Should President Obama push to permanently reinstate a ban on assault weapons?

You talk about assault weapons owners as if they are paranoid, but yet you are just as fearful of these assault weapons owners. You're argument is a hypocritical one and clearly you don't know what type of person owns an assault weapon, I do, and these people are not the ones to fear.

The assault weapons ban would only remove these weapons from upstanding law abiding citizens. You are living in a dream world if you think such a ban will remove these weapons from criminals. The ban disarms the good from defending themselves against the bad, and you think that's a good idea?

Assault weapons are intended to kill people, not deer, but where in the 2nd amendment does it say guns are only for hunting? They are for protection, and if you live in a bad part of the neighborhood with little police force you want the best protection available. What would you rather have to defend against an armed robber inside your house, a 9mm hand gun or an AK-47? I'll take the AK-47. The assault weapons ban will increase violent crime by criminals, nothing good about it!

We need assault weapons for the exact reasons set forth in the Constitution. Read it, maybe you'll be enlightened...and I don't just mean the 2nd Amendment.

I am a democratically voting gun owner and collector. The radical anti-gun Democrats in the House and Senate have no interest in entertaining a serious debate about whether there is any appreciable contribution to gun violence by what they call assault weapons. Every FBI and ATF study done since the 1970's has indicated that 95%+ of violence crimes committed with firearms are done so with handguns. There is no real argument to the banning of semi automatic rifles ("assault weapons") or high capacity magazines as items that contribute to a violent culture.

Mexico can solve it's own ******* problems. This is a country where corruption, greed and malfeasance are as commonplace in public service (police and politics) as abusing expense accounts was in corporate america just a few short years ago (and remains to some extent).

Both countries need to nut up and patrol our borders more aggressively and this problem will become more manageable. The Mexican situation, however, is misleading to the tune of an entire American industry. There are no automatic military weapons, automatic rifles, grenades or cannons going into Mexico from the United States. There are semi-automatic civilian rifles being sold here and smuggled over there.

The smuggling itself is illegal already, why write a law to solve a problem that only exists because law enforcement isn't doing its job?

There is also a valid argument to made for preserving the only industry that has been BOOMING for the last 12 months: gun & ammunition sales.

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

You don't even know what an assault rifle is. An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle fully automatic rifles already require a tax stamp to purchase. The AWB never changed that. They only banned bayonet lugs and flash suppressor. When was the last time someone was bayoneted? You bought the liberal fear tactics hook, line and sinker!

protect us from government.

Actually, the term "assault weapon" is a bit widely used. It is a term that has been politicized to the point where it is nearly meaningless. It is mainly utilized now to prey on ignorant people in order to further a political agenda. True "assault weapons" are utilized by the military and other organizations in a way that justifies the term itself. Those guns in the United States targeted by the "assualt weapons" ban include a large quantity of guns no military or paramilitary organization would consider for their purposes. The guns available to the general law-abiding public in the United States are built to fire only one round (bullet) at a time. Those that are built to fire without the necessity of reloading between rounds are called semi-automatic because they have a magazine of some type. This includes little .22's used by young people to target shoot as well as your fathers Rem 1100 shotgun for duck hunting. Hardly assault weapon material, yet they can be targets of the ban depending on the grip or materials used in their construction. A well-written truthful "assault weapon" ban would engender control of fully automatic guns only. The law conveniently ignores this simple truth.

Now, imagine your not a complete wussy and you've got one of your own!!!

That would level the playing field! Now relate this to crime. Imagine everyone had one?! Crime would fall off the face of the earth.

By you logic, we should make it mandatory.

And the only people that will still have them when they are banned "are drug dealers or terrorists" so why ban them? There is no logical sense in banning something from a law abiding citizen of this country. A gun is only as dangerous as the person behind it.

LISTEN GUN BANNERS:

It's all about protecting ourselves from a Tyrannical Government, haven't any of you ever read the constitution?

Only in the wet dreams of gun nuts.

research demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago

WraithGT has stated the crux of the matter perfectly. Assault rifles are used in a negligible percentage of firearms crimes. Seek out the facts yourselves if you doubt. An assault rifle ban does virtually nothing to combat crime. Those likely to use these weapons in crimes aren't going to surrender them simply because it becomes illegal to possess them.

I don't know why I bother because you will never get it. But let me try and explain this to you this way. When this nation was founded, our forefathers had the insight to include the right to bear arms. At that time the terms "arms" not only applied to fire arms, but to all forms of self protection. Considering that a sword was one of the 'arms' at the time, what other purpose is there for owning a sword if it is not to be used against a human opponent? They are no good for hunting. There's no sport to owning a sword. At that time a person with a sword could do much more damage to a group of people than someone with a muskette. So it bears reason that the intent behind the "right to bear arms" was to allow us to defend ourselves against a human foe. In their case the human foe was a tyrantical government. Our government today has not yet equaled that level of oppression, but I believe that it is in part due to the fact that so many American citizens are armed. Do you realize that Japenese decision not to invade the U.S. in WWII was due in large part to the fact that so many common citizens owned guns?

As far as asault rifles goes, if we need to defend ourself against a foe who is armed with an asault rifle, we either need to be pretty handy with a hunting rifle or else we need to match their fire power. Going up against a terrorist, who is armed to the teeth, with anything less would be the equivalent of Paul Revere and the Minutemen being armed with sling-shots and pea-shooters.

Good......then you'll go down first and we don't need weeklings in this country.

The only "fearful" people I see here are the cowards who are afraid of American citizens exercising their rights to own militia weapons as protected by the Second Amendment.

So, don't but an "assault weapon" (gun-banner shorthand for "gun that looks scarier than the other guns I'm afraid of") and you will have fulfilled your own desire.

But keep your damn hands off *MY* rights.

Who cares ? Let them have their guns, it is a free country. Banning them won't do any good, a dedicated criminal will get them anyways.

But the idea that you'll use assult weapon to protect yourself from the government is just stupid. The government is always going to outgun you, if you enter into a direct confrontation with the government you'll end up in a box.

Guns Kill people like Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell Fat. Get real people!

The ONLY people who benefit from a gun ban are criminals and a tyrannical government.

The problem with cliches is that while they stem from novel ways of stating concepts - often perfectly valid concepts - they get repeated so often that people stop listening. Allow me to repeat one: 'If you criminalize x, then only criminals will have x.' In this case x=assault weapons.

While having an assault weapon of one's own - legally - may or may not significantly decrease one's chance of becoming a victim of high-speed lead poisoning, I rather suspect that a renewed assault weapons ban will not stop criminal elements from obtaining them (or modding legal weapons to fire full auto, a much simpler prospect than obtaining the other kind, in some cases).

So even though I voted neutral above, I don't really support a renewal of the ban - not on 2nd amendment grounds, but on common sense ones. I flat-out don't think it'll do any good, and the FBI and ATF have troubles enough already. Plus, seriously... political suicide.

What's really needed is tougher enforcement of existing laws and a closing of loopholes, like the persistent lack of background checks at gun shows, for example.

do you realze a pump shotgun is considered an asault rifle by the liberals??

No Party Affiliation,

So uniformed. So naive.

"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."

Actual text. The way I read it both the militia (as you define them) and me have a right.

Next, the militia consists of two parts. A regulated militia (army, navy, police, etc.) and the unregulated militia which consists of people like me.

Dave in NM, in order to prove a point, say someone breaks in your house, more specifically in your daughters' room where she is sleeping and the scum bag has not so good intentions for her...but...he's got a gun. So you charge in with your fists flying and you die and most likely so does the rest of your family. Now, say you've got a XD9 or XD40 in your dresser. You charge in and because you've been to all the classes and know how to safely and legally use a gun, the bad guy ends up dead. Not a bad outcome.

Pardon me for preferring those who'd cause me, my family or my property harm dead, but I'd much rather see the criminal here die than your family. I'd much rather have the guy bleed out on the floor of your daughters bedroom then kill you, your family, and do it all again. Hey, I'm crazy I know.

Kim said the only people who own assault weapons are drug dealers or terrorists. WRONG.There are millions of these in this country and the numbers used in crimes of any kind is about .07%. Look it up if you don't want to believe me.

Most people who own these are doctors and lawyers and school teachers and farmers and mechanics and most every man who can afford one who is not a wuss.........

Snake Doctor.keep on it and don't let up,,,,,,,,you gott'um runnings now......

I agree whole-heartedly with Snake Doctor. If you pull the stats, you will find that the vast majority of the people involved in violent gun related crimes did not purchase them legally, if at all.

The title, "assault", is an adjective, describing what it is used for in a war time action. Realistically, the same caliber of rifles are used for hunting worldwide. These are referred to as "hunting rifles." The common denominator here being rifle.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle.

You guys are idiots do you really think someone trying to commit a crime is carrying around a 30-42 inch rifle???

These are statistics from the ATF read them and shut up!

Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides).

Remember, when the Crown outlawed firearms and ammunition and powder, it effectively turned George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams and the rest of our founders into what some today (and the DHS) would call Domestic Terrorists. I'd side with our founders any day. ---> I could not say it better myself!

History would show back then it was ban all the "muskets"... Today with technology some folks call them "assault weapons" (Of course they have no idea what semi-auto and full auto even means.. but you don't need to know FACTS to speak your mind - or sadly vote...)

So all I can offer is this - What ever weapon I can afford to own, regardless of whatever you want to call it, is what I will buy to defend my life, family, and freedom. Just like cars some offer different features then others... but they are all still cars...

Hey, if you really feel our USA without the Right to Bear Arms would be a better place then post a big sign in front of your house that says simply ---> "Homeowner has NO Firearm to Protect themselves!" Maybe you will change the world!

First of all lets look at the "assault riffle" itself. How many crimes and murders do we hear about with assault riffles?

Second, it's assault riffles today, tomorrow it's hand guns. Before there were guns, there were swords; do we remove those next. Criminals will be criminals; the problem is not slacked gun laws, it's slacked penalties. Yet the same ones that cry about the crimes commited by guns are the same ones that cry "cruel and unusual punishment"

Third, remove the guns and watch the terrorist rate rise in this country. It does not take a rocket scientest to see the numbers. Terrorist activites are higher in contries that do not allow guns in the hands of their civilians; which leave the guns in the hands of the terrorist only.

Fourth, we are intering a new era in this country; an era of a police state. We are making the exact same moves as Hitler and Stallin and once you remove the guns there will be no control in the population being able to protect our freedoms and our rights.

I say don't band guns, I say give out free lessons for gun owners, as with our military spread around the world, we are the last defense in this country.

Maybe you forget our Nation's history?... so forgive me but I must repeat myself... And I just encourage you to consider that history has a funny way of repeating itself when you forget the lessons already learned...

Remember, when the Crown outlawed firearms and ammunition and powder, it effectively turned George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams and the rest of our founders into what some today (and the DHS) would call Domestic Terrorists. I'd side with our founders any day. ---> I could not say it better myself!

History would show back then it was ban all the "muskets"... Today with technology some folks call them "assault weapons" (Of course they have no idea what semi-auto and full auto even means.. but you don't need to know FACTS to speak your mind - or sadly vote...)

So all I can offer is this - What ever weapon I can afford to own, regardless of whatever you want to call it, is what I will buy to defend my life, family, and freedom. Just like cars some offer different features then others... but they are all still cars...

Hey, if you really feel our USA without the Right to Bear Arms would be a better place then post a big sign in front of your house that says simply ---> "Homeowner has NO Firearm to Protect themselves!" Maybe you will change the world!

Should President Obama push to permanently reinstate a ban on assault weapons?

No

The 2nd Amendment - "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."

Was put in place and shall remain in order to overtake our government if nessesary. Does everyone understand that? PLEASE - get it out of your head that the right to bear arms has anything to do with HUNTING!

The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enable the people to resist big government. End of argument.

Don't be stupid, people! Guns don't kill, people do! Plus, we live in an ever increasing dangerous world and police and military can't be everywhere. Assault rifles give citizen's the fire power to hold off assaults when it may be your family at stake. Our forefathers understood this concept when they added protection under the constitution. However, governments never stop at one weapon. You give them an inch and they take a mile. This is what the Nazi's did during WWII and what Russia did to keep citizen's under their control. They registered the weapons and then collected them all, leaving their citizens at their mercy and without protection. Don't we ever learn from the past?

The thing is, Assault Rifles ARE already illegal to own. That is without a country mile of government red tape, and even then there are very few (as in made before 1984) things you can own.

Assault Rifles (rifles capable of automatic or burst-fire) have been regulared since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The media term "Assault Weapons" is a false and totally made-up term to cause fear amongst those who do not know the truth. I own a AK-74 styled weapon. It is NOT an AK-74 because it only fires semi-automatic. That is one round per trigger squeeze.

Gang bangers and whatnot get their weapons from Mexico (NOT the other way around, by the way) or ILLEGALLY convert semi-automatic weapons to fire full auto (which can have dangerous, life-threatening consequences to the operator).

The "Assault Weapons Ban" only banned folding and collapsing stocks (great to have for storage, takes up less space), bayonet lugs (You know, have to stop all those drive-by bayonettings!), threaded barrels/detachable muzzle breaks(Which are used to cut down the flash to make it easier on the eyes when firing, and helps control recoil) and NORMAL capacity magazines. As in the magazines the weapon was DESIGNED and is suppost to use, not neutered 10 round magazines which were nothing more than a royal pain in the butt.

Criminals do not follow the law, which is why they are criminals. If the ban was reinstated, they would not follow the ban. Any firearm regulations do not effect them because they do not operate within the law.

Thank you, good day.

Oh, I agree. Keep assault rifles away from the hands of the fearful. They are the ones who hold back the triggers and spray everything in sight. Leave them in hands like mine.

The military taught me how to use them. Thank you, military.

by way of disclosure, I own several guns, but no assault weapon. I do own a pump shotgun, which is not an assault weapon but would work pretty good if needed.

just how do you propose to overthrow the government or defend yourself from the government with an assault rifle? That's a totally bogus argument in the 21st century. Have you ever seen an Apache helicopter at work? The government knows where you live and doesn't have to go anywhere near being within range of your assault rifle to take you out. Next you'll "need" RPGs and I suppose antiaircraft missles. Try shooting a cop and see what happens. That is, after all, what you propose, ultimately.

The claim that only criminals have or would have assault rifles is also somewhat bogus. Where do you think criminals get guns? They don't come through back channels and aren't imported into this country. They are stolen from reckless gun owners.

A large bore handgun is much more effective in the event a bad actor gets in your house and threatens your daughter. If you can't hit him with your Glock then using the assault weapon is gonna get your daughter killed too. If you want to stop someone who is actually a physical threat it is hard to beat a 12 guage, for that matter. An assault rifle is best for combat and for hosing down the front yard of your rivals if you are a gang member.

Keeping a weapon in the home makes your family more likely, not less likely, to die of gunshot. For that reason gun owners need to be responsible.

My guns are for hunting, target practice and perhaps, self defense. Just what do you intend to do with an assault rifle?

I voted "maybe" because I don't think it is a priority worth the hassle. Go ahead and own one if you feel that makes you safer. Just keep it locked up.

Some of you gun-banners should go to a shooting range, rent an "assault rifle" and spend some time just shooting for fun.

Guess what? It's fun! This is what the vast majority of assault rifle owners are doing with their guns. They aren't hurting anyone, just enjoying a sport/leisure activity that makes them happy. Anyone with a car could do as much damage or more than someone with an assualt rifle, just running down pedestrians, but no one wants to ban cars. What's the real difference?

Someone came up with the idea that banning guns would somehow limit crime. Crime will always exist because people are people. If the real nutcases can't get guns, which you'll never manage anyway, they'll just start using some other weapon.

My guns are kept safely in a safe. I won't hurt anyone with them unless they try to hurt me theirs first. Taking my guns won't make you any more safe, so stop trying. Find another issue to complain about.

The second amendment protects the right bear ams - but not all types of arms. Consider the following partial list of arms: Nuclear Bomb, Surface to Air Missile, Rocket Propelled Grenade, Fully automatic Uzi, Assault rifle, 30-06, Revolver, shotgun, single shot .22, Flintlock, BB gun, knife, slingshot, club, sharp stick.

Clearly the general public should not have the right to all of these weapons. The question is where is the appropriate place to draw the line. Good people can differ on that question and the insults and disparagements hurled at those with differing views are not helpful. I own a few guns but personally I see no need for the assault weapons. I would, however, welcome a rational explanation as to how a societal cost benefit ratio would favor keeping them available.

First of all, what people refer to as "assault weapons" are not true assault weapons because they are not capable of variable rates of fire (i.e. single shot vs burst or full-auto). Ask a soldier going into battle if he would rather have an AR-15 vs. an M-16 or an M1A vs. an M-14. You will quickly see the difference.

Civilian tactical rifles are for self-defence. And YES every citizen needs that ability. Not so much from an oppressive fascist Government as an inept one. We are in far greater danger of social collapse than fascism. Our Government could EASILY lose the ability to maintain law and order (see Mexico), leaving the average citizen on their own. If you do not have a spectrum of tactical self-defence weapons at your disposal, you might as well be Spam in a can.

Thanks Ghost

Israel is a peaceful place when some jerk isn't blowing himself up for the media attention.

No holdups, no robberies in dark alleys. We should follow their example. Why?

Every country around them openly displays their hate for Israel. Every country around us displays their hate behind our backs.

All US citizens have the right to protect themselves, PERIOD.

And for all the dopes that buy into the media and govt "Assault Weapon" Kindly define an assault weapon. Timothy McVeigh didn't have one, Ted Bundy didn't have one.

These people killed a lot of people at one time, without a firearm.

The only weapon that can be classified as a "TRUE (FIRE ARM) ASSAULT Weapon" is a machine gun, and the govt has strict rules about owning one of those.

It's not a high capacity mag, or a semi auto shotgun. The jerk pulling the trigger, is going to reload and keep shooting. The govt does have the right to regulate ammo, or the type of firearm allowed to have, barely. The govt does regulate the type of munitions one can own, but a well payed Rep or Senator can easily help sidestep that issue.

Kim, Katy...................You are wrong, wrong, wrong, I own one of the so called "Assult Rifles" and it is the perfect deer rifle in one of the places I huint. It is NOT a true assult rifle, they are machine guns and are so highly regulated they are essentialy impossible to buy. What Obama, Holder, Clinton etc. want to ban are semi-auto rifles that happen to look like a true assult rifle and there has been talk of including all semiauto guns in their ban even 22 caliber squirel rifles.

If you are afraid of them don't worry. No one is insisting you get one.

I feel that in a country that is suppose to for the people by the people, the goverment doesn't listen to much less care what we want. it's about who has the money to push their agenda. we should be able to protect our family, house and even pets. what are we to do against criminals who already have assult weapons, throw rocks at them.

No Party Affiliation,

It is apparent that you have not been forced to protect our countries rights.

Lots of people talk tough, but ask yourself this, could you really kill another living person?

Anyone that has served this country in the armed services has been expected to serve lethally, that is what basic training is all about. What did you think it was about...playing tag you're it?

That all being said, every time you have pledged allegiance to the Flag and what it stands for...i.e. the very foundation: OUR CONSTITUTION which is designed to make sure our individual rights are not usurped or abridged. To defend against that from happening (read the individual authors pertaining to the "Bill of Rights"), the government can not take away from us "we the people" the means in which to hold tyranny at bay. A "law" doing that would be un-Constitutional and if looked at subjectively, would be treasonous. Therefore a law banning "assault" rifles would be treasonous by limiting the "people" from protection against the tyrannical government destroying our Constitution.

The main reason not to ban assault weapons is because the ban simply won't work. You know what happened to crime statistics when the original ban was put in place in 1994? Nothing. That's correct, absolutely nothing. We have enough laws to deal with and we should focus on enforcing them, not making more.

As for personal defense, I want as many rounds of ammunition and as much firepower as I need to protect myself and my family. If my life is in danger and I cannot avoid the situation, I have a right to have the ability to neutralize that threat. Once the assailant is on the ground bleeding, he is no longer a threat and any further force is excessive and makes me liable for charges. In other words, if I go overboard, PROSECUTE ME.

Banning weapons is a more politically correct method of harboring criminals' rights. Yes, nowadays if you are the victim of a crime, you as the victim have fewer rights than the criminals. You break into my house, rape my wife, kill my dog and my kid and you are entitled to more rights than me. And when you go to jail my tax dollars will feed you and house you. What justification makes THAT politically correct? What part of your character makes you want to be a victim?

Consider this: the average response to a 911 call is 12-15 minutes in urban areas. In rural areas, it can be as long as 30 minutes to an hour if help even shows up at all. And this is the time from when the call is placed - you are usually a victim by that point. This time frame is documented fact. You could be dead and bloating by the time help arrives. If you are alive to make a call, your 10 minutes starts now. You have enough time to make a pot of coffee... the officers will appreciate it when they arrive.

Do you also know that the Supreme Court of the United States also passed the decision that police officers are NOT obligated to protect you? Their only job is to catch the bad guy. You HAVE to be a victim before the police can help.

As for the 2nd Amendment. Why do we cherish it so much? That's simple, it's part of a series of documents that make us Americans. All amendments to the Constitution are equal. It just so happens that the 2nd Amendment puts the power of defending the rest of them in the hands of the people. You take away the 2nd amendment and I guarantee you will see the others go away, too. They will probably go in order also. Speak up and you will be silenced. Pity if the method used was formerly owned by you previously.

Remember Hitler's rise to power? The first thing he did was confiscate all the weapons from his adversaries, the next thing he did was kill them en masse. That can't happen again? Take away the 2nd Amendment rights and see. I for 1 don't want to be witness or victim to any of it. I like my freedom just as it is, thank you.

No matter who you are or where you come from, PLEASE stand your ground, embrace your rights, and refuse to be a victim!

No Party Affiliation:

could you really kill another living person? Sure you can say "of course if my life (or those of others) depended upon it, but could you really do it and live with it?

YES. I prefer my criminals dead.

Don in Minnesota: Ever seen a 50 cal blow through an engine block of an armored car. I've actually done it. Send a couple agents my way to take away my unalienable rights and I guarantee they'll think twice with a Beret 50cal hunkered down on 'em. This all, of course, would be in the hypothetical situation of the government taking our right to keep and bear arms away. Also, did it ever occur to you that these people who have sworn to protect the CONSTITUTION of the USA from all enemies both foreign and domestic will do their jobs and disobey a direct order to disarm the American People. I promise at least 50 percent, if not more, will disobey.

You liberals (mainly) who chose to be victims by not arming yourselves and protecting against things like breakins and big tyrannical governments are the first ones to scream for more police - meaning more gov't, more taxes and less freedom, so thanks for screwing it all up, we all owe it to you!

"The second amendment protects the right bear ams - but not all types of arms. Consider the following partial list of arms: Nuclear Bomb, Surface to Air Missile, Rocket Propelled Grenade, Fully automatic Uzi, Assault rifle, 30-06, Revolver, shotgun, single shot .22, Flintlock, BB gun, knife, slingshot, club, sharp stick."

Hey, Procustes-797831. I'm a US tax payer and have payed for and do own a share of every single "ARM" that you listed. And if the USA were to be directly attacked I would expect our elected leaders to use every single one in defence of the country.

Heres an idea, lets look at the real problem, The Mexican drug lords. Forget the Gun ban lets close the border, land mine it and put the military to good use protecting the US. This would prove that the majority of guns are not coming from the US.

The fearful are the ones wanting the ban. Why should your irrational, unfounded fears of a particular weapon format constrain my rights?

Most people miss the point on the second amendment. It has little to do with the people's right to own a hunting rifle. I idea behind it is simple and well documented. It was added to the constitution because our for fathers understood that over time a peoples government will grow to powerful and no longer serve the needs of its people. The founding fathers wanted to make sure the people of this country would always have a way to protect its self not form criminals, but from its own government. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying to start a civil war, just saying having firearms, like assault rifles, helps to insure the balance between the government and the people it was created to serve.

The militia as refered to in the constitution is ALL men between 16 and 45. In todays world of non-discrimination women would be included and there would be no upper age limit.

First, it's bear arms, not bare arms. Second, an Eagle Scout should know more about the Constitution than you obviously do. Third, You don't even know the true definition of an assault weapon. True assault weapons have been illegal without a federal Class Three license since the Gun Control Act of 1938 banned the private ownership of ANY fully automatic weapon. The Clinton gun ban of 1994 banned guns on the basis of cosmetics only.

Well, for one, the original definition and real definition of an assault weapon is a select fire fully automatic weapon, like a sub-machine gun. The current terminology was created by Hand-Gun Control Inc which has renamed itself to the prevention of some bs, to go after law abiding citizens their right to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. But even with that, if you read the notes on the Heller vs DC case, the Chief Justice of the court agreed even if (but they are not) new M16 machine guns were available, they would be protected by the 2nd amendment.

If you actually looked at most of the weapons that they were parading around in Mexico’s gun/drug seizures, the majority of which are not available to the general public and can be acquired only through government contracts with either the US/China or Russia. An example of where these arms can come from would be Iraq. The U.S. leaves its small arms (M16's) behind for mass resale when it ships troops back home. The US Government has sold millions of used M16's to different groups since the Iraq war started ... complain to the government first. New fully automatic machine gun sales were banned to the general public in 1986 in the US. No where in the US can you buy grenades legally. The Chinese are shipping millions of new AK47's to South and Central America countries as part of their financial aid for kicking out or nationalizing US companies. Holder even admits that most of their information released to generate support to re-establish a gun ban is fabricated.

How about machine guns? Why can't we own machine guns? How about a bazooka or a rocket propelled grenade launcher? If they don't let me have these weapons, there goes the 2nd Amendment! I want to bear these arms!

Despite all your protests folks, the Supreme Court has spoken! The 2nd Amendment applies to INDIVIDUAL rights to bear arms, not militias. Grow up and get over it. The people exercising their second amendment rights are not the ones you should worry about. Jefferson was right-an armed society is a polite one.

Even though I doubt you will understand the concept I want to give those of you calling for another useless ban on “assault weapons” the reason they cannot be banned. I have read several times on these posts, the equivalent of the old anti gunner’s mantra “you don’t need an assault rifle to hunt with.” That’s true, but you don’t need a gun to hunt with either. You can use a rock. There was a popular Bible story relating that David whacked Goliath with one. Must have been an assault rock and should have been banned.

The point here is that before guns there were swords, knives, clubs, rocks, hands and feet. Depending on how they were used any one of these weapons could have had the evil word “assault” placed in front of it. Before automatic rifles our military “assaulted” our enemies with bolt action “assault rifles” and lever action “assault rifles” and cap and ball “assault rifles” and flintlock “assault rifles”, more or less in that order. All of these are used to this day to hunt with. But, the second amendment is not about hunting and any politician when asked about the second amendment who says “I support sportsmen’s rights” should be given the boot.

The American Revolution was fought with Flintlock “assault rifles” and one of the things that really got it rolling was when the “government” (English at the time) tried to confiscate those pesky Flintlock “assault rifles” from the people. We are sworn to uphold and defend America and the Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Could we defend America against a foreign enemy armed with “assault rifles” using lesser weapons? Not likely. Could we defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, (like the English were) that was trying to take our liberties and the weapons we need to defend ourselves? Not likely.

The second amendment is the guarantee that government is there to serve the people. To make certain our government does not become dictatorial like England was. The second amendment is there to insure that government listens when we peacefully use our first amendment right. To “defend America and the Constitution against all enemies foreign and Domestic” we need weapons of a nature to compete against what our enemies will carry. That is why you can’t ban military style semi automatic weapons. That is what the competition will bring to the fight.

EagleScout......yes you need an education on your rights as an American Citizen.

Because the evil will get them and use them. If they have no fear that someone has one, they have no reason not to attack.

I choose to protect my home, my family and my community in the manner I see fit. If that choice is an AR15 and a 30rd magazine, who are you to state that I cannot? I'm well trained in firearms and feel that being inadequately protected is an insult to my family.

If, in the middle of the night, three highly armed intruders break into my home, how should I confront them? With a single shot firearm? Why should I not be allowed (as the Founding Fathers intended) to protect them with something substantial? The police is a reactionary force, not a proactive one. It is my duty to be proactive and protect my family, my friends, my neighbors and my community.

It's better to have and never need, than to need and not have! To think otherwise is so incredibly illogical...

It's not about why the public needs so-called "assault weapons", it's that the Constitution guarantees us a right to own them.

Also, the term "assault weapon" is basically meaningless. It's applied to some guns and not to others solely on the basis of people like you finding them scary-looking. "Assault weapons" like AR-15s are not any deadlier than a Winchester hunting rifle.

Yes, only pussies use guns right? Fight your own fights? What happens when you're 10 feet away from an attacker with a gun? Rather be a live pussy than a dead dumbass.

As always if you state that NO ONE Needs an assault weapon the so called community collapse the comment...LOLOLOL ....Don't like hearing the truth that ASSAULT weapons are not needed , I believe in the right to own, use a gun...BUT only Fools would believwe an assault weapon is needed to hunt or have a home....

" the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It states pretty clearly the it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Plain english, therefore any form of gun control is unconstitutional, because it is infringing on my 2nd Amendment right.

But the 2nd Amendment is not the only one being violated by national gun control, the 10th is also at stake.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Regulating firearms (or many other things like drugs for example) are not explicitly delegated to the federal government, therefor fall upon the states. So there you have it, 2 ways in which federal gun control is unconstitutional.

Also, to those who say the 2nd Amendment was drafted when muskets and muzzle loaders were the pinnacle of firearms technology, wasn't the 1st Amendment drafted when quills and the printing press was the pinnacle of communication technology? Does that mean the 1st Amendment should only be applied to materials written or made with a printing press? Speech on TV, radio, and the internet should not be covered?

Procrustes-797831 wrote:

I own a few guns but personally I see no need for the assault weapons. I would, however, welcome a rational explanation as to how a societal cost benefit ratio would favor keeping them available.

I'm not sure if I can accomodate you with specific dollar amounts, but it should be easy enough to explain the logic conceptually.

The argument most often made for the benefits of gun control is that, in a nutshell, it saves lives. It stops people from owning the guns legitimately, which would eliminate accidental deaths, and would also make it harder to obtain the guns illegally, which would reduce deaths as a result of gun crime. The number of lives saved is as debatable as the value of a statistical life, and, for the majority of the purposes here, is mostly arbitrary. I seek here to discount these benefits on the principles behind them, not on the legitimacy of the statistics.

The latter point is invalid. Assault rifles are used in only a relatively tiny fraction of gun crimes, and the ban on them did not seem to affect this one way or the other. The principle behind this is a simple matter of logic: Any ban relegates the product in question to a black market rather than eliminates its sale entirely. For one who intends to engage in criminal activity with his gun purchase, he very likely has no problem with breaking another law to get the gun in the first place. Even without a ban on them, he may prefer this method of purchase anyway, since it affords him a certain amount of anonymity with regards to who purchased the weapon, which he can later use to his advantage once he has comitted his intended crime. Therefore, a gun ban of any type should have little to no effect on gun crimes. No benefit there.

The former point is valid. Banning gun sales will indeed eliminate accidental gun injury among law-abiding citizens. The logic used in listing this as a social benefit, though, is not without flaw. It only makes sense if the ban is to include *all* firearms and not just assault rifles, since one who chooses to handle a rifle can harm himself as easily as one who chooses to handle a handgun because he is barred from purchasing the rifle he wants. Banning automobile sales will eliminate vehicular injuries among law-abiding citizens, too (and, statistically, by far more than with gun injuries). The question is whether the ban justifies the costs. For automobiles, the answer is rather intuitive. For guns, it remains to be seen.

The costs to a gun ban often cited are the losses to individual protection. For home protection, I wouldn't imagine that a rifle - assault rifle or otherwise - would be ideal; I've always thought of a handgun or shotgun to be more appropriate for the type of close-range confrontation that it implies. Therefore, a ban on assault rifles might not impinge very much on this, while a complete gun ban would cripple the use entirely - not good if a homeowner is faced with a thief who lacks any respect for gun laws. The costs implied here would vary based on the extent of the ban.

A ban on assault rifles perhaps derives its biggest cost from the limitations it would put on the public being able to form itself into an effective militia, which is precisely the reason given in the second amendment for gun ownership rights in general. It's true that when the anti-federalists asked for this protection, the most effective weapon they probably had in mind was the front-loaded musket, but at the time, that was the standard infantry weapon. Today, the standard infantry weapon is a fully-automatic assault rifle such as the M16. This leads to two mutually-exclusive conclusions: Either the anti-federalists never imagined a gun more capable than the front-loaded musket, or they meant for the private citizens - and thus any militia that they might form - to keep pace with the standard personal equipment used in military combat. Personally, I think that the latter explanation makes more sense, both in a historic context and a practical one, since there are, for the most part, two scenarios in which the citizenry would need to form a militia in the first place: Either an invading force has overwhelmed the existing armed forces to the point that the public can no longer rely upon them for protection, or the government has become so corrupt that a significant portion of the population feels that insurrection is the only remedy. In the former case, such a militia formed would need a modern form of firearm, for how would it even take place unless the invading force had at least comparable armaments to those of the armed forces? In the latter case, the need is similar: Facing a corrupt government means possibly facing that corrupt government's military, complete with modern armaments.

The risk of these events may seem remote today; they certainly do to me. A permanent ban, however, implies just that: Permanency. For the typical cost-benefit analysis, this is a big problem, as it implies an infinite time window. If you could put a repeatedly-acruing, positive dollar amount to each year that the risk involved is taken as described above in keeping modern firearms out of the hands of the citizen, no matter how small you make it (as long as it's positive and incurred every year), and no matter how large you make the discount rate that you'd apply to this future time scale, the infinite time frame makes the cost infinite, too. Even without a dollar amount put to this issue, the concept is still similarly significant: It is as much a risk to assume that things will never change from the relative safety we enjoy today as it would have been for the anti-federalists to have assumed similar future safety *instead* of having demanded the second amendment. They weren't willing to make that assumption, and I see no more reason to make it today.

In conclusion, a specific cost-benefit ratio in terms of raw figures would be difficult to tally, but the reasons against a permanent ban on assault rifles (and certainly on guns in general) seem to me, personally, to outweigh the reasons for one. The costs are mostly indeterminant, but the benefits seem very small, so it wouldn't take much of an estimate for the costs to make it unworthy.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson

Don in Minnesota wrote:

just how do you propose to overthrow the government or defend yourself from the government with an assault rifle? That's a totally bogus argument in the 21st century. Have you ever seen an Apache helicopter at work?

You raise a valid point, but it does not refute the argument as you believe it does.

Firstly, the issue you raise is *not,* in fact, isolated to the 21st century. During the American revolution, I can't imagine that the colonists always had proper access to some of the more powerful weapons of *that* day, such as ship-mounted and land-carted artillery, that the British surely had. Nevertheless, they prevailed, mostly due to numbers and the fact that, even without the proper funding for the tools of war, they could still match themselves with the opposing infantry with front-loaded muskets. Because they had an infantry, they could fight back; perhaps not as efficiently, granted, but the revolution wasn't started because of how *efficiently* it could be conducted.

Secondly, to bring the matter back to a modern frame, the U.S. military has had plenty of trouble even in the past few decades with ground based forces using "mere" rifles such as the AK47 to bring down aircraft that came within their range of fire. Indeed, a SAM would do the job better, but it is not a requirement.

As long as a militia can form itself into a modern infantry, an insurrection would hardly be hopeless.

Simple, we have the Second Amendment for one reason and one reason only. So that the average citizen can shoot and kill government employees when they attempt to impose tryanny.

Ignorance is a sad excuse for knowledge. Do yourself, your family and your nation a favor and educate yourself in regards to shooting sports, and self defense shooting. I would also encourage you to read your american history and maybe take a look at switzerland. Guns aren't evil, Evil is evil.

As a once victim of a gun crime, I think I may be more in a place to refute your fear of guns. As a "assualt weapon" owner I am aware that when I least expect it evil can strike, because it has. I now live my life happily and not in fear because awareness and knowldege and a willingness to resist give me peace.

And out of this education you might find inside you a man who would as I have make the decision to be a man, and prepare to defend yourself physically against evil. And not against conservatism with weak minded arguements.

I am afraid of "my" government that I have watched take more and more of my freedoms every year. Yes we need to protect ourselves in all aspects. And from flaming liberals like yourself.

I guess you were never in a firefight, the can be very defensive, I am still alive and writing this

You're a bit of a lunatic yourself if you think only republicans are against the assault weapons ban, or to think these weapons are intended for mass murder. Obviously you live your life based on what you see on TV and don't have a lick of sense of reality.

For the rest of us living in the real world, we understand that some areas have high crime rates and little police presence. For us, we want the best protection possible and an AK-47 offers far better aim than a 9mm handgun. Protecting yourself against armed robberies or violent intruders is not lunacy, it's common sense in a dangerous world.

Only a raving lunatic would wish to own an assault weapon.

That isnt true at all many of these "assault weapons" are sold to returning military because they want to hunt with a similar weapon to what they were trained with.

I'm hoping to get an AR based rifle because it is a very good and reliable design in a caliber that will be perfect for hunting the deer/elk/moose that I go for. There is no need for this assault weapons need to be banned because they could be used to kill people. The FBI statistics show that assault weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes so apparently they arent really an issue.

you need an AK-47 to fend off attackers! I thought a shot gun was best for that

no the assualt rifle are not responsible for mass murder, what is your definition of mass murder? 2 10 100 over a thousand.. murdered one at a time.. or all at once.. depending on your definition... you statement may or may not be true...

Also there have been many "mass murder" events without a shot being fired.. without any kind of violence... also if a person or society knows of people dying and do nothing are they not as guilty as the one who are doing it?...

I'm a card carrying member of the Democratic party and  I voted for Obama. I also own 2 "assault" rifles.  I don't hunt but I love to shoot.  I've even had anti-gun friends admit that shooting an AK-47 is fun once I got them to try it. 

"Assault rifle" is a made up term as used by the anti-gun faction.  It's like the "pro-abortion" label used to demean people who are actually just pro-choice.

Call 'em whatever you want, but my mass murder causing weapons wouldn't kill anyone, unless they were threatening my rights or my family and property, period.

Tim, I think you're the lunatic, you'd rather have the goverment hold your hand and whisper sweet nothings in your ear about how they will protect our rights while their taking them away.

Go buy an AK, AR-8, AR-50, AR-15, Springfield SOCOM 16, Whitefeather and a few XD's and protect yourself and your family.

They weren't invented when the constitution was written, so your logic is flawed

The internet that you're using wasn't invented either, so you therefore have no right to use it under the First Amendment. Turn off your computer and be silent.

I've never heard of an assault weapon being used for defensive purposes.

Go read a newspaper. There are cases out there. The NRA's "Armed Citizen" column in both the American Rifleman and American Hunter will give plenty of examples of citizens using guns of all types, often without shots fired, to defend themselves. In case you didn't get it, just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it just means you're not paying attention. No real surprise there, though.

Yes, I've heard the crap that criminals will still get them. So, how about this: If you find someone with an assault weapon, you go to jail immediately. If you make it a crime, you lock up a lot more of the bad guys.

It's not "crap," genius. It's the truth. It's happening in DC, in Mexico, and anywhere else criminals exists. If you make ownership a crime, you will not lock up more of the bad guys. You will make good guys criminals and accomplish nothing. How many of the bad guys do you think we catch now out of all the thousands that are out there now? Do you think we'll magically catch more of them just because it's illegal to own a certain type of gun?

Go back to your room and let the adults talk now.

"I have never heard of an assualt weapon being used for defensive purposes"

Look how the government defined assualt weapons last time and are proposing to define it now, by previous and current definitions a Glock handgun is an "assualt weapon" because it can take more than 10 rounds in a magazine. A shotgun was described as an assualt weapon if it had a barrel shroud which is simply a device to disspate heat. Those that want to enforce gun restrictions do not understand firearms. Furthermore there is substantial research showing that crime, murder etc. did not decline during the last ban, nor did it skyrocket when the previous AWB sundowned.

The only people impacted by gun laws are those that are willing to follow the law in the first place. Enforce the laws we have now, see what that does. How can we argue that more laws are the answer when our government cannot effectively enforce the ones they have now?

Snake...unwittingly, I think you proved Tim's point.

I think not!

Cannons would be the modern day equivalent of the assault weapon and they were not banned.

I guess on the pro-gun side, when push comes to shove, at least we'll be able to defend ourselves, our families and our homes. You can all lobby congress for a handout.

"Its only purpose is for murder"...

Which is why, for 22 years as a soldier, I carried one?

Why is why, for 6 years as a police officer, I carried one?

If the only reason you can think of to own a gun is to murder people, then, yes, *YOU* should not own a gun. You should not own a knife, axe or hammer either, and a car is probably too much of a temptation to crime for you to possess one also.

You should also seriously consider seeking the professional help you clearly need, before your obsession with murder moves from thoughts to deeds.

But I'm going to keep my guns. Because there are people like *YOU* out there, running around without any adult supervision.

Tim,

Thanks for the laugh. I'm on the right and like to keep a very open mind about things...not the far right, but the right nonetheless. However, you just reinforced the fact that hardcore libs believe in free speech and rights as long as the speech/rights in question agree with your own agenda. Way to go bigot. Someday you'll realize how much damage your type is doing to our country and the things we hold dear.

Only a raving lunatic would want to own an assault weapon? I can't tell you how relieved I am to have someone as qualified as yourself conducting a psychiatric evaluation on gun owners throughout the nation. I suppose the only people who need sports cars/high horsepower vehicles are race car drivers? The only people that need nice clothes are fashion models? Maybe only bald people need hats. Get a grip and stop buying into the sensationalized stories you see on the news about guns and the people who own them.

If you make it a crime you lock up more criminals? There's another intelligent statement, well done you brainless putz. Think about it for a second. The "bad guys", as you so eloquently put it, are already engaging in some criminal activity that would get them locked up. But--they're not. Do you really need the rifle to put it over the top and convince you? There's a gaping hole in your logic here bud. How about we take a stab at enforcing the laws on the books before enacting more. It's amazing how much things would shape up if we would actually push to enforce current laws instead of looking for ways to fight them just to say "yay, we bucked the system."

You, and anyone with a similar argument, need to open their eyes to the bigger picture. You don't like guns so you want that right stripped from those that do. If it happens you feel like you've won, like you've scored some kind of victory. What you fail to see is that by giving Government the power to strip ANY Constitutional right is setting a very, very, very bad precedent. How long will it take before someone disagrees with you and your rights are stripped? How are you going to feel when you don't have the freedom to make outlandish claims like the ones you just did? Not very good I'd guess. Wake up kids.

I'm a 29 year old gun owner, I guess that makes me one of the "raving lunatics" that you describe. Ironically, I also work for a defense contractor and hold an active security clearance. I pay my taxes, have had zero legal problems, and have had the common sense to keep myself out of financial ruin. I donate to charity and even pull over when I see someone broke down on the side of the road. Yup, raving lunatic present and accounted for. I know you feel that you and your cohorts are "enlightened" and "have the answers", but do yourself a favor. Step back and see the forest through the trees before you blindly run out and campaign for our rights to be stripped away.

Tim, you are an idiot......and the kind of person who will jump up and down on your liberal soapbox yammering on about something you know nothing about except what you watch on tv and what is fed to you by the liberal media. You and carrieann make a good team....... You likely know NOTHING about guns yet you scream the loudest about how they should be banned.

Your knowledge of the framers of the Constitution of this country is likely lacking as well.....go back and do some research....the 2nd Amendment wasn't just about militias...it was about keeping the government honest....and not turning the citizens of this country back into subjects.

best thing i've read all day confusedguyinVA

Tim, in all fairness I must say that you are among the idiots posting today...........

Thanks confusedguy in Va.....Great post...Don't you really grt tired of the same of dribble from the mouths of the left wing wuss divison. These punks will be the first to scream whenever they have a crime problem and will never understand why it takes the police so long to respond. Someday they might wake up and come to realize that cops can take very nice pictures of a victim but are rarely at the crime scene at the time of the crime. If you want your children protected.........but a gun.

I've never heard of an assault weapon being used for defensive purposes. Yes, I've heard the crap that criminals will still get them. So, how about this: If you find someone with an assault weapon, you go to jail immediately. If you make it a crime, you lock up a lot more of the bad guys. The 2nd amendant doesn't say a word about assault weapons. They weren't invented when the constitution was written, so your logic is flawed.

Abortion was not "Invented" yet but many of you seem to find constitutional protection for that. IT kills more people every year than all of our gun combined, so it would seem YOUR logic is flawed!!!

I agree with you 100% ConfusedGuyinVa. There is only one problem we can't enforce the current laws because as soon as we do the ACLU will declare that something wasn't fair, like what members of the ACLU are trying to do with the surviving Somali pirate that hijacked the US ship.

As for your logic Tim you sound like the other liberal sheep that do nothing but blindly fall in line and follow the propaganda that the liberal leadership and the ACLU feed you. I bet you think it would be a good idea to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency also.

Remember the democrats chose a jackass as a mascot for a reason.

Then I'm a lunatic. I guess I could also call you a pot smoker merely because your liberal - is that okay with you?

Tim...........the last I heard pot was just as harmful as alcohol if not more so. One joint is supposed to cause as much dammage as a pack of cigaretts. All the pot smokers I have been around were not mellow but just as stuped acting as a drunk.

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson; hope you at least know who this is...

"The essential principles of our Government... form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety." --1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

"The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge and to execute it. It is the will of the nation which makes the law obligatory; it is their will which creates or annihilates the organ which is to declare and announce it. They may do it by a single person, as an emperor of Russia (constituting his declarations evidence of their will), or by a few persons, as the aristocracy of Venice, or by a complication of councils, as in our former regal government or our present republican one. The law being law because it is the will of the nation, is not changed by their changing the organ through which they choose to announce their future will; no more than the acts I have done by one attorney lose their obligation by my changing or discontinuing that attorney." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, 1799. ME 10:126

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

"What country can preserve its liberties if its 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 and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

"[We] should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:164

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government

The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.

Thumbs up to confusedguyinVA.

I wish journalism wasn't dead. Because of the fight for ratings, mainstream media sensationalizes anything they can...especially when it comes to guns. Just once I would like to see facts (and their sources) presented during prime time TV to counter some of the anti-gun, fear propaganda.

Tim, Internet, TV and radio did not exist when the constitution was written, but freedom of speech still applies. That is why people who are uneducated about certain topics, such as guns, can spew nonsense and make up "facts".

The Bill of Rights is written in general terms so it does not become obsolete with time. And for all those who think the 2nd amendment was intended for government entities...why do all the other rights refer to the "people" and not the "government"? Because they are for the people, not the government.

I own many guns of all types. Some are for hunting, some are for target shooting, some for personal protection. I have one heavy barrel, semi-automatic, target rifle. It is black, so I suppose many of you would consider it an "assault rifle". I don't like some of you people saying I'm a drug dealer or a terrorist.

I've never broken a law (except an occasional speeding ticket), don't drink, never tried drugs, don't smoke, graduated 4th out of 225 in high school, had perfect attendance since 5th grade, graduated with honors from college with a engineering degree, go to church, donate to charity, give blood, and happen to enjoy recreational shooting sports. I have been responsible my whole life and don't need someone taking away my rights because they are afraid of a product they don't understand.

Ok, little lesson on guns for the assault weapon ban supporters:

If someone comes at you with an AR-15 "assault weapon", run.

If someone comes at you with an AK-47 "assault weapon", sprint.

If someone comes at you with a hunting rifle chambered in 300 Win Mag, drink red bull and hope you really do get wings, lest the shooter reaches out and touches you from half a mile away.

No! your logic is flawed, meaning that you don't know your history!

At the time the military had smothbore weapons, while civilans had mostly rifled weapons.

That means at the time the military was out-guned!

A lot of people think that the "assult-weapons" that they are thinking about banning are "full automatic" and some sort of uber destuctive death-ray!

During that 1994 ban, I purchased 3 rifles that some of you call "assult-weapons", they just didn't have a folding stock, a flash-suppesor an other "scary looking" items!

I'm tired of the gun-control people only giving emotional comments and not researching and backing up their thoughts with facts!

I feel that if the "founding Fathers" were alive today, they would be called "right-wing radicals" and "nut-jobs" and everything else I've read that people have been called on here!!!

Tim-507825

I have to agree with "Earnman"

"But I'm going to keep my guns. Because there are people like *YOU* out there, running around without any adult supervision."

I am not a felon- maybe I should be able to own small nuclear arms. Those are the arms I want to own.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

why not, Nicolo Festa.

The Felons running our Government own them.

Thank G-d I have weapons to protect my self from people like you!

You sir are why we own firearms. Your dangerous!

Tim,computers were a long way off when the Constitution was written. Perhaps that means freedom of speech and press doesn't appply to them.