Ok now I just want to find out from everyone the way you think gun law's should work? I have read that there are people that just think you should be able to go to your local gun store and pick up a pistol or rifle that day just like a package of bread.

Now there are people who think that there should be no gun's at all (I know one one here is for that. I hope)  Next there are some people who think that there should have a little restriction's on firearm buying. I'd just like to know what you go for and why?

I wouldn't be too averse to an instant check system, like they have in place here in Texas. Of course, if the check comes back indicating that the sale is approved, no records should be kept of what is being purchased or by whom.

Select fire and suppressors should be just another product to choose from in the store. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs? Don't make me laugh. Has anyone [b]ever[/b] been convicted of a bayoneting?

Guns are just tools. If you trust me with a hatchet or a chainsaw, how can you turn around and limit the guns I own? If I misuse the hatchet, chainsaw or MP5SD, prosecute me ruthlessly to set the example for everyone else.

There's only one "sensible" gun law, and that one has been on the books for a coupla hundred years:

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.

amen brother, amen..

Work?  Gun laws work?  I don't think so.z

You can buy anything you want, from a .22LR revolver to .50BMG machine gun (or larger), with absolutely no questions asked. No forms are filled out, no background check is performed, and you walk out of the store with your purchase as soon as you've paid for it. No infringements means exactly that - [b]NO[/b] infringements. If my purchase is delayed for even a second, for any reason whatsoever, that's an infringement.

Upon second thought, I suppose some questions would be OK - "cash or credit?", "would you like some ammo with that?", etc.

The same laws that apply to my ownership of a chainsaw, hammer, or pitch fork.

BTW...how do you interpret "well regulated"?

Paul

I can't tell you how gun laws should work, but I can tell you how politicians think a proposed law will be effective.  

Think of what a politician is, he's a man that has to appease certain people while not alienating others.  

So with the basics given, here's how gun laws are made.  A politician will propose a law/bill/restriction.  He then sits and waits.  That law can either die and get resurrected each congressional session, or pass.  (Think Brady Bill and going through 100th-103rd congress where it was "finally" passed.)  

Ok, so the bill is proposed and there is a public reaction to it.  It is either widespread or localized in what is considered the "gun nut culture."  If the rejection is widespead, the politician backpedals to create something that is the least offending to the majority, while screwing the minority. (We're not even talking race here!)  Usually, this leads to bills that really have little to no impact on gun owners.  Such was the case with the 1968 amendment, which only really banned mail order guns and set up the FFL system.  

Bills like the Brady bill and assault weapon ban, basically were jokes.  Some states suck more than others, which enabled nazi-ish regimes like NJ to almost ban them outright, as well as tube fed .22's and other mockeries of assault weapons.  

Ok, to get back on track, the bottom line is that gun owners are somewhat well protected because of the nature of politics and their need to only appear to have introduced far reaching bills that will benefit all "sane" Americans, while ridding the country of guns that ONLY a criminal would want/need/own.  

Whenever there is a Columbine, expect to lose ground.  Whenever a Bush is in office, expect to gain ground!

To me "a well-regulated militia" means that to keep and bear arms you must be:

1) US citizen. There's NO WAY we should allow millions of illegal immigrants to be armed [):)]
2) Of voting age to purchase or be under adult supervision to possess (just makes sense)
3) Free of any violent felony conviction [;D]
4) Free of any involuntary committal to a  psychiatric institution [%|]


I bought several guns in the past months with NO hassles or unreasonable infringements.  

This is Arizona.  
Walk in, flash ID, sign form, pay cash, walk out with a brand new evil black Bushy, a couple 30rnd mags and 200rnds Winchester Q3131A.  Ten minutes tops!
America - what a country!!

That's a joke, right?  The FFL system was the foundation for the Brady law and gunowner registration (whenever an FFL goes out of business, they must give ALL of their records to the BATF--including their "bound book.")

It created the modern BATF, and also banned the importation of firearms that were not "readily adaptable to sporting purposes."



That's alot of blind faith you have there.  Bush the Elder sold us down the river with the 1989 import ban of military semi-autos.  This directly laid the groundwork for Clinton's 1998 import ban of ALL semi-automatic rifles able to accept a detachable magazine.

Beyond that, your friend Mr. Bush supports the Brady Law, the "assault weapon" ban, the hicap mag ban, the machine gun ban, and "closing the gun show loophole."

Just how to you expect to gain ANYTHING with that in office?

To some, gun control is acceptible and even beneficial just as long as it is being imposed by those they helped get elected.

what he said.

If a person is behind bars in this country, they can't have a firearm:

If a person is not behind bars, they can't be a danger to anyone, so they can have a firearm.

It's as simple as that.

Jay
[img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]

"If a person is behind bars in this country, they can't have a firearm:

If a person is not behind bars, they can't be a danger to anyone, so they can have a firearm.

It's as simple as that."

I like this ... it is simple, isn't it.

OK, let's have 26,001 gun laws - this new one negates all priors  [:D}

I should be able to own/ possess/ purchase any damn thing I want, firearms or otherwise as long as I don't infringe upon anyone else's rights.

I have done [I]nothing [/I] that would indicate I am a danger to society.  Why would owning a belt-fed weapon change that?

Why should the .gov want to register or keep track of me, a perfectly law abiding, tax paying citizen?  Why don't we just keep track of criminals instead?  

For the absolutists like [b]NH2112[/b] and [b]FL_BOY[/b] the question still stands...

What does "well regulated" mean to you?

I don't see why this one is so hard for some people to grasp.  The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed) has a perfectly applicable definition of regulated:



As the 2nd amdendment refers to troops (the militia) it's hard to argue that this is not the correct definition of
regulated--in other words, it means "well trained."

That said, I fit the legal defintion of a militia member and my training is sorely lacking--I've never even fired a fully automatic weapon, much less obtained proper training for same.

The 1986 FOPA amendments to the GCA/NFA have made this financially impossible for me.

Notice that the part after the first comma is the only part that matters. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first part is just motivation, the reasoning behind the law. The law part is the declaration that the right shall not be infringed. Even if you consider the national guard or whatever to be a "well regulated militia" that doesn't mean that you've removed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I think this whole argument individual vs. collective right is pretty much bs.

Of course it's BS, it's BS that has served it's purpose quite well; that is, to keep everyone distracted with debate, rather than [I]fighting [/I] for their rights.

I feel well regulated means well trained.  

2nd A., 2002:

Since it might become necessary to defend ones freedom, the right to own and carry weapons at all times must not be denied to any person physically fit and of sound mind, once proper training is provided and a minimum standard of weapons for the defense of personal and national liberties has been established.

As to possession and carrage, the same as Vermont.

As to technology allowed, the same as Switzerland

As to the use of arms, the same as Texas.

That should about cover it.

So does the 2nd Amendment allow the Gov't to require that citizens be "well trained" in order to keep and bear arms? Sort of what was implied in the Federalist #29:

[i]"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.

It would form an annual deduction from the  productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an  extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."[/i]

If so, would refusing to partake (or failing to demonstrate gun-proficency) in this "annual assembly" be grounds for forfeiting your RKBA?

Hamilton was implying that to be EFFECTIVE the militia must undergo far more training than is practical--I think in this instance he was trying to make the point that for true defense, the country must have a standing army.

It's funny, I almost used this exact quote in answer to your question of what defined "well regulated."



No.  The "well regulated militia" clause supports the 2nd amendment, it is not the primary purpose.  Another way of writing the 2nd amendment (WITHOUT changing the meaning) would be, "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

You know, Jefferson, Madison, et al were WAY ahead of their time when it came to political theory, but the grammar nazis we have on this board would have a field day with them. [:D]

So the "well regulated militia" would not actually consist of the multitude of armed citizens but would, instead, be drawn FROM the wide populace of armed citizens.  Selected from the general population of armed citizens, these "militia" would then be required to have regular assemblies for training etc. Hmmm.  I'd buy that. Thanks [b]Zak[/b]. I still stand by my original four requirements for RKBA I stated earlier and don't feel the "well regulated militia" has much to do with me owning guns.


This is a good discussion going here, but as [b]Texason[/b] implied, it's just an exercise in academics since the 2nd Amendment really doesn't exist anymore.

Guns have already been banned, they're just taking their time rounding them up.  Eventually you'll break one of their Draconian laws and the Feds will knock on your door and cart off your guns because you got in a bar fight 20yrs ago or because you called a mugger a "nigger" once.

"From my cold dead hands" makes a nice bumpersticker, but not too many people lately are living up to it in this period of incremental gun confiscation. I don't know if I would though either. That's what eats me up the most.

Well regulated meant that if the SHTF everybody would bring guns and ammo to the local tavern (every town had one back in the day) and figure it out from there. I think well regulated meant well organized, and 200+ years ago, this was the organizational extent of it.

"Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put."

"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you."

"If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims."

"What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?" — [b]L. Neil Smith[/b], [u]Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?[/u]

Actually, I believe that would be considered a select militia.  There also exists  the unorganized militia, which consists of every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, and every female citizen who is a member of the national guard.  10 USC 311 codifies this into federal law.



Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.  Maybe, just maybe, the system will work as designed though--it's pretty likely the Supreme Court will hear a 2nd amendment case in the next five years (Emerson being the most probable) and if they want to be even remotely faithful to the constitution (and their own past decisions) they'll have to rule our way.  

I don't particularly want to contemplate what happens if they fail in their duty.



Agreed, and the ones that DO live up to it are branded as nuts and held up as an excuse for further gun control.  I don't know if I would live up to it either--I'm pretty certain I WOULDN'T if my loved ones would be in danger because of it.  

My "life, fortune, and sacred honor?"  Seems fair enough, I suppose.  My family?  Never.

I agree with this in part. But felons do lose their RKBA. Some restrictions are valid, as there are plenty of borderline individuls out there ready to go off - gun or no gun - but have yet to actually commit a defined crime. Outright renying someone of their RKBA because of having, say, a stupid bar fight, or a DUI, or owning a lid at one time in their past may be excessive. I suppose it may speak to issues of personal responsibility, but how far does it have to be taken. Is anyone so pure? Certainly, a history of temper problems or strings of convictions are indicative of a problem. But a single offense? Restriction should only be imposed on a case-by-case basis. It is unjust to simply include all crimes, IMO.

Since we pretend to live in a "free" country, then we should, therefore, pretend that we need to have laws that are practical, fair, and just. There isn't any balanced view on this issue. You can say "...then you should vote," but if I vote and I still get marginalized - then what? Tough luck? I'll bet Jews who lived in Germany in the 1930's would warn against such trivial thought. Minority rights only seem to apply to certain minorities. I'd like to think a "deal" could be cut with the gov't, but we have Kalifornya as an example of false promises and trust betrayed. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. No deal.

This issue is unresolvable because of the view that the dominant culture must define my "needs" and impose laws to force my acquiescence to those definitions. Rich, limousine-riding liberals are intent on engineering the social strata to fit their political views, the impact of which would be carefully tailored (of course) to have little to no affect on their personal lives. You don't need to look any further for such an example than the one-and-only [b]Dianne Sweinsten, who has a CCW permit in the state of CA[/b]. Given her reputation on this issue, someone argue that one to me. Her position as a POSenator is irrelevant.

This isn't simply about guns. Rather, it's about class and power. She has the power, so she's gets the exception. I have heard that Steven Spielburg has an extensive shotgun collection. You think politicians will allow this liberal darling to be hurt? Me? I'm in the drink. And the police - to some of them, they're just doin' their job. Not to offend PD/SO, but if it's pushed far enough, the dilemma will force itself directly upon you. Once again, lets try to remember that majority rule doesn't - or shouldn't - negate minority rights. If I live in the land of soccer moms, do my own personal opinions, rights, etc. become null & void? Sally Soccermom probably doesn't "need" her 5+ liter, V8-powered SUV anymore than I need my guns. Maybe even less. But I'm not marching on Washington D.C. to demand that she be denied the right to own and drive one. Think about it.

I just want the truth. If the founders [i]truly[/i] never intended for the individual to possess arms, then let that be known. Otherwise, get off my back and live your own life. The S.C. must rule finally and unambiguously on the matter, and let the chips fall where they may. Period.

Well, I don't see the "well-regulated" clause as being a condition for gun ownership. Gun ownership will allow us to have a well-regulated militia, but one need not be part of the well-regulated militia in order to own a gun.

As stated by others, I think the term means "trained" and not "encumbered by laws." I also don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended on having EVERY man in the militia - but they did want every man to at least be able to load his rifle in a military manner, and know his left from his right when marching around the field of battle. Neither of these take a lot of time to accomplish, but would still be seen as "regulating" the militia.

As an aside, while Hamilton speaks of the financial damage that would be done to the nation if every man had to be properly trained in the use of arms, I don't doubt that he would have used every available man in the army if the situation required it - economic damage or not. With the men gone, the women would have just taken their places at the mills and in the fields.

Well trained, and well equipped!

btt

I think it's pretty obvious that the "well-regulated" means trained and disciplined, not subject to being disarmed whenever the government feels like it. Even if it did mean controlled by the government, the millitia clause still doesn't modify the rights clause - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This means no gun laws.

Some people may worry about "crazy people" getting guns, and we have to make laws to stop them. Well, there are some 20,000(?) laws on the books now, and people who do bad things still have no trouble getting guns. I can't prove it, but I tend to believe that we'd stop much more crime by having easy access to guns for everyone and the attitute to shoot back then with all of the background checks, waiting periods, and felon-in-posession laws. It is not our place, and certainly not the government's place, to decide who is worthy of the right to own guns. Let everyone own and carry, and let everyone also know that if they start shooting to hurt innocent people, they will probably be shot at in return.

This is the type of person that you would want to have a firearm?


[url]http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/williams020225.html[/url]

Well, I'd rather see 100 criminals be able to buy guns than have 1 law-abiding citizen be denied.

The term “regulated” or well-practiced or functioning smoothly, came from the British clock makers of the time who stamped their clocks which had been determined to keep proper time, “regulated”.

The 2nd could not be more explicitly clear. How does one interpret "NO"?

We have failed or countries forefather and have not headed their warnings.


"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
- George Washington