 2009

Print[-][+] Font Size E-Mail AlertsTell a FriendGot a Question?You ReportYahoo! Buzz
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, announced last week that she wants to register guns. Her next move will be to try to confiscate them.

The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats' coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that "it's a Democratic president, a Democratic House," she responded, "We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered."

Politicians and bureaucrats routinely claim that registration helps solve crimes. If a registered gun is used in a crime and left at the crime scene, registration supposedly lets the police trace the gun back to the criminal. Though this turn of events might work on fictional TV crime shows, it virtually never occurs in real life. Criminals' guns are rarely left at crime scenes. When guns are left behind, it usually is because a crook has been seriously injured or killed and the police are poised to catch him anyway.

The few guns left at crime scenes rarely - if ever - are registered to the perpetrator. If they are registered at all, it is to someone else, whose piece was stolen. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi might think, those who use guns to commit major crimes such as robbing and killing are unlikely to respect her request to file paperwork so the government can catalog the tools of their trade.

Numerous examples disprove gun-control propaganda. Hawaii has had licensing and registration of guns for about 50 years. After all of the administrative expenses and inconvenience imposed on gun owners, police there cannot point to a single crime that has been solved as a result of those programs. Given Hawaii's remote island geography, this should be an ideal place to keep track of guns because movement in and out of the state is limited and legal importation is controlled. If registration is going to work anywhere, it should work there. Unfortunately, criminals seem to be able to get their hands on guns virtually anyplace in the world.

Other jurisdictions with a history of strict handgun bans, such as the District of Columbia and Chicago, have even required registration of hunting rifles and shotguns for more than 20 years. Neither the District nor Chicago can point to any crimes that have been solved using registration records.

The same rules apply across the border. Canada, which has imposed registration of handguns since the 1930s, does not have much to show for it. In 2006, when the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Paul Martin controlled the government, it was admitted in parliamentary debate that just three crimes in 70 years had been solved as a result of registration. A couple of those cases were debatable because other independent evidence helped solve the crimes. According to the Canadian Ministry of Public Safety, just 4 percent of Canadian handgun murders in 2005 and 2006 were committed with registered handguns, and none of those were registered to the people who committed the crimes. As for long-gun registration, at least as of 2006, not a single violent crime had been solved through registration.

Because registration doesn't help solve crime, it is important to ask why government wants to register the people's firearms. History provides the answer. In countries from Australia to England, registration has been used to create lists of guns that later were confiscated by their governments. Despite Mrs. Pelosi's assurances to the contrary, Americans' fear that registration will lead to confiscation is well-founded. Indeed, Mrs. Pelosi's own state of California already has used existing registration lists to confiscate so-called assault weapons just a half-dozen years ago.

The speaker claims registration won't lead to gun confiscation because of the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District's handgun ban last June. She knows full well that this judgment was based on a narrow 5-4 decision that could be reversed when President Obama gets his opportunity to appoint an additional liberal justice to the court.

A Gallup poll released Wednesday shows that support for gun control is "at an all-time low" since the issue started being surveyed nearly 50 years ago. According to Gallup, just 29 percent favor handgun bans. Now that Democrats are in control of the legislative and executive branches of government, even the will of the people won't keep them from going after the guns of law-abiding Americans.

[SkyUS]

I agree, I feel that firearms shouldn't be registered. It maybe nuts, but the government shouldn't know who of the citizens possesses a gun.

[muck]

but the government shouldn't know who of the citizens possesses a gun.But the government is allowed to know who of the citizens possesses a car? Doesn't make sense to me that you don't oppose this very fact.

An obligation to register firearms forces owners to handle their weaponry responsibly and with great care. I don't see anything bad in it apart from the politically motivated assumption that registration is necessarily followed by confiscation.

As someone from good old Europe where the tight gun control laws are in effect I can assure you: Registration doesn't mean anything evil except for the paperwork.

[MaverickCowboy]

But the government is allowed to know who of the citizens possesses a car? Doesn't make sense to me that you don't oppose this very fact.

An obligation to register firearms forces owners to handle their weaponry responsibly and with great care. I don't see anything bad in it apart from the politically motivated assumption that registration is necessarily followed by confiscation.

As someone from good old Europe where the tight gun control laws are in effect I can assure you: Registration doesn't mean anything evil except for the paperwork.

Unlike in europe. Registration has always been followed by confiscation here.
Cant blame us for our fears.

[muck]

Registration has always been followed by confiscation here.What do your politicians respond to that counter argument, other than "We don't want to take away your guns"?

[Marshall_Nord]

But the government is allowed to know who of the citizens possesses a car? Doesn't make sense to me that you don't oppose this very fact.

Owning and being licensed to drive a car in America is a privilege, not a right.

The “evil” is the paperwork and fees that will be used to oppress this right. With lawyers in control, any little mistake in this formality could be used to brand one an Enemy of the Republic. This said, many people will give up their rights in order to avoid the hassles of registration. The right will always exist but it will be so oppressive few will exercise it.

Objective achieved.

[MaverickCowboy]

What do your politicians respond to that counter argument, other than "We don't want to take away your guns"?

Just that. not much else.

[MaverickCowboy]

Owning and being licensed to drive a car in America is a privilege, not a right.

The “evil” is the paperwork and fees that will be used to oppress this right. With lawyers in control, any little mistake in this formality could be used to brand one an Enemy of the Republic. This said, many people will give up their rights in order to avoid the hassles of registration. The right will always exist but it will be so oppressive few will exercise it.

Objective achieved.

exactly......

[Albatross]

My Bill of Rights says I can bear arms (insert joke), and the great men that wrote that document had in mind a governement that works for its people, not the other way around. These morons in our government have forgotten about that. If there are murders on our street with guns, I take that as a sacrifice that must be made to allow us our freedom. We have guns, in extreme cases and no I am not justifying a revolution, to keep our government in check. Screw these ****tards.

[SkyUS]

My Bill of Rights says I can bear arms (insert joke), and the great men that wrote that document had in mind a governement that works for its people, not the other way around. These morons in our government have forgotten about that. If there are murders on our street with guns, I take that as a sacrifice that must be made to allow us our freedom. We have guns, in extreme cases and no I am not justifying a revolution, to keep our government in check. Screw these ****tards.

x2

They're surrounded. They work for us not the other way around.

[len173]

They tried it here, and it's on it's way out because it's useless. It's a giant waste of government funds, so politicians can look like they are dealing with crime. Criminals don't register their guns, or buy them legally.

It's not that I have a problem registering weapons. I don't really care if they know I have guns. It's the fact that it's worthless, so why waste the money?

[62ECHO]

An obligation to register firearms forces owners to handle their weaponry responsibly and with great care.
Bullsh1t! Criminals don't register their guns and just because you register your cars it doesn't make you a good driver, look at all the idiots in the roads. How will that make gun owners handle their weapons more "responsibly", nonsense.



Let her and her fellow Dummycrats keep talking this nonsense. I love it, because there's an election coming in 10' and this nonsense only hurts their chances of re-election.

[Geezah]

But the government is allowed to know who of the citizens possesses a car? Doesn't make sense to me that you don't oppose this very fact.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the following


A well regulated Carpool, being necessary so that people can get around in a free State, the right of the people to keep and own Cars, shall not be infringed.

Being able to drive is a privilege, the Right to bear Arms is just that, a Right, that shall not be Infringed!



An obligation to register firearms forces owners to handle their weaponry responsibly and with great care. I don't see anything bad in it apart from the politically motivated assumption that registration is necessarily followed by confiscation.

Why would you require a majority of people to register their firearms based on your arguement that it would "force owners to handle their weaponry responsibly" when they already do?

Registration also does not have any affect what so ever on the criminals and their actions.



As someone from good old Europe where the tight gun control laws are in effect I can assure you: Registration doesn't mean anything evil except for the paperwork.

Please, the only thing that registration and restrictings have had any affect on in Europe is the law abiding. Criminals still get their hands on firearms.

[muck]

Bullsh1t! Criminals don't register their guns and just because you register your cars it doesn't make you a good driver, look at all the idiots in the roads. How will that make gun owners handle their weapons more "responsibly", nonsense.I wasn't talking about criminals at all. Even the so called law abiding gun owners need to follow regulations concerning their weaponry, as we've seen in Winnenden last month: If the father of that gunman would have stored his weapon in a safe as the law required him to do, 16 people could still be alive by now.

Being able to drive is a privilege, the Right to bear Arms is just that, a Right, that shall not be Infringed!To make something clear: I appreciate the content of the second ammendment. Then again I simply can't see how a forced registration would infringe your constitutional right to keep and bear a firearm.

Why would you require a majority of people to register their firearms based on your arguement that it would "force owners to handle their weaponry responsibly" when they already do?We wouldn't need laws at all if the assumption was valid that a society could forswear rules because at least a majority abode by them.
Over here they confiscate about 30,000 weapon ownership licences a year because people perform poor with their property and go hunting illegaly, let their kids play with live firearms, or even shoot some whilst showing off their gun. At least 10,000 weapons are stolen each year because the same people don't store their weapons in a safe place.
That's a small minority in view of the fact that Germans own about 40 million firearms but it is still big enough that laws should be in place to punish their wrongdoing and make the law-abiding weapon owners law abiding further on.

Registration also does not have any affect what so ever on the criminals and their actions.
Please, the only thing that registration and restrictings have had any affect on in Europe is the law abiding. Criminals still get their hands on firearms.That's the reason why I didn't talk about criminals at all.

[Geezah]

Being able to drive is a privilege, the Right to bear Arms is just that, a Right, that shall not be Infringed!
To make something clear: I appreciate the content of the second ammendment. Then again I simply can't see how a forced registration would infringe your constitutional right to keep and bear a firearm.

You just asked how being forced to register my firearms would infringe on my Right. Are you for real?




Why would you require a majority of people to register their firearms based on your arguement that it would "force owners to handle their weaponry responsibly" when they already do?

We wouldn't need laws at all if the assumption was valid that a society could forswear rules because at least a majority abode by them.

If I break the law, depending on what I have done, I would lose most of my rights, one of those being the Right to bear arms. I would also not be able to vote.
I value my Rights, as I'm sure the majority of law abiding Americans/Citizens do, so why risk those rights by breaking the law.




Over here they confiscate about 30,000 weapon ownership licences a year because people perform poor with their property and go hunting illegaly, let their kids play with live firearms, or even shoot some whilst showing off their gun. At least 10,000 weapons are stolen each year because the same people don't store their weapons in a safe place.
That's a small minority in view of the fact that Germans own about 40 million firearms but it is still big enough that laws should be in place to punish their wrongdoing and make the law-abiding weapon owners law abiding further on.

Do you have a version of the 2nd Am over there?




Registration also does not have any affect what so ever on the criminals and their actions.
Please, the only thing that registration and restrictings have had any affect on in Europe is the law abiding. Criminals still get their hands on firearms.

That's the reason why I didn't talk about criminals at all.

So why are we talking about registration then?
After all, wouldn't this be pushed as another tool to stop the criminals from getting their hands on firearms?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

C'mon guys we all know the real reason you don't want registration of your firearms.

You're sh1tting yourselves that all the crimes that all you supposedly law abiding citizens have previously got away with will come back to haunt you when you get your guns registered and tested ;-)

Worrying about the old bill feeling your collar? How does it feel? :-)

[James]

What do your politicians respond to that counter argument, other than "We don't want to take away your guns"?

Then why do they want to know who has what?

[62ECHO]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 62ECHO http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4062096#post4062096)
Why would you require a majority of people to register their firearms based on your arguement that it would "force owners to handle their weaponry responsibly" when they already do?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 62ECHO http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4062096#post4062096)
Registration also does not have any affect what so ever on the criminals and their actions.
Please, the only thing that registration and restrictings have had any affect on in Europe is the law abiding. Criminals still get their hands on firearms.



Watch your quotes, you're quoting stuff I did not write.
And AFAIK here in the States only few states like Cali have laws that require storage of guns in safes. Most states on the other hand already have statutes enacted against leaving a firearm within reach of a minor (like in your night stand), but they are only used when something happens, it's perfectly legal to have my gun under my pillow if I wanted in my state, but if my kid gets it and something happens, then I will be charged.

[len173]

I wasn't talking about criminals at all. Even the so called law abiding gun owners need to follow regulations concerning their weaponry, as we've seen in Winnenden last month: If the father of that gunman would have stored his weapon in a safe as the law required him to do, 16 people could still be alive by now.


If someone wants to do something badly enough, they will find a way. If someone is crazy enough to go on a shooting spree like that, they aren't just going to say "aww screw it" when daddy's shotgun is locked up tight. They will find another gun, or another weapon. The gun is just the vehicle for their violence. I'm all for safe storage, but that's not going to stop violence.

We have much stricter laws in Canada, including a registry, yet there have been multiple shootings in BC in the past few years involving AR-15's and other automatic weapons.

[Hutz]

Don't do it. We've been trying this in Canada, and it's turned into a very expensive mess. Like said above, this won't stop violent crimes. Plus the list of people and where they live may accidentally get out, like what I've heard happened here.

As long as automatic weapons are illegal (which IMHO should be since there's no reason for a civilian to own one other than for fun), there's no reason to treat regular citizens like criminals. The criminals will always find a way to acquire weapons.

*rant off*

[brainplay]

But the government is allowed to know who of the citizens possesses a car? Doesn't make sense to me that you don't oppose this very fact.

For the record, the registration of vehicles is for taxation purposes. Unlike a firearm, your vehicle is a state money maker each year. They own the roads, we pay to use them.

[muck]

You just asked how being forced to register my firearms would infringe on my Right. Are you for real?The Second Ammendment grants you the right to own and carry a firearm.
Ergo: A law that limits the aforesaid rights would be unconstitutional. How does a system of registration - be it voluntary or not - limit your right to own and carry a gun?
I understand very well that your fear is that registration will be followed by confiscation. That is a reason to oppose registration for sure. The procedure itself is not as far as I'm concerned.

If I break the law, depending on what I have done, I would lose most of my rights, one of those being the Right to bear arms. I would also not be able to vote.
I value my Rights, as I'm sure the majority of law abiding Americans/Citizens do, so why risk those rights by breaking the law.I don't have an appropriate answer to that question, but I'm convinced nobody has. What makes people who adhered to the law for their entire life violate it one fine day? I haven't got a clue.

Do you have a version of the 2nd Am over there?We have no right to own a weapon but rather the permission. It is derived from Article 2 of the Basic law which reads:

(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.

Usage of a weapon for sports or hunting are activities free to any eligible citizen to develop their personality. Obviously the text offers various opportunities to limit aforesaid permission as the possibilities to violate the "rights of others" with a firearm are various just as well.

So why are we talking about registration then?
After all, wouldn't this be pushed as another tool to stop the criminals from getting their hands on firearms?The debate got heated up because we see weapons registration from two totally different positions, mine being that registration is no big deal. I think it is a good measure to force weapon owners to handle their guns responsibly. I've seen over here that it is necessary to enforce all laws regarding weapon ownership. The procedure itself is no big thing and in fact we don't have central registers or something like that (yet).
I must admit: Maybe the American culture - putting more emphasis on the meaning of weapon ownership due to the historical and political reference to the 2nd Amendment - makes people more responsible.

I don't pay attention to crime in these thoughts. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Of course no thug should be allowed to simply stroll in the next gun store and buy one, but a simple check of the criminal record is no big deal either and shouldn't bother anyone with nothing to hide.

Then why do they want to know who has what?For all the reasons already mentioned with the addition that I own a heap of other things which require official registration as well - my car, my telephone etcetera - and can't feel bad about it.

I have an opinion in this debate but I don't want to force it upon others in any way. If they allowed you to arm yourself to the teeth with (unregistered) military weapons I would be fine with that, too.

What makes me wondering though is how differently constitutional rights seem to be appreciated in the United States. I've been watching the debates in your media and it seems that many nameable observers care more about gun rights than about other constitutional rights, many of which were de facto weakened by the Bush administration with anti terrorism laws.

The question you've quoted was about something totally different anyway. Let's say it was about political style and the omnipresent inability of politicians to actually explain their work.
Watch your quotes, you're quoting stuff I did not write.Sorry, must have been messing quotes within the last post then. No harm intended.

For the record, the registration of vehicles is for taxation purposes. Unlike a firearm, your vehicle is a state money maker each year. They own the roads, we pay to use them.Apart from that they can pursure traffic offences when they have the number of your license plate, they can (at least over here) make sure that your car is in a technical condition which means no dangers to traffic safety (because you don't get the licence plate if your car hasn't been technically checked) and is consistent with eco regulations.

Annoying, but useful.

[Geezah]

You just asked how being forced to register my firearms would infringe on my Right. Are you for real?

The Second Ammendment grants you the right to own and carry a firearm.


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.


infringe on/upon sth phrasal verb FORMAL
If something infringes on/upon someone's rights or freedom, it takes away some of their rights or limits their freedom:

Forced registration as you put it, would infringe upon that Right.



Ergo: A law that limits the aforesaid rights would be unconstitutional. How does a system of registration - be it voluntary or not - limit your right to own and carry a gun?
I understand very well that your fear is that registration will be followed by confiscation. That is a reason to oppose registration for sure. The procedure itself is not as far as I'm concerned.

Why should we have registration when we already have checks and balances in place. When buying a firearm through a store they perform the instant background check and are notified whether or not they can move forward with the purchase.

You're pushing the aruement that it would make owners more responsible, I don't believe it for a second.




If I break the law, depending on what I have done, I would lose most of my rights, one of those being the Right to bear arms. I would also not be able to vote.
I value my Rights, as I'm sure the majority of law abiding Americans/Citizens do, so why risk those rights by breaking the law.

I don't have an appropriate answer to that question, but I'm convinced nobody has. What makes people who adhered to the law for their entire life violate it one fine day? I haven't got a clue.

So would registration then change this?




Do you have a version of the 2nd Am over there?

We have no right to own a weapon but rather the permission. It is derived from Article 2 of the Basic law which reads:

(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.

Usage of a weapon for sports or hunting are activities free to any eligible citizen to develop their personality. Obviously the text offers various opportunities to limit aforesaid permission as the possibilities to violate the "rights of others" with a firearm are various just as well.

Bingo, there in lies the biggest issue, you have no Right to bear arms. For you it is a privilege to own them, so you see nothing wrong with registration.




So why are we talking about registration then?
After all, wouldn't this be pushed as another tool to stop the criminals from getting their hands on firearms?

The debate got heated up because we see weapons registration from two totally different positions, mine being that registration is no big deal. I think it is a good measure to force weapon owners to handle their guns responsibly. I've seen over here that it is necessary to enforce all laws regarding weapon ownership. The procedure itself is no big thing and in fact we don't have central registers or something like that (yet).
I must admit: Maybe the American culture - putting more emphasis on the meaning of weapon ownership due to the historical and political reference to the 2nd Amendment - makes people more responsible.

I don't pay attention to crime in these thoughts. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Of course no thug should be allowed to simply stroll in the next gun store and buy one, but a simple check of the criminal record is no big deal either and shouldn't bother anyone with nothing to hide.

We'll have to agree to disagree, our ownership of firearms is a Right, yours is a privilege.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

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.

Surely it is the 'well regulated' bit where registration of firearms comes into its own. In fact doesn't the US military already fulfill the criteria of a well regulated militia on your behalf seeing as it is both the literal and lineal descendant of the colonial militias of the revolutionary war era.

[MaverickCowboy]

Surely it is the 'well regulated' bit where registration of firearms comes into its own. In fact doesn't the US military already fulfill the criteria of a well regulated militia on your behalf seeing as it is both the literal and lineal descendant of the colonial militias of the revolutionary war era.

It says well regulates militia.

no well regulated arms.

[muck]

We'll have to agree to disagree, our ownership of firearms is a Right, yours is a privilege.Fair enough then.

It says well regulates militia.

no well regulated arms.It says "well regulated militia". There's a lot of space for interpretation in that, one possibly being a militia that is subject to some kind of control.

Let me ask one question I've always been curious about: Why do so many gun rights activists basically say the 2nd Amendment was meant by the fathers of the constitution to strengthen the people against the government?
Hasn't the system of a militia always been directed against foreign threats?

[timetraveller]

I agree, I feel that firearms shouldn't be registered. It maybe nuts, but the government shouldn't know who of the citizens possesses a gun.


That what you have said is on par with Miss South Carolina .....



The Goverment and police know what car belongs to what so whats wrong with the Goverment known who owns a gun ,


Something to hide have you ?

[timetraveller]

C'mon guys we all know the real reason you don't want registration of your firearms.

You're sh1tting yourselves that all the crimes that all you supposedly law abiding citizens have previously got away with will come back to haunt you when you get your guns registered and tested ;-)

Worrying about the old bill feeling your collar? How does it feel? :-)


Like the Beatles trak

They've got something to hide
They've got something to hi hi hi hide .. p-)rofl

And they don't want Caught p-)rofl

[Geezah]

That what you have said is on par with Miss South Carolina .....



The Goverment and police know what car belongs to what so whats wrong with the Goverment known who owns a gun ,


Something to hide have you ?

How hard is it to understand that firearms and cars are not the same.

One is a protected Right, the other is a privilege.

The less Government intrusion into my life, the better off I'll be.

[MaverickCowboy]

Fair enough then.
It says "well regulated militia". There's a lot of space for interpretation in that, one possibly being a militia that is subject to some kind of control.

Let me ask one question I've always been curious about: Why do so many gun rights activists basically say the 2nd Amendment was meant by the fathers of the constitution to strengthen the people against the government?
Hasn't the system of a militia always been directed against foreign threats?

Because they said so in their journals/notes/ constitutional conventions and memoirs etc.

also the orginal version barred forced military service i.e. the draft.

[muck]

How hard is it to understand that firearms and cars are not the same.

One is a protected Right, the other is a privilege.Shouldn't it be a right to have a car, too? Except for those not eligible (->health) for a driver's license of course. The Freedom of Movement can in fact be a reasoning why it should be a right to everyone to own the best means of transportation.

Joking aside, it is hard to understand if you leave the legal status of ownership aside.

In the end a car and a gun are only two objects for the safe and responsible handling of which one needs to have certain abilities. The state may check if you meet these requirements and register your possesion for mannifold reasons as long as your car is concerned, but not if we talk about guns?

It's more than valid to say the state shouldn't know who owns a weapon and who not so they couldn't confiscate the weapons and by doing so violate the constitution. But that's the only evil thing they could do with their knowledge about registered weapons that I can come up with.

The less Government intrusion into my life, the better off I'll be.Now that is an argument. p-)

Because they said so in their journals/notes/ constitutional conventions and memoirs etc.Thanks for the insight. That must be the only case in history where a militia was created to fight domestic threats instead of foreign ones.

[62ECHO]

How hard is it to understand that firearms and cars are not the same.

One is a protected Right, the other is a privilege.

The less Government intrusion into my life, the better off I'll be.

Geezah is right. The plates on a car are property of the State and the plate# is linked to the vin# on the car. That is why it's called vehicle registration. I own my guns and there is nothing that talks about gun registration on the 2nd amendment. It is our right to bear arms a and a privilege to drive a car. The DMV can yank that privilege anytime if they deem it nesesary.

On a side note, does it make me an extremist for typing in this forum thread? p-)

[MaverickCowboy]

That must be the only case in history where a militia was created to fight domestic threats instead of foreign ones.

it was for both foreign and domestic......

[Pook2]

This posted from another site:


You are incorrect in your assessment sir, in its context it is proceeded by the word "free" .. As is demonstrated by the BOR the Founding fathers were concerned with the condition of the PEOPLE.. not the "Department of State"

A common misconception is that the Second Amendment is a compound sentence. A compound sentence is one that contains more than one independent clause, each literally a simple sentence by itself. Since each independent clause would need a finite verb and there is only one in the Second Amendment, there can be only one independent clause in the Second Amendment.

Some people object to the comma placed between the subject and predicate. They claim this means that these fourteen words cannot be the subject and predicate of the sentence. One must remember that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by hand, long before word processors or spellcheckers. A minor punctuation mistake might go unnoticed or if noticed, may be deemed so inconsequential as to not warrant re-scribing the entire document. Also, many standards of grammar were different than they are today. The use of capitals is evidence of that. What is more, we can find a similar sentence in the Constitution itself, the first sentence of Article VII; "The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same." Here we again have a complex subject separated from the predicate by a comma. Also present is the use of non capitalized words, to wit... "states" in this context the framers were speaking specifically of the states that would be a part of the collective, yet capitalization does not exist within the plain meaning of the words.


You claim that "well regulated" means governed by regulation as the Militia of Art 1 Sec 8 of the Constitution, if we look at that section, we see that the authors plainly indicate what can be "regulated" by the government. They can regulate the value of money (clause 5) and have the power for "Governing and Regulating land and naval forces" (clause 14). They do not use regulate in the Militia clauses (15 and 16), instead using the word "governing", which as we can see in clause 14 obviously does not mean the same thing as "regulate". Based on readings of the Federalist papers, specifically number 29, "well regulated" would mean proficient: basically properly functioning and trained.

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. (this being the later, more modern definition of the word)

2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. (this being the common accepted definition of the word during the time of the construct of the Constitution)

4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

In colonial times the term "well regulated" meant "well functioning" ––- this WAS the meaning of those words at the time, as I had said before, words have meanings (see what I did there?) this is demonstrated again by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina, : "Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensible duty of every legislature to consult the happiness of a rising generation"––- clearly these governments that are spoken of are not being singled out for laws and rules placed on themselves by themselves.. legislature?

Once again, The federalist papers are still available for your reading pleasure, you should take advantage of the opportunity.

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." (Emphasis added) - Federalist Paper Number 29

What we see above is Alexander Hamilton using the term "well regulated" in such a way to imply a "tolerable expertness" and "degree of perfection", not as in governed or ruled by regulation as some people contend the Second Amendment should read. He is also saying at the same time that a standing ARMY.. or state run militia would be a detriment to the people, thus the reason that the "people" are the ones that should keep and bear arms and train to regulate themselves. The founding fathers were very aware of the dangers of a standing ARMY under the command of a fixed central government.


The term "people" has often been said to be a collective term, referring to a group of individuals. To some minds, this means that the right to arms is a collective right, not an individual one. A flaw with this is that in the Fourth Amendment, we see the term "people" used to indicate an individual.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated "
If the use of the term "people" were to indicate a collective right, then persons living alone would have no right to be secure in their persons or belongings. Clearly this is not correct.

"People" is used to point to a group of individuals who belong to a community or society. In this case, "people" is a term used to indicate that individuals who are a member of our society (citizens, those with the intent to become citizens, or those who have been members of the community) have this right. Even this is subject to some legal defining. So it is an individual right, not a collective one, but you have to belong to the society or community to have it (or in the case of the Second, to have it protected). The Supreme Court of the US has even addressed this issue and concluded the same thing (see Verdugo-Urquidez).


As for the "types of "arms" the the PEOPLE are allowed to keep and bear? Arms, as used by the authors of the Second, indicate what we would call small arms today. These are weapons which are individually transported, served (set up and loaded), and operated. It excludes any weapons that cannot be controlled to a fine degree, in order to target a specific person or thing without collateral damage.

The argument of "but whut about nuclearz bobbms, you think I should be ables to have themz??" is on its face rediculous, acrimonious and hyperbolc tripe.. the meaning of arms was, is and has been clearly defined.

Support for this can be found in what types of arms the militiamen were expected to supply for themselves according the Militia Act of 1792. These arms were " muskets/firelocks/rifles, pistols, sabers, swords, and espontoons (a pike like device)." They were not required to supply themselves with artillery pieces like cannon or mortars. The arms of today would be direct lineal decendents of those arms, the supreme court confirmed this is the case last year in the Heller Vs DC decision. In today's world, automatic weapons and rifles would be right in line for what "arms" are included, their direct lineal descendants.

Once again, do you REALLY believe the "people" described in the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the ninth amendment and the tenth amendment are not the very SAME people that are described in the second amendment?

Thomas Jefferson.. you may remember him from your "schooling", was by no means an imprecise thinker. Being well aware of this consideration, in commenting on how the Constitution should be properly read he said:

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, Conform to the probable one which was passed."

he was not alone in this thinking and opinion, rather than relying on the evening "news" to gain your "opinion" of what the meaning of constitutional constructs are, maybe instead you should read and study the words of the men who WROTE the documents and their very specific instructions for reading the plain meaning of the words as they were used in their historical context.

The information is even free.



US Code Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 says exactly what the militia is:


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


The National Guard is part of the militia, but not the only part.

[SoftLion]

Let me ask one question I've always been curious about: Why do so many gun rights activists basically say the 2nd Amendment was meant by the fathers of the constitution to strengthen the people against the government?
Hasn't the system of a militia always been directed against foreign threats?

Some feisty Puritans were pissed off about the whole "no taxation without representation" bit and wanted to ensure these and other egregious actions were not visited on American citizens through overarching and/or unconstitutional government policies, so they figured they would give all citizens the unalienable right to bear arms to fight the man in retaliation, should the necessity arise.

Whatwith the new Socialist States of America we seem to live in, maybe it is time for responsible citizens living prudently to get fed up seeing their tax dollars being misappropriated to give a handout to their irresponsible neighbor and DO something about it. Well **** me, there I go sharing an opinion. I say "no" to registration.

[MaverickCowboy]

What is this BS about Mexico wanting an AWB in the U.S.?

why don't they just secure their border.