Constitution not debatable? Are you kidding me? We have mentally ill people that think a square peg fits in a round hole changing marriage laws. We have minority groups changing the moral structure to serve them. It's all about proving interpretation in which is the very reason for the Supreme Court. The constitution is like the government, not solid, nor viewed consistently. Not to mention it is only the "appearance" that citizens have the overall protections, they don't. SC has affirmed that constitutional rights only reserve protections on federal issues. States can do what they want to you. NH for example, it only takes 5 min to get a pistol and no hassle. As far as the "guns bad, constitution great poeple" do you understand that your founding fathers did not "discover" america but took it by force "with guns" as weapons. They "claimed" God told them too ( when he didnt). To many silly beliefs cause no one checks up.The elite structured the constitution to serve themselves and keep the people dumb to the truth.They argued and "settled" on agreement. Each wanted their own. Ever wonder why SC is lifetime appointment? Were they thinking of you? The law was structured so common man couldnt understand their rights because they belived common man would consume the courts. Singin america is great songs eems to still work in keeping people dumb.. Ever wonder why you have to have a states permission to sue the state? Ever wonder why less than 2% of SC pleas ever hit the floor? Do you know how hard it is and expensive to even get to SC? Guns bad? wow how about the idiots with pens..far more dangerous. Pretty soon someone will claim it meant the "body part" and americans will go ohhhh silly me I thought bear meant something else. Watch adirondack forrest preserve litigation and you will see, single individuals with money can change the constitution because they want to canoe with no moterboats around.National Grid changes constitution all the time.google national grid forest preserve. Silly people
unclefixer - 15 years ago
What part of it is a right to own and bear arms do these "gun grabbing Idiots" not understand. That should be simple to understand? Now, a more complicated concept is that , in the constitution, the founding fathers wanted people to have guns, in that , free people must have the ability to remove an " out of control" government should all lawful and peaceful methods fail.
It does not say that we can have guns to stop an "out of control " government, but it, the constitution, sure as hell, strongly implies it!
Another thing the "gun grabbing idiots" do not understand is that the government, whom they call "big daddy" is not all caring and benevolent. It is a raging out of control monster, that , just as soon , as the aforementioned "idiots" are no longer useful to them, will devour them too!
After all the gun owner are dead or in prison, along all the people who smoke, drink and eat unhealthy food. The government will subject all those who blindly and ignorantly gave them the power, they wanted, will subject the "useful idiots" to the same thing they do those that resiste them. They will end up dead or in prison or worse, and yes there are worst thing, a mindless slave unable to make even basic decision about their own lives. Their kids will end up slaves. Now here is the hilariously funny part, the sheep who empowered these "out of control monster" will themselves end up, if they want their lives back that is,up like all us current "trouble makers"
Because human nature will ultimately stand up for it self, no matter how comfortable a prison , the government builds for them.
Anybody who would openly talk about denying me my constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, in my opinion then, they should not be allowed the RIGHT of free speech to say such things. Ironic...I know. Denying them freedom of speech, but no more so then the right to bear arms. Who are they, or anybody for that matter, to pick & choose which of my RIGHTS I should be permitted to practice. People need to stand up, and practice ALL rights legally granted to them, regularly. Otherwise, certain rights can get...."stale", and as with stale bread, it gets tossed in the trash can. (like recently, so many other rights have) We cannot allow any form of govt., local to fed. to take away even the most obscure & seldom used rights, for if you give in to that, you will become conditioned & accustomed to giving, while the govt. becomes accustomed to taking, until your left with nothing, living in a 1950's era USSR type country. Don't say it could never happen. It IS happening at this moment. Look at how many rights have been taken away & abused in just the last 10yrs. Hell, just look at how far the Fed. Govt. has expanded it's power, in the last 6 months!!!
I can't imaging how bad it will get in 20yrs....I mean...I can, I just hope it won't get as bad as I think it will. I guess all we can do is pray for... (that's still legal right? praying?) a miracle. Good Luck All!
PS: The legal to pray line was only part sarcasm, seeing as how in Sacramento Cali, there is a ban on home bible study with friends & family members. YES your reading this right. You may NOT have 4-5 friends over to your OWN home, and along with your family, read the bible, pray, sing hymns and say "amen". In YOUR OWN HOUSE!!!! The *FINES* start at $100 for 1st offense, $200, $500, $1000, then, to quote the towns officials...".....$1,000, and then things will get ugly"
I am not even religious, at all, but...where does it end people? And how the hell did we ever let it start????
When only police can have guns, it's called a POLICE STATE.
Alton Clement - 15 years ago
Everyone should own a gun & have a permit to carry, there would be less troubles caused by outlaws
R. S. Mayberry - 15 years ago
If everybody carried a gun civility and respect of others would suddently become in style. There would be no more tough guys pushing the others around for fear they might anger some little person.
If everyone carried a handgun crime would go down dramatically. If I was a radical I would vote to mandate everyone become trained and carry, but I'm not, I'm just practical.
RSM
S Alley - 15 years ago
In ordinary times, when those in power do not seek to disarm the populace, guns are primarily a deterrent to crime, they are also used for hunting and sport/competitive shooting. However none of these reasons is the fundamental reason that the founding fathers were so adamant about the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. That reason is so that law abiding, freedom loving, constitution supporting patriotic americans can band together in one mighty army and take down a despotic and self serving state or federal government... using those arms. This is not something patriotic americans would do lightly. They would have be pushed to the breaking point before taking such radical action, that point could very well be the illegal revocation of their gun rights by state or fed and the threat of confiscation. Once our guns are taken we can no longer resist despotism, we become slaves!
I believe the founder's intent was that the entire law abiding citizenry of the US should be so armed as to be able to take on and defeat the Federal government. So when they said "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd amendment, they meant "ASSAULT RIFLES," RPG's, automatic weapons, artillery etc etc, whatever would be required to "change" the current government and replace them with individuals who would support the constitution as intended by the founding fathers.
Switzerland is a great example of this. The entire citizenry make up the "militia" of their country. They have military arms (fully automatic machine guns) and equipment in their homes ready togo at a moments notice. CRIME IS NONE EXISTANT in Switzerland! Gee I wonder why?
I am sure the EU is just dying to figure out how to disarm the swiss populace, just like the left is trying (and succeeding!) in this country.
Despots always want thier citizens disarmed. There are hundreds of examples throughout history. The disarming of the German Jews by Hitler and the disarming of the Irish by the English are two modern examples. It took guns to free Europe and guns to free Ireland. Can anyone be stupid enough not to see that the only way to ensure one's safety and freedom is to be armed to the teeth! Only a niave fool thinks otherwise. When very living human being is clone of Mother Theresa, then and only then will I consider changing my opinion.
So, inclosing... STOP debating the left over the need for guns for self defense, we know we are right and you can't reason with a stone. Change the argument to "revolution against a despotic government." They can't argue about the right to change a bad government, although they will argue that the current fed is right about guns and is a benevolent big brother and would never hurt us!
How many would be willing to place a
"GUN FREE ZONE - NO FIREARMS HERE"
sign in their front yard????
That is what they want for the rest of us.
Marvin
Tom Snyder - 15 years ago
The second amendment boils down to is this...
Sane, coherent, caring, responsible, loving people have the right to defend their self, family, and defenseless citizens, against the mean, nasty, murderous vermin that would kill for a 20 dollar bill or fist an 80 year old lady to steal her social security money.
I do not own any assault weapons, though I own some mean looking weapons. Jeff has the best definition of an assault weapon.
Take the law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights away... ?
Well... then mean, nasty, murderous, crazy vermin have the power !
Wonder why the Va Tech murderer didn't choose a Va gun show to do his stuff ? Guns do not kill... The vermin of our society do !
The killer at Va Tech did not not head the sign "Gun Free Zone".
The law abiding student citizens did.
It is so sad that no citizen student parted his hair at the eyebrows after the his first few shots !
What say you Mr. Hawkins ?
Should he have been sent to detention hall,
or behavioral management class ?
Susan - 15 years ago
As a citizen of the United States, with only 13 years of education, I continue to be amazed at the extent of the stupidity the American"sheeple" show on a far too regular basis. They are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring their rights being slowly chipped away. People seem to think that if it doesn't affect them, they don't need to care about it. Or they pay enough attention to their particular interest in it, without considering the long term ramifications of their choices. For example, you don't believe in hunting, therefore no one else should have the right to hunt. Or you believe that no school official should have the right to discipline your child, so no child should be disciplined. Without all the correct information a decision or choice might be made erroneously or just on an emotional level. I work in a retail gun shop. When customers ask "Why do you need to buy an assault weapon?", I reply "Because you can." I tell customers that most of us don't want to hear ffffft ffffft of the bass sitting at the stop light rattling your car windows or in your house, but you don't want to make that kind of music illegal because next, they might make country or rock illegal. Maybe I'm getting some of them to think before they pass judgment. These are our rights and we don't want to lose any of them.
Roscoe the Hat - 15 years ago
Acivil RIGHT is a civil RIGHT. If some one feels it shouldn't be every persons RIGHT, then perhaps their Right would be volunteered to be dissmissed, but please don't dissmiss mine.
Archimiel - 15 years ago
Jeff, actually civilians ARE allowed to own select-fire and automatic weapons, provided they were registered before April, 1986. In the years I've argued against the anti-gun morons, not a single one has EVER showed me a case where a citizen, with his legally owned machine gun, ever committed a crime.
Carl Pippin - 15 years ago
A brief comment on events such as Va. Tech. Isn't it a shame that a person 21 or older who served his country is not considered responsible enough to defend himself and /or his classmates in times of eminent danger,with a properly licensed weapon. Doesn't say much for our Government does it?
John - 15 years ago
The Supreme Court has already settled this matter. The Second Amendment is an individual right, which means that all Americans have the right to own guns to protect themselves not only from break-ins and everyday street thugs, but also from our own government. Even so-called democratic governments have a tendency to grow to the point where they call the shots instead of the citizens. Sooner or later, what once were rights become privileges, and later crimes.
Most people don't realize that for most of our nation's history, civilians owned the same types of guns as were used in our military. That changed with the Nationsl Firearms Act of 1934, which was meant to help the police get the edge on criminals. But an unintended (or was it intentional?) consequence of the law was that law abiding citizens no longer had access to weapons that could be used against a tyranical govenrment should the need arise. Since then, the government has tried to chisel away at the Second Amendment.
Our founding fathers knew what it was like for a government to try to render it's citizens harmless by taking away its guns. The Second Amendment was meant to prevent just that from happening ever again.
I'll go even further than saying that we have as much of a right to guns as law enforcement. We have MORE of a right to guns than law enforcement. I'm not suggesting that police shouldn't have guns, but there's nothing in the Constitution giving law enforcement that right. That right is specifically given to "the people."
W.D. - 15 years ago
I think everyone should own a firearm of some type, after they have attended a educational firearms training. Why all the hype over assault weapons....what does the american goverment handover to a newly enlisted person?.....Oh yea! an assault weapon,which like most firearm owners they alway remember thier "First" firearm. Bloomberg...sit down ,shut-up, and quit ruining my life!!! Keep your drug runners up north with you!!!! I'm done ...Thanks to our enlisted men and women, great ole' vet's !!!!!
Woody Brooking - 15 years ago
I wish that all of the anti gun people would learn the proper firearm terminology so that they would know what they are really saying. They need to get their facts straight before they open their mouths. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT IN LOCATIONS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED THAT THERE IS LESS CRIME. The crooks will always get illegal firearms. THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS NEED TO BE ENFORCED.
SPence - 15 years ago
The Supreme Court supports it and I do too. The constitution is not debatable, Any one who would seek to alter it in any manner or form is not an American and should be held accountable for treason against this country!!
Barry Martinette - 15 years ago
There is no reason for anyone having an assault rifle. The gunshows in Va intentionally sell guns to criminals. A ban on guns will prevent violent crimes.
First of all, there is no reason for anyone to own a Bentley but they do! People collect expensive cars, figurines, knick knacks, and yes guns. Assault rifles are are only named so and are merely compact, lightweight rifles in SEMI AUTOMATIC platform. They are not machine guns. They are used in 0% of gun crimes. They are simply hunting rifles that misinformed people are taught to be afraid of. Second, the "Gunshow Loophole" is non existent, I personally have never bought a gun at any gunshow in VA without background checks. I have bought several guns and I have several friends that make the same claim. Less than 1% of guns used on crimes are traced to gunshows. The "Loophole" is just a blatant lie perpetrated to misinform the public for advancement of one's personal agenda. That was quoted to me personally by Barack Obama when he was having dinner in my home while on the campaign trail. He won my vote (do you really believe everything your hear/read?) Gun laws already prohibit criminals from owning guns, they prohibit the use of guns in the commission of a crime, they prohibit the act of the use of a gun for intimidation. Only 2% of federal gun law violations are prosecuted, therein lies the problem. I just heard on the news about a tactical officers vehicle being stolen. They found it but all of the weapons had been stolen from it. I also just heard about an attack at a college where the attacker decapitated the victim, it wasn't with a gun and unfortunately she was not armed. The point is that Law abiding citizens will always be law abiding citizens criminals will be always be criminals. Don't make us all unarmed victims because you will not disarm the criminals. Just because you might be afraid of guns that does not empower you to take mine. An anti gunners best defense is to pray that the man standing beside you during the attack is carrying a gun. A violent attack on an unarmed person creates a senseless act. The difference between a violent attack against an unarmed victim and a violent attack against me is one less crime, one less victim, and one less criminal. God forbid that anyone should be attacked by a violent criminal but when it happens, I hope that guns have not been banned. And for the sake of anti gunners I hope that you are able to be defended by a gun owner. In 2007 there were 1.4 million arrests for DUI. 13000 died in dui crashes. There were 9300 murders with a gun. You might see higher numbers published but those numbers reflect firearm related deaths which include self defense and law enforcement deaths (another quote by Obama while dining). Lets ban automobiles, they cause more homicides than guns. If you are going to stand for something stand on your own, not what you hear from politicians or the media. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Please don't be a sheep.
Mike - 15 years ago
Dex, facts knot fiction was being sarcastic. "P51 mustangs are dangerous. Ban them FOR THE CHILDREN!!" (enter sarcasm here). Its ok, I almost missed it too.
facts knot fiction, you don't know what you're talking about. .50 cal rifles are NOT M2 .50 cal MACHINEGUNS. You could shoot down an airplane with, one, in the same sense that you could be killed by a meteor strike. The odds are slim-to-none.
john sullivan - 15 years ago
our founders wanted us as well as them to have firarms to protect us from big government not from just convicts. and it looks like in todays world we need them guns to protect us from both this world is full of crazy and stupid people both in government and in general. i will always keep guns and all my family will always keep guns. the government needs to use all the laws they already have on the books to control crime and stop trying to control guns the later does not work, lets go to a no repeat offender form of law
Richard Popkin - 15 years ago
The second amendment does not grant, but rather recognizes the right to bear arms, for defense of self, and the common defense and to prevent tyranny by the government. Any person who reached maturity before the the first half of the 20th century would be shocked to learn that a peaceable, law abiding citizen could not own the national military arm. The sort of weapon which the gun grabbers wish to outlaw is PRECISELY the type of weapon protected by the second amendment. I can think of no reason why such a citizen should not be allowed to be armed ANYWHERE. I can think of no reason why a person who has demonstrated that he should not be allowed to be armed, by virtue of having robbed, raped, plundered, kidnapped or murdered etc. at the point of a gun or other dangerous weapon, should be allowed to live. An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon. An assault WEAPON is a nebulous term meaning whatever the user says it does (i.e. any semi automatic handgun, rifle or shotgun, slide action rifle or shotgun or any weapon that holds more than some number of rounds, which is more than they think you should have). For the edification of Mr. Hawkins, if he ever has to arm himself with a 50 mm firearm, he would be well advised to make use of a carriage or caisson.
Svenco - 15 years ago
i carry a gun cuz a cops too heavy...
when seconds count cops are minutes away
Robert M. Anderson - 15 years ago
Mr. Hawkins, perhaps you do not understand our history. Our founding fathers recognized our RIGHTS are PRE-EXISTING; they are not 'granted' us by the Government, but are endowed upon us by our Divine Creator. (Try reading the Declaration of Independence: "We are endowed by our Divine Creator with certain inalienable rights.......)"; Individuals are ABOVE the government; the government is BENEATH the individual. The Government must answer to us; we do not answer to the government. The government has NO RIGHTS; only individuals have rights. The Government has LIMITED POWERS granted it in the Constitution (which it has grossly exceeded since FDR tried to become a supreme ruler); its primary job is PROTECTING my individual rights. There are over THIRTY THOUSAND LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS, MOST OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and none of which has ever been shown to have stopped a crime; the government WAS NOT delegated the power to pass such laws! (The fact that courts have let this slide says more about the corruption of our legal system than the validity of such laws). Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly (remember last year's Heller decision in DC, in which the court UPHELD the Second Article of Amendment as an individual right). The Supreme Court upheld the 2d Amendment in the Cruikshank decision; the Dred Scott decision (in which Chief Justice Taney wrote that the individual's right to keep and carry a firearm was "incontestable"; and in Presser VS Illinois. Also, the Emerson decision in the 5th Circuit Court a few years ago. Nobody should even need a permit to carry concealed; one should not need a permit to exercise a right! Do you need a permit to read the newspaper? In Vermont, where I come from, and in Alaska, NO CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT IS REQUIRED. And as you will have noticed, those states are not exactly crime hotspots. Actually, gun control increases crime and violence; this is true within the U.S. and worldwide. Of course, as noted by others, there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle; an assault rilfe has a 'selector' switch to enable it to fire full auto; as a veteran, I have used full auto, so I am somewhat familiar with the difference. Also, the 'power' of a gun is a function of the CARTRIDGE fired. A 44 Magnum revolver is far more powerful than a 9mm UZI carbine (even if the carbine WERE fully automatic, which it is not). The AR 15 fires a .223 cartridge, which is for small game hunting; it is not legal on deer sized game in many states, though not, sadly, VA. The AK47 fires a thirty caliber round that is less powerful than the ancient 30-30 from 1894!
I have asked lawyers why we cannot sue when the Washington Post, or Time, or Newsweek, or NBC/ABC/CBS when they lie about guns; the aswer is consistently the same - IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE PRESS TO LIE, so they do. For example, there is no such thing as teflon coated 'cop killer' bullets; teflon coating over lead was developed FOR THE POLICE, AT THEIR REQUEST, to cut down on lead pollution at indoor ranges. Soft body armor can be pierced by anything going faster than handgun velocities, i.e., with any rifle round going, say, 2,000 fps. There was never any such thing as a Saturday night special; indeed, snub nose revolvers were developed by Colt and Smith & Wesson for the law enforcement market. There was never any 'plastic handgun for terrorists'; quite the opposite, the Glock, the firearm in question, is in use by over 60% of the law enforcement agencies in America, including the FBI. It's not jus the Second Amendment that is at issue now; it is 'equal protection under the law'; gun owners are tired of being discriminated against! Remember, discrimination against black people was justified because '...they were more likely to commit crimes..' (Indeed, many gun control laws were explicity racist when the were first proposed and passed).
Minuteman - 15 years ago
Mr. Hawkins,
With all due respect Sir, the Second Amendment secures the right of the citizens to keep and bear (possess, hide and carry) arms. This Amendment was not intended to address hunting but, intentioned to secure a citizen government and provide for the common defense.
I do not wish to make assumptions as to how you define "assault weapon." However, your post confuses me. The term "assault weapon/rifle" defines an automatic small arms battle rifle utilized by military personnel.
An AR-15 is a .223 caliber (5.56X45mm) semi-automatic rifle. You advocate a semi-automatic rifle for hunting, yet opt to insinuate without naming it, that an AR is an assault weapon.
An AR is not an assault weapon Sir. Simply because an AR-15 has the "appearance" of an M16 military assault weapon, does not an M16 that make. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.
An example, I go purchase a GM Hummer H2. The vehicle appears like the military HUMV, also made by GM. Yet, the Hummer H2 is most certainly only a Chevy Suburban made to look like a military HUMV. To the novice and unknowing eye, one would assume that these two vehicles are one in the same, identical. Yet, there are key and remarkable differences between the Hummer H2 and the U.S. Military HUMV; alike solely in appearance. The AR-15 rifle is the Hummer/Suburban to the actual M16 military assault weapon/HUMV. Look alikes but, wholly and entirely different in guts and function.
Another? A Ruger Mini 14 is a .223 caliber, semi-auto rifle. You seem to advocate the Mini as okay; a hunting rifle. The AR-15 is a .223 caliber, semi-auto rifle. They look different on the surface. However, in function, capacity and caliber, these two rifles are identical. Why would the Mini suit you and the AR not? Are you buying into the liberal hype and skewed waters?
The Second Amendment is a Right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The Second secures all other rights and free citizens. Please know this and defend the principle with your very life.
Craig Lawrence - 15 years ago
The 2nd Amd. gives me the right to own guns and I will as long as there is a 2nd Amd.
Burke - 15 years ago
Williams is typical of the ignorance of prevalent in this country. The term ‘Assault Weapon’ is used as a propaganda tool. Not only do most people not know what an Assault Weapon is, they also do not understand that the SKS or AR-15 that most people can buy are not Assault Weapons. Just the getting the term into common usage is a victory for the Anti-freedom crowd. The term carries lots of implications for the uninformed; for them, better than facts. You are told that you gain safety or good feelings when you give up your firearms freedoms. Trading away our freedoms is made to seem so reasonable and desirable. What IS a right? Is the concept of a ‘right’ consistent with limiting the associated freedom to ‘Propagandist approved’ purposes? What kind of idiot would want to protect his life or family from murderers or rapists? Isn’t it OK for you to have freedom only if it fit’s the anti-freedom crowd’s idea of sporting or hunting? Do people even deserve to exercise rights (freedoms) without passing a background check? Isn’t this type of thinking just as applicable to the other articles of the Bill of Rights? What kind of chaos would ensue if people could own a house without a background check, or buy a car without government approval of which on was OK to own? (OK, you got me, they don’t openly do the first one.) Look at all of the school shooting that happened BEFORE all this Gun Control came into effect. Gun Control stopped school shootings didn’t it? There must have been a massive number of school shootings before all of this Gun Control come to the USA? I will give Williams this: It would be difficult to lift or fire a rifle which fires slug 50 millimeters in diameter, so maybe we should outlaw it!
It is everyone's right to self preservation. No government can grant or deny this basic instinct. To be on an even playing field, we should be able to own the same weapons the military has. After all had the patriots, who the British considered to be traitors not had the same type of weapons or better ones, there would be no United States and we would be subjects instead of citizens of this great and still relatively free nation. Down with tyranny!
Hoody - 15 years ago
"ITS A RIGHT"
NOT only for "law enforcement"
I'm so damned tired of this whole subject, I'm a 27 year retiree of the military, I have a background check with every 3 letter agency in DC, I get hassled at every turn even with a permit to carry while a 20 something kid out of rave parties and spring break beer busts is ran through a few weeks of police academy is so trusted and gets the right to carry at any school, church, or bar, and EVEN here in VA now drink while off duty or retired, while I have to un conceal my gun and am NOT allowed to drink, even though I don't drink and wouldn't even if I was authorized to. This double standard is BS. Being retired I'm still tied to the hip to the Government and still held to the oath I took several times to protect and defend not only some city block, county, or state, but the whole damned country. I'd like to see a federal carry license for us retired military type so we could bypass all this state by state BS.
John - 15 years ago
Why this debate continues astounds me. The 2nd merely prevents the government from infringing on a basic right of nature. No one would question an animal defending itself with the tools evolution bestowed on it. A zebra can kick a lion, stingray's sting, cats claw, dogs bite, ect... Humans are no different, we just have the ability to reason through things and have grasping capabilities. Of course we would figure out tools for hunting and defending ourselves. Sticks, slings, bows, knives, smooth bore muskets and on to today's modern weapons. There is no difference between an animal in Africa using the tools it evolved or humans doing the same.
The principle of self defense remains the same weather you are defending yourself against a home invader, or defending your country against invasion or a people are defending themselves against an out of control government. I believe the founding fathers would be shocked to see the armed forces with better weapons than the citizenry.
robert martin - 15 years ago
Well as far as owning guns me and my wife just went out and bought three guns in the last month. and as soon as i'm able to i will be buying more. As far as an assault weapon it is any thing you can pick up and assault someone with. And mayor bloomberg needs to stay in new york and take care of that horrible drug problem that he has. and for anyone in VA please vote for Bob McDonald maybe he can help to NY drug dealing riffraft out of VA.
Bob Enroughty - 15 years ago
Jonathan. The assault wepon ban was about looks only. I can do as much damage with a Mini-14 as any so called assault weapon. It's the same caliber as the so called assault rifles. I can fire it just as fast and it will jam less. You are up to speed on the federalist papers.
Bob Enroughty - 15 years ago
Oh, I forgot. Bloomberg is in NoVa talking trash about Bob mcDonnell. I'm going to put more McDonnell stickers on my Pickup. No, I don't have a gun rack in the back window.
Bob Enroughty - 15 years ago
Do you know what a 50mm looks like. I don't. Thats about one half of a 105 mm Howitzer. Do you know what tht looks like? It's a fricking CANNON. You know, like a salute to the President. BOOOOOOMMMMMM.
joe - 15 years ago
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. In the past century, tens of millions of disarmed civilians were rounded up and killed by their government. It will not happen to me. It will not happen to America. Molon Labe.
Dan McConnell - 15 years ago
Mr. Hawkins,
I apreciate your comments, but, you are woefully off base. First, the ONLY so called "Assualt Weapons" that the Government wants to ban are in fact "Semi-Automatic" rifles that have no more lethality than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that you say are "ok".
Second, You cannot go to a gun show and purchase an automatic rifle. It is now, and has been for a very long time, illeagle to sell machine guns at gun shows or in any similar venue. Citizens of this country have not been able to purchase fully automatic weapons (machine guns) since the 1930s; without a special federal permit, and that permit must be obtained before the individual can take possession of the weapon. Any purchase of a fully automatic weapon by a citizen without the required permit is a felony. Consequently, the only people who obtain fully automatic weapons (without the federal permit) get them on the black market - not at gun shows. And the last I heard; black markets are not very ameniable to laws of any kind; so making new ones won't accomplish anything.
Oh, and by the way, many of these so called "assualt weapons" make excellent hunting rifles.
As far as the .50 cal rifles are concerned...nobody NEEDS them, but where in the Second Ammendment does it say that you can have firearms - except for the .50 cal rifle? Got a news flash for you...many of the rifles used during the Americn Revolution were .50 cal. True, they wouldn't hit a target a mile away, but they were still .50 cal and were devastating. The founding fathers did not differentiate between calibers...what gives you the right to decide who-gets-what?
You either support the right to Keep and Bear Arms...or you don't.
Jonathan - 15 years ago
"I personally do believe that there is no need for anyone to own an Assault Weapon to protect the home or go hunting with one."
You are missing the point of the 2nd Amendment then. The founding fathers didn't put it in there so people could go hunting and defend their home. The 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights so that the people would have the final say on power and would have the ability to defend the constitution. If you believe that governments only exists at the consent of the governed, then doesn't it make logical sense that citizens maintain the power to give that consent?
In all practicality, we no longer have the ability to give our consent to the government to govern us if we don't hold the final word on power. What real power lies with the people if they have no teeth?
There are millions among us who have what you would call "assault rifles" yet there is no massive outburst of violence or lawlessness. Citizens have proven quite aptly that they are able to wield this responsibility. There is no reason to take it away because of a couple of outlier incidents that are still incredibly uncommon and isolated.
Further wise words:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
I think the historical record is crystal clear on this issue...
Facts knot Fiction - 15 years ago
A 50 cal rifle is too scary. That gun is for shooting down airplanes. (If you have 6 of them mounted to the wings of a P51 mustang, firing 1200 rounds per minute you sometimes could shoot down an airplane.)
There should be a ban on P51 mustangs. Too dangerous and bad people might take them to school or something and hurt people.
April 18 is Buy A Gun Day. Be sure to buy a gun on April 18.
Pat Webb - 15 years ago
To William Hawkins, be aware that some wish to call your "decent semi-auto rifle" an assault weapon. Using your logic, it would hold true that no one needs a Mercades Benz when a Toyota will do the job sufficiently. In other words, the only thing that makes something an assault weapon is how it is used by a human. If I use my car to mow down everyone on the sidewalk (and this has been done), then my car is an assault weapon. If I use my AR-15 for a shooting match, then it is nothing more than a rifle. Those who own fully automatic weapons, by law, must buy permits and answer to the ATF. It is not up to you to tell another person what kind of gun they can purchase any more than they have the right to tell you what kind of shoes you can wear. yes, shoes can be weapons too.
Mr. Hawkins,
You have been scammed by the anti-gunners, and bought their lies hook, line, and sinker. They deliberately use the term "Assault Weapon", to make you think they're talking about "Assault RIFLES". They're two different items. Assault RIFLES, like the M16, are full-auto. That's what the military uses. A citizen who wants to own one has to (A) find someone willing to sell their pre-1986 gun; (B) pay tens of thousands of dollars; (C) go through a Class III gun dealer; (D) submit to a several-month probing by BATFE, as well as get approval from his/her local Chief Law Enforcement Officer; AND, finally, (E) pay BATFE a $200.00 tax in addition to the cost of the gun.
"Assault Weapon" is a propaganda term coined by the Violence Policy Center in the late 1980s. It doesn't have any particular fixed definition, but loosely translates as "SEMI-auto rifle that looks scary and we can con people into banning because it looks like a full-auto". That's what was banned from 1994 to 2004 -- semi-auto rifles that looked scary. NOT automatics.
By the way, 50mm = 2 inches diameter. That's a sniper rifle for Shrek or the Incredible Hulk, maybe. Did you mean .50 caliber?
John - 15 years ago
William Hawkins, you are highly misinformed. You and many Americans apparently believe that the "assault weapons" in question are full automatic weapons and that's just not true. They are semi-auto rifles just like many hunting rifles, the difference is in the way they look. Civilian "assault weapons" have pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and perhaps large magazines and other handy features but they are NOT fully-automatic or even burst fire like true military assault weapons. Fully-automatic weapons became almost impossible to get some 70 years ago under Federal law.
Also you don't know the difference between 50mm and .50 caliber. A .50 caliber bullet is 0.50 (1/2) inches in diameter. 50mm would be nearly 2 inches in diameter. Why would it matter if people are allowed to get .50 caliber rifles? They can buy .45 and .50 caliber handguns, the rifle just has higher velocity and more accuracy. Do you really think criminals are going for these $5000 dollar guns?
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not just for recreation or home protection, it's for security from anything that threatens our freedom, including the government. How can we protect ourselves from the government if it goes bad and we are not allowed to have the same weapons as they do?
Rick - 15 years ago
What part of "shall not be infringed" do people have trouble understanding?
Lawrence Stolk - 15 years ago
What bothers me the most is misinformed people like Hawkins. Hawkins should read the Heller decision and get informed on our rights. First off the 2nd amendment is a right that gives us a means to both protect oneself and also the right to do away with an unjust government. Has nothing to do with Billy Joe Bob's right to go hunting or target shooting. The second amendment is a very serious right that should not be taken lightly.
When the military and police have guns only that is called a police state.
AROCK - 15 years ago
William Hawkins = FUD
A.T. Barr - 15 years ago
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.
Jeff - 15 years ago
Assault weapons in the hands of civilians are a myth. Assault weapons are select-fire weapons capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull and civilians aren't allowed to own those. There are also no 50mm sniper rifles, there aren't even 20mm sniper rifles. There are .50 caliber RIFLES and all of these weapons have a hunting AND sporting purpose. Look up the USPSA, and IPSC.
It is the People's right to bear arms. The ability of one to protect self and family is something that should never be taken away or curtailed - especially in this day and age with the media propaganda machine turning our country into something that a great many of us do not want. Our children are fed lies and are made to think that it's alright to act like the people they see on TV. The shock factor in TV continues to wear off, so the media comes up with new ideas and the cycle keeps progressing until things that shocked adults 20 years ago are now being used to shock children. The Anti-Gun activists are no different. They use shock to promote their liberal agenda. They use those who are grieving with a horrible situation, such as the families and friends of those who were killed by a lunatic at Virginia Tech - and they exploit those people and drag them into their liberal anti-gun propaganda machine.
The left wing media must be stopped before they ruin our country in a way that can never be corrected (if it's not too late already!)
Dan Arico - 15 years ago
The 2nd Amendment is the strongest prohibition against government actions in the entire Bill of Rights. It says "shall not be infringed." There is no "except" in the wording. It is an absolute prohibition.
John Kenneth Bowman - 15 years ago
It's a Constitutional right to own a gun and be able to protect yourself against thugs/criminals AND an out-of-control government that wants to do all our thinking for us. Hitler took the right to keep and bear arms away from everyone in Germany who wasn't a NAZI party member. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do the same thing here in the United States. He needs to be stopped. It should cost him politically!!!
Jeff - 15 years ago
While I respect and appreciate what Law Enforcement does they cannot be everywhere every time for every thing. If someone breaks in to my house I want to be able to defend my family and my property. I did not spend 6 1/2 years in the Marine Corps to include two combat deployments to have everything I have worked to build, my family and property, up taken away from me by someone who has no respect for and shows total disregard for the law. I don't care how abusive his or her family was, how addicted to drugs they are, how bad their situation is. I will not allow that criminal to take anything away from me, especially my family. If they choose to break the law and invade my home, they can suffer the consequences.
William Hawkins - 15 years ago
I believe we should all be allowed to own a gun as long as we all are cleared in a background check. I personally do believe that there is no need for anyone to own an Assault Weapon to protect the home or go hunting with one. The old Taurus Judge is a perfect house gun. A decent semi auto rifle is excellent for hunting and we are not all police, security or military so do not need to have an automatic rifle or a 50mm sniper rifle that is displayed at the gun shows.
Constitution not debatable? Are you kidding me? We have mentally ill people that think a square peg fits in a round hole changing marriage laws. We have minority groups changing the moral structure to serve them. It's all about proving interpretation in which is the very reason for the Supreme Court. The constitution is like the government, not solid, nor viewed consistently. Not to mention it is only the "appearance" that citizens have the overall protections, they don't. SC has affirmed that constitutional rights only reserve protections on federal issues. States can do what they want to you. NH for example, it only takes 5 min to get a pistol and no hassle. As far as the "guns bad, constitution great poeple" do you understand that your founding fathers did not "discover" america but took it by force "with guns" as weapons. They "claimed" God told them too ( when he didnt). To many silly beliefs cause no one checks up.The elite structured the constitution to serve themselves and keep the people dumb to the truth.They argued and "settled" on agreement. Each wanted their own. Ever wonder why SC is lifetime appointment? Were they thinking of you? The law was structured so common man couldnt understand their rights because they belived common man would consume the courts. Singin america is great songs eems to still work in keeping people dumb.. Ever wonder why you have to have a states permission to sue the state? Ever wonder why less than 2% of SC pleas ever hit the floor? Do you know how hard it is and expensive to even get to SC? Guns bad? wow how about the idiots with pens..far more dangerous. Pretty soon someone will claim it meant the "body part" and americans will go ohhhh silly me I thought bear meant something else. Watch adirondack forrest preserve litigation and you will see, single individuals with money can change the constitution because they want to canoe with no moterboats around.National Grid changes constitution all the time.google national grid forest preserve. Silly people
What part of it is a right to own and bear arms do these "gun grabbing Idiots" not understand. That should be simple to understand? Now, a more complicated concept is that , in the constitution, the founding fathers wanted people to have guns, in that , free people must have the ability to remove an " out of control" government should all lawful and peaceful methods fail.
It does not say that we can have guns to stop an "out of control " government, but it, the constitution, sure as hell, strongly implies it!
Another thing the "gun grabbing idiots" do not understand is that the government, whom they call "big daddy" is not all caring and benevolent. It is a raging out of control monster, that , just as soon , as the aforementioned "idiots" are no longer useful to them, will devour them too!
After all the gun owner are dead or in prison, along all the people who smoke, drink and eat unhealthy food. The government will subject all those who blindly and ignorantly gave them the power, they wanted, will subject the "useful idiots" to the same thing they do those that resiste them. They will end up dead or in prison or worse, and yes there are worst thing, a mindless slave unable to make even basic decision about their own lives. Their kids will end up slaves. Now here is the hilariously funny part, the sheep who empowered these "out of control monster" will themselves end up, if they want their lives back that is,up like all us current "trouble makers"
Because human nature will ultimately stand up for it self, no matter how comfortable a prison , the government builds for them.
Anybody who would openly talk about denying me my constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, in my opinion then, they should not be allowed the RIGHT of free speech to say such things. Ironic...I know. Denying them freedom of speech, but no more so then the right to bear arms. Who are they, or anybody for that matter, to pick & choose which of my RIGHTS I should be permitted to practice. People need to stand up, and practice ALL rights legally granted to them, regularly. Otherwise, certain rights can get...."stale", and as with stale bread, it gets tossed in the trash can. (like recently, so many other rights have) We cannot allow any form of govt., local to fed. to take away even the most obscure & seldom used rights, for if you give in to that, you will become conditioned & accustomed to giving, while the govt. becomes accustomed to taking, until your left with nothing, living in a 1950's era USSR type country. Don't say it could never happen. It IS happening at this moment. Look at how many rights have been taken away & abused in just the last 10yrs. Hell, just look at how far the Fed. Govt. has expanded it's power, in the last 6 months!!!
I can't imaging how bad it will get in 20yrs....I mean...I can, I just hope it won't get as bad as I think it will. I guess all we can do is pray for... (that's still legal right? praying?) a miracle. Good Luck All!
PS: The legal to pray line was only part sarcasm, seeing as how in Sacramento Cali, there is a ban on home bible study with friends & family members. YES your reading this right. You may NOT have 4-5 friends over to your OWN home, and along with your family, read the bible, pray, sing hymns and say "amen". In YOUR OWN HOUSE!!!! The *FINES* start at $100 for 1st offense, $200, $500, $1000, then, to quote the towns officials...".....$1,000, and then things will get ugly"
I am not even religious, at all, but...where does it end people? And how the hell did we ever let it start????
When only police can have guns, it's called a POLICE STATE.
Everyone should own a gun & have a permit to carry, there would be less troubles caused by outlaws
If everybody carried a gun civility and respect of others would suddently become in style. There would be no more tough guys pushing the others around for fear they might anger some little person.
If everyone carried a handgun crime would go down dramatically. If I was a radical I would vote to mandate everyone become trained and carry, but I'm not, I'm just practical.
RSM
In ordinary times, when those in power do not seek to disarm the populace, guns are primarily a deterrent to crime, they are also used for hunting and sport/competitive shooting. However none of these reasons is the fundamental reason that the founding fathers were so adamant about the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. That reason is so that law abiding, freedom loving, constitution supporting patriotic americans can band together in one mighty army and take down a despotic and self serving state or federal government... using those arms. This is not something patriotic americans would do lightly. They would have be pushed to the breaking point before taking such radical action, that point could very well be the illegal revocation of their gun rights by state or fed and the threat of confiscation. Once our guns are taken we can no longer resist despotism, we become slaves!
I believe the founder's intent was that the entire law abiding citizenry of the US should be so armed as to be able to take on and defeat the Federal government. So when they said "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd amendment, they meant "ASSAULT RIFLES," RPG's, automatic weapons, artillery etc etc, whatever would be required to "change" the current government and replace them with individuals who would support the constitution as intended by the founding fathers.
Switzerland is a great example of this. The entire citizenry make up the "militia" of their country. They have military arms (fully automatic machine guns) and equipment in their homes ready togo at a moments notice. CRIME IS NONE EXISTANT in Switzerland! Gee I wonder why?
I am sure the EU is just dying to figure out how to disarm the swiss populace, just like the left is trying (and succeeding!) in this country.
Despots always want thier citizens disarmed. There are hundreds of examples throughout history. The disarming of the German Jews by Hitler and the disarming of the Irish by the English are two modern examples. It took guns to free Europe and guns to free Ireland. Can anyone be stupid enough not to see that the only way to ensure one's safety and freedom is to be armed to the teeth! Only a niave fool thinks otherwise. When very living human being is clone of Mother Theresa, then and only then will I consider changing my opinion.
So, inclosing... STOP debating the left over the need for guns for self defense, we know we are right and you can't reason with a stone. Change the argument to "revolution against a despotic government." They can't argue about the right to change a bad government, although they will argue that the current fed is right about guns and is a benevolent big brother and would never hurt us!
How many would be willing to place a
"GUN FREE ZONE - NO FIREARMS HERE"
sign in their front yard????
That is what they want for the rest of us.
Marvin
The second amendment boils down to is this...
Sane, coherent, caring, responsible, loving people have the right to defend their self, family, and defenseless citizens, against the mean, nasty, murderous vermin that would kill for a 20 dollar bill or fist an 80 year old lady to steal her social security money.
I do not own any assault weapons, though I own some mean looking weapons. Jeff has the best definition of an assault weapon.
Take the law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights away... ?
Well... then mean, nasty, murderous, crazy vermin have the power !
Wonder why the Va Tech murderer didn't choose a Va gun show to do his stuff ? Guns do not kill... The vermin of our society do !
The killer at Va Tech did not not head the sign "Gun Free Zone".
The law abiding student citizens did.
It is so sad that no citizen student parted his hair at the eyebrows after the his first few shots !
What say you Mr. Hawkins ?
Should he have been sent to detention hall,
or behavioral management class ?
As a citizen of the United States, with only 13 years of education, I continue to be amazed at the extent of the stupidity the American"sheeple" show on a far too regular basis. They are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring their rights being slowly chipped away. People seem to think that if it doesn't affect them, they don't need to care about it. Or they pay enough attention to their particular interest in it, without considering the long term ramifications of their choices. For example, you don't believe in hunting, therefore no one else should have the right to hunt. Or you believe that no school official should have the right to discipline your child, so no child should be disciplined. Without all the correct information a decision or choice might be made erroneously or just on an emotional level. I work in a retail gun shop. When customers ask "Why do you need to buy an assault weapon?", I reply "Because you can." I tell customers that most of us don't want to hear ffffft ffffft of the bass sitting at the stop light rattling your car windows or in your house, but you don't want to make that kind of music illegal because next, they might make country or rock illegal. Maybe I'm getting some of them to think before they pass judgment. These are our rights and we don't want to lose any of them.
Acivil RIGHT is a civil RIGHT. If some one feels it shouldn't be every persons RIGHT, then perhaps their Right would be volunteered to be dissmissed, but please don't dissmiss mine.
Jeff, actually civilians ARE allowed to own select-fire and automatic weapons, provided they were registered before April, 1986. In the years I've argued against the anti-gun morons, not a single one has EVER showed me a case where a citizen, with his legally owned machine gun, ever committed a crime.
A brief comment on events such as Va. Tech. Isn't it a shame that a person 21 or older who served his country is not considered responsible enough to defend himself and /or his classmates in times of eminent danger,with a properly licensed weapon. Doesn't say much for our Government does it?
The Supreme Court has already settled this matter. The Second Amendment is an individual right, which means that all Americans have the right to own guns to protect themselves not only from break-ins and everyday street thugs, but also from our own government. Even so-called democratic governments have a tendency to grow to the point where they call the shots instead of the citizens. Sooner or later, what once were rights become privileges, and later crimes.
Most people don't realize that for most of our nation's history, civilians owned the same types of guns as were used in our military. That changed with the Nationsl Firearms Act of 1934, which was meant to help the police get the edge on criminals. But an unintended (or was it intentional?) consequence of the law was that law abiding citizens no longer had access to weapons that could be used against a tyranical govenrment should the need arise. Since then, the government has tried to chisel away at the Second Amendment.
Our founding fathers knew what it was like for a government to try to render it's citizens harmless by taking away its guns. The Second Amendment was meant to prevent just that from happening ever again.
I'll go even further than saying that we have as much of a right to guns as law enforcement. We have MORE of a right to guns than law enforcement. I'm not suggesting that police shouldn't have guns, but there's nothing in the Constitution giving law enforcement that right. That right is specifically given to "the people."
I think everyone should own a firearm of some type, after they have attended a educational firearms training. Why all the hype over assault weapons....what does the american goverment handover to a newly enlisted person?.....Oh yea! an assault weapon,which like most firearm owners they alway remember thier "First" firearm. Bloomberg...sit down ,shut-up, and quit ruining my life!!! Keep your drug runners up north with you!!!! I'm done ...Thanks to our enlisted men and women, great ole' vet's !!!!!
I wish that all of the anti gun people would learn the proper firearm terminology so that they would know what they are really saying. They need to get their facts straight before they open their mouths. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT IN LOCATIONS WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED THAT THERE IS LESS CRIME. The crooks will always get illegal firearms. THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS NEED TO BE ENFORCED.
The Supreme Court supports it and I do too. The constitution is not debatable, Any one who would seek to alter it in any manner or form is not an American and should be held accountable for treason against this country!!
There is no reason for anyone having an assault rifle. The gunshows in Va intentionally sell guns to criminals. A ban on guns will prevent violent crimes.
First of all, there is no reason for anyone to own a Bentley but they do! People collect expensive cars, figurines, knick knacks, and yes guns. Assault rifles are are only named so and are merely compact, lightweight rifles in SEMI AUTOMATIC platform. They are not machine guns. They are used in 0% of gun crimes. They are simply hunting rifles that misinformed people are taught to be afraid of. Second, the "Gunshow Loophole" is non existent, I personally have never bought a gun at any gunshow in VA without background checks. I have bought several guns and I have several friends that make the same claim. Less than 1% of guns used on crimes are traced to gunshows. The "Loophole" is just a blatant lie perpetrated to misinform the public for advancement of one's personal agenda. That was quoted to me personally by Barack Obama when he was having dinner in my home while on the campaign trail. He won my vote (do you really believe everything your hear/read?) Gun laws already prohibit criminals from owning guns, they prohibit the use of guns in the commission of a crime, they prohibit the act of the use of a gun for intimidation. Only 2% of federal gun law violations are prosecuted, therein lies the problem. I just heard on the news about a tactical officers vehicle being stolen. They found it but all of the weapons had been stolen from it. I also just heard about an attack at a college where the attacker decapitated the victim, it wasn't with a gun and unfortunately she was not armed. The point is that Law abiding citizens will always be law abiding citizens criminals will be always be criminals. Don't make us all unarmed victims because you will not disarm the criminals. Just because you might be afraid of guns that does not empower you to take mine. An anti gunners best defense is to pray that the man standing beside you during the attack is carrying a gun. A violent attack on an unarmed person creates a senseless act. The difference between a violent attack against an unarmed victim and a violent attack against me is one less crime, one less victim, and one less criminal. God forbid that anyone should be attacked by a violent criminal but when it happens, I hope that guns have not been banned. And for the sake of anti gunners I hope that you are able to be defended by a gun owner. In 2007 there were 1.4 million arrests for DUI. 13000 died in dui crashes. There were 9300 murders with a gun. You might see higher numbers published but those numbers reflect firearm related deaths which include self defense and law enforcement deaths (another quote by Obama while dining). Lets ban automobiles, they cause more homicides than guns. If you are going to stand for something stand on your own, not what you hear from politicians or the media. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions. Please don't be a sheep.
Dex, facts knot fiction was being sarcastic. "P51 mustangs are dangerous. Ban them FOR THE CHILDREN!!" (enter sarcasm here). Its ok, I almost missed it too.
facts knot fiction, you don't know what you're talking about. .50 cal rifles are NOT M2 .50 cal MACHINEGUNS. You could shoot down an airplane with, one, in the same sense that you could be killed by a meteor strike. The odds are slim-to-none.
our founders wanted us as well as them to have firarms to protect us from big government not from just convicts. and it looks like in todays world we need them guns to protect us from both this world is full of crazy and stupid people both in government and in general. i will always keep guns and all my family will always keep guns. the government needs to use all the laws they already have on the books to control crime and stop trying to control guns the later does not work, lets go to a no repeat offender form of law
The second amendment does not grant, but rather recognizes the right to bear arms, for defense of self, and the common defense and to prevent tyranny by the government. Any person who reached maturity before the the first half of the 20th century would be shocked to learn that a peaceable, law abiding citizen could not own the national military arm. The sort of weapon which the gun grabbers wish to outlaw is PRECISELY the type of weapon protected by the second amendment. I can think of no reason why such a citizen should not be allowed to be armed ANYWHERE. I can think of no reason why a person who has demonstrated that he should not be allowed to be armed, by virtue of having robbed, raped, plundered, kidnapped or murdered etc. at the point of a gun or other dangerous weapon, should be allowed to live. An assault rifle is a selective fire weapon. An assault WEAPON is a nebulous term meaning whatever the user says it does (i.e. any semi automatic handgun, rifle or shotgun, slide action rifle or shotgun or any weapon that holds more than some number of rounds, which is more than they think you should have). For the edification of Mr. Hawkins, if he ever has to arm himself with a 50 mm firearm, he would be well advised to make use of a carriage or caisson.
i carry a gun cuz a cops too heavy...
when seconds count cops are minutes away
Mr. Hawkins, perhaps you do not understand our history. Our founding fathers recognized our RIGHTS are PRE-EXISTING; they are not 'granted' us by the Government, but are endowed upon us by our Divine Creator. (Try reading the Declaration of Independence: "We are endowed by our Divine Creator with certain inalienable rights.......)"; Individuals are ABOVE the government; the government is BENEATH the individual. The Government must answer to us; we do not answer to the government. The government has NO RIGHTS; only individuals have rights. The Government has LIMITED POWERS granted it in the Constitution (which it has grossly exceeded since FDR tried to become a supreme ruler); its primary job is PROTECTING my individual rights. There are over THIRTY THOUSAND LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS, MOST OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and none of which has ever been shown to have stopped a crime; the government WAS NOT delegated the power to pass such laws! (The fact that courts have let this slide says more about the corruption of our legal system than the validity of such laws). Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly (remember last year's Heller decision in DC, in which the court UPHELD the Second Article of Amendment as an individual right). The Supreme Court upheld the 2d Amendment in the Cruikshank decision; the Dred Scott decision (in which Chief Justice Taney wrote that the individual's right to keep and carry a firearm was "incontestable"; and in Presser VS Illinois. Also, the Emerson decision in the 5th Circuit Court a few years ago. Nobody should even need a permit to carry concealed; one should not need a permit to exercise a right! Do you need a permit to read the newspaper? In Vermont, where I come from, and in Alaska, NO CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT IS REQUIRED. And as you will have noticed, those states are not exactly crime hotspots. Actually, gun control increases crime and violence; this is true within the U.S. and worldwide. Of course, as noted by others, there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle; an assault rilfe has a 'selector' switch to enable it to fire full auto; as a veteran, I have used full auto, so I am somewhat familiar with the difference. Also, the 'power' of a gun is a function of the CARTRIDGE fired. A 44 Magnum revolver is far more powerful than a 9mm UZI carbine (even if the carbine WERE fully automatic, which it is not). The AR 15 fires a .223 cartridge, which is for small game hunting; it is not legal on deer sized game in many states, though not, sadly, VA. The AK47 fires a thirty caliber round that is less powerful than the ancient 30-30 from 1894!
I have asked lawyers why we cannot sue when the Washington Post, or Time, or Newsweek, or NBC/ABC/CBS when they lie about guns; the aswer is consistently the same - IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE PRESS TO LIE, so they do. For example, there is no such thing as teflon coated 'cop killer' bullets; teflon coating over lead was developed FOR THE POLICE, AT THEIR REQUEST, to cut down on lead pollution at indoor ranges. Soft body armor can be pierced by anything going faster than handgun velocities, i.e., with any rifle round going, say, 2,000 fps. There was never any such thing as a Saturday night special; indeed, snub nose revolvers were developed by Colt and Smith & Wesson for the law enforcement market. There was never any 'plastic handgun for terrorists'; quite the opposite, the Glock, the firearm in question, is in use by over 60% of the law enforcement agencies in America, including the FBI. It's not jus the Second Amendment that is at issue now; it is 'equal protection under the law'; gun owners are tired of being discriminated against! Remember, discrimination against black people was justified because '...they were more likely to commit crimes..' (Indeed, many gun control laws were explicity racist when the were first proposed and passed).
Mr. Hawkins,
With all due respect Sir, the Second Amendment secures the right of the citizens to keep and bear (possess, hide and carry) arms. This Amendment was not intended to address hunting but, intentioned to secure a citizen government and provide for the common defense.
I do not wish to make assumptions as to how you define "assault weapon." However, your post confuses me. The term "assault weapon/rifle" defines an automatic small arms battle rifle utilized by military personnel.
An AR-15 is a .223 caliber (5.56X45mm) semi-automatic rifle. You advocate a semi-automatic rifle for hunting, yet opt to insinuate without naming it, that an AR is an assault weapon.
An AR is not an assault weapon Sir. Simply because an AR-15 has the "appearance" of an M16 military assault weapon, does not an M16 that make. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.
An example, I go purchase a GM Hummer H2. The vehicle appears like the military HUMV, also made by GM. Yet, the Hummer H2 is most certainly only a Chevy Suburban made to look like a military HUMV. To the novice and unknowing eye, one would assume that these two vehicles are one in the same, identical. Yet, there are key and remarkable differences between the Hummer H2 and the U.S. Military HUMV; alike solely in appearance. The AR-15 rifle is the Hummer/Suburban to the actual M16 military assault weapon/HUMV. Look alikes but, wholly and entirely different in guts and function.
Another? A Ruger Mini 14 is a .223 caliber, semi-auto rifle. You seem to advocate the Mini as okay; a hunting rifle. The AR-15 is a .223 caliber, semi-auto rifle. They look different on the surface. However, in function, capacity and caliber, these two rifles are identical. Why would the Mini suit you and the AR not? Are you buying into the liberal hype and skewed waters?
The Second Amendment is a Right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The Second secures all other rights and free citizens. Please know this and defend the principle with your very life.
The 2nd Amd. gives me the right to own guns and I will as long as there is a 2nd Amd.
Williams is typical of the ignorance of prevalent in this country. The term ‘Assault Weapon’ is used as a propaganda tool. Not only do most people not know what an Assault Weapon is, they also do not understand that the SKS or AR-15 that most people can buy are not Assault Weapons. Just the getting the term into common usage is a victory for the Anti-freedom crowd. The term carries lots of implications for the uninformed; for them, better than facts. You are told that you gain safety or good feelings when you give up your firearms freedoms. Trading away our freedoms is made to seem so reasonable and desirable. What IS a right? Is the concept of a ‘right’ consistent with limiting the associated freedom to ‘Propagandist approved’ purposes? What kind of idiot would want to protect his life or family from murderers or rapists? Isn’t it OK for you to have freedom only if it fit’s the anti-freedom crowd’s idea of sporting or hunting? Do people even deserve to exercise rights (freedoms) without passing a background check? Isn’t this type of thinking just as applicable to the other articles of the Bill of Rights? What kind of chaos would ensue if people could own a house without a background check, or buy a car without government approval of which on was OK to own? (OK, you got me, they don’t openly do the first one.) Look at all of the school shooting that happened BEFORE all this Gun Control came into effect. Gun Control stopped school shootings didn’t it? There must have been a massive number of school shootings before all of this Gun Control come to the USA? I will give Williams this: It would be difficult to lift or fire a rifle which fires slug 50 millimeters in diameter, so maybe we should outlaw it!
It is everyone's right to self preservation. No government can grant or deny this basic instinct. To be on an even playing field, we should be able to own the same weapons the military has. After all had the patriots, who the British considered to be traitors not had the same type of weapons or better ones, there would be no United States and we would be subjects instead of citizens of this great and still relatively free nation. Down with tyranny!
"ITS A RIGHT"
NOT only for "law enforcement"
I'm so damned tired of this whole subject, I'm a 27 year retiree of the military, I have a background check with every 3 letter agency in DC, I get hassled at every turn even with a permit to carry while a 20 something kid out of rave parties and spring break beer busts is ran through a few weeks of police academy is so trusted and gets the right to carry at any school, church, or bar, and EVEN here in VA now drink while off duty or retired, while I have to un conceal my gun and am NOT allowed to drink, even though I don't drink and wouldn't even if I was authorized to. This double standard is BS. Being retired I'm still tied to the hip to the Government and still held to the oath I took several times to protect and defend not only some city block, county, or state, but the whole damned country. I'd like to see a federal carry license for us retired military type so we could bypass all this state by state BS.
Why this debate continues astounds me. The 2nd merely prevents the government from infringing on a basic right of nature. No one would question an animal defending itself with the tools evolution bestowed on it. A zebra can kick a lion, stingray's sting, cats claw, dogs bite, ect... Humans are no different, we just have the ability to reason through things and have grasping capabilities. Of course we would figure out tools for hunting and defending ourselves. Sticks, slings, bows, knives, smooth bore muskets and on to today's modern weapons. There is no difference between an animal in Africa using the tools it evolved or humans doing the same.
The principle of self defense remains the same weather you are defending yourself against a home invader, or defending your country against invasion or a people are defending themselves against an out of control government. I believe the founding fathers would be shocked to see the armed forces with better weapons than the citizenry.
Well as far as owning guns me and my wife just went out and bought three guns in the last month. and as soon as i'm able to i will be buying more. As far as an assault weapon it is any thing you can pick up and assault someone with. And mayor bloomberg needs to stay in new york and take care of that horrible drug problem that he has. and for anyone in VA please vote for Bob McDonald maybe he can help to NY drug dealing riffraft out of VA.
Jonathan. The assault wepon ban was about looks only. I can do as much damage with a Mini-14 as any so called assault weapon. It's the same caliber as the so called assault rifles. I can fire it just as fast and it will jam less. You are up to speed on the federalist papers.
Oh, I forgot. Bloomberg is in NoVa talking trash about Bob mcDonnell. I'm going to put more McDonnell stickers on my Pickup. No, I don't have a gun rack in the back window.
Do you know what a 50mm looks like. I don't. Thats about one half of a 105 mm Howitzer. Do you know what tht looks like? It's a fricking CANNON. You know, like a salute to the President. BOOOOOOMMMMMM.
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. In the past century, tens of millions of disarmed civilians were rounded up and killed by their government. It will not happen to me. It will not happen to America. Molon Labe.
Mr. Hawkins,
I apreciate your comments, but, you are woefully off base. First, the ONLY so called "Assualt Weapons" that the Government wants to ban are in fact "Semi-Automatic" rifles that have no more lethality than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that you say are "ok".
Second, You cannot go to a gun show and purchase an automatic rifle. It is now, and has been for a very long time, illeagle to sell machine guns at gun shows or in any similar venue. Citizens of this country have not been able to purchase fully automatic weapons (machine guns) since the 1930s; without a special federal permit, and that permit must be obtained before the individual can take possession of the weapon. Any purchase of a fully automatic weapon by a citizen without the required permit is a felony. Consequently, the only people who obtain fully automatic weapons (without the federal permit) get them on the black market - not at gun shows. And the last I heard; black markets are not very ameniable to laws of any kind; so making new ones won't accomplish anything.
Oh, and by the way, many of these so called "assualt weapons" make excellent hunting rifles.
As far as the .50 cal rifles are concerned...nobody NEEDS them, but where in the Second Ammendment does it say that you can have firearms - except for the .50 cal rifle? Got a news flash for you...many of the rifles used during the Americn Revolution were .50 cal. True, they wouldn't hit a target a mile away, but they were still .50 cal and were devastating. The founding fathers did not differentiate between calibers...what gives you the right to decide who-gets-what?
You either support the right to Keep and Bear Arms...or you don't.
"I personally do believe that there is no need for anyone to own an Assault Weapon to protect the home or go hunting with one."
You are missing the point of the 2nd Amendment then. The founding fathers didn't put it in there so people could go hunting and defend their home. The 2nd Amendment was included in the bill of rights so that the people would have the final say on power and would have the ability to defend the constitution. If you believe that governments only exists at the consent of the governed, then doesn't it make logical sense that citizens maintain the power to give that consent?
In all practicality, we no longer have the ability to give our consent to the government to govern us if we don't hold the final word on power. What real power lies with the people if they have no teeth?
There are millions among us who have what you would call "assault rifles" yet there is no massive outburst of violence or lawlessness. Citizens have proven quite aptly that they are able to wield this responsibility. There is no reason to take it away because of a couple of outlier incidents that are still incredibly uncommon and isolated.
Further wise words:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
I think the historical record is crystal clear on this issue...
A 50 cal rifle is too scary. That gun is for shooting down airplanes. (If you have 6 of them mounted to the wings of a P51 mustang, firing 1200 rounds per minute you sometimes could shoot down an airplane.)
There should be a ban on P51 mustangs. Too dangerous and bad people might take them to school or something and hurt people.
Guns are super duper scary. No one needs that.
April 18 is Buy A Gun Day. Be sure to buy a gun on April 18.
To William Hawkins, be aware that some wish to call your "decent semi-auto rifle" an assault weapon. Using your logic, it would hold true that no one needs a Mercades Benz when a Toyota will do the job sufficiently. In other words, the only thing that makes something an assault weapon is how it is used by a human. If I use my car to mow down everyone on the sidewalk (and this has been done), then my car is an assault weapon. If I use my AR-15 for a shooting match, then it is nothing more than a rifle. Those who own fully automatic weapons, by law, must buy permits and answer to the ATF. It is not up to you to tell another person what kind of gun they can purchase any more than they have the right to tell you what kind of shoes you can wear. yes, shoes can be weapons too.
Mr. Hawkins,
You have been scammed by the anti-gunners, and bought their lies hook, line, and sinker. They deliberately use the term "Assault Weapon", to make you think they're talking about "Assault RIFLES". They're two different items. Assault RIFLES, like the M16, are full-auto. That's what the military uses. A citizen who wants to own one has to (A) find someone willing to sell their pre-1986 gun; (B) pay tens of thousands of dollars; (C) go through a Class III gun dealer; (D) submit to a several-month probing by BATFE, as well as get approval from his/her local Chief Law Enforcement Officer; AND, finally, (E) pay BATFE a $200.00 tax in addition to the cost of the gun.
"Assault Weapon" is a propaganda term coined by the Violence Policy Center in the late 1980s. It doesn't have any particular fixed definition, but loosely translates as "SEMI-auto rifle that looks scary and we can con people into banning because it looks like a full-auto". That's what was banned from 1994 to 2004 -- semi-auto rifles that looked scary. NOT automatics.
By the way, 50mm = 2 inches diameter. That's a sniper rifle for Shrek or the Incredible Hulk, maybe. Did you mean .50 caliber?
William Hawkins, you are highly misinformed. You and many Americans apparently believe that the "assault weapons" in question are full automatic weapons and that's just not true. They are semi-auto rifles just like many hunting rifles, the difference is in the way they look. Civilian "assault weapons" have pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and perhaps large magazines and other handy features but they are NOT fully-automatic or even burst fire like true military assault weapons. Fully-automatic weapons became almost impossible to get some 70 years ago under Federal law.
Also you don't know the difference between 50mm and .50 caliber. A .50 caliber bullet is 0.50 (1/2) inches in diameter. 50mm would be nearly 2 inches in diameter. Why would it matter if people are allowed to get .50 caliber rifles? They can buy .45 and .50 caliber handguns, the rifle just has higher velocity and more accuracy. Do you really think criminals are going for these $5000 dollar guns?
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not just for recreation or home protection, it's for security from anything that threatens our freedom, including the government. How can we protect ourselves from the government if it goes bad and we are not allowed to have the same weapons as they do?
What part of "shall not be infringed" do people have trouble understanding?
What bothers me the most is misinformed people like Hawkins. Hawkins should read the Heller decision and get informed on our rights. First off the 2nd amendment is a right that gives us a means to both protect oneself and also the right to do away with an unjust government. Has nothing to do with Billy Joe Bob's right to go hunting or target shooting. The second amendment is a very serious right that should not be taken lightly.
When the military and police have guns only that is called a police state.
William Hawkins = FUD
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.
Assault weapons in the hands of civilians are a myth. Assault weapons are select-fire weapons capable of firing more than one round per trigger pull and civilians aren't allowed to own those. There are also no 50mm sniper rifles, there aren't even 20mm sniper rifles. There are .50 caliber RIFLES and all of these weapons have a hunting AND sporting purpose. Look up the USPSA, and IPSC.
It is the People's right to bear arms. The ability of one to protect self and family is something that should never be taken away or curtailed - especially in this day and age with the media propaganda machine turning our country into something that a great many of us do not want. Our children are fed lies and are made to think that it's alright to act like the people they see on TV. The shock factor in TV continues to wear off, so the media comes up with new ideas and the cycle keeps progressing until things that shocked adults 20 years ago are now being used to shock children. The Anti-Gun activists are no different. They use shock to promote their liberal agenda. They use those who are grieving with a horrible situation, such as the families and friends of those who were killed by a lunatic at Virginia Tech - and they exploit those people and drag them into their liberal anti-gun propaganda machine.
The left wing media must be stopped before they ruin our country in a way that can never be corrected (if it's not too late already!)
The 2nd Amendment is the strongest prohibition against government actions in the entire Bill of Rights. It says "shall not be infringed." There is no "except" in the wording. It is an absolute prohibition.
It's a Constitutional right to own a gun and be able to protect yourself against thugs/criminals AND an out-of-control government that wants to do all our thinking for us. Hitler took the right to keep and bear arms away from everyone in Germany who wasn't a NAZI party member. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do the same thing here in the United States. He needs to be stopped. It should cost him politically!!!
While I respect and appreciate what Law Enforcement does they cannot be everywhere every time for every thing. If someone breaks in to my house I want to be able to defend my family and my property. I did not spend 6 1/2 years in the Marine Corps to include two combat deployments to have everything I have worked to build, my family and property, up taken away from me by someone who has no respect for and shows total disregard for the law. I don't care how abusive his or her family was, how addicted to drugs they are, how bad their situation is. I will not allow that criminal to take anything away from me, especially my family. If they choose to break the law and invade my home, they can suffer the consequences.
I believe we should all be allowed to own a gun as long as we all are cleared in a background check. I personally do believe that there is no need for anyone to own an Assault Weapon to protect the home or go hunting with one. The old Taurus Judge is a perfect house gun. A decent semi auto rifle is excellent for hunting and we are not all police, security or military so do not need to have an automatic rifle or a 50mm sniper rifle that is displayed at the gun shows.