You Won the Battle, But Lost The War

[Guest]

This is for discussion, it is rather long, but well worth the read. Says a lot about the America of today, and what America used to be, and what it should be again.

quote:

---

You Won the Battle But Lost the War

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

P.O. Box 270143

Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745

Fax (262) 673-9746

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: At the end of this article, you'll find a complete copy of the Bill of Rights with a modern-language explanation of each amendment. You'll also find a list of ways you can use this article to help win back American liberty. Archived at

http://www.jpfo.org/veterans.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Open Letter to Our Fathers and Grandfathers

You Won the Battle But Lost the War

By Aaron Zelman

Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Fleet Marine Force Medic, Third Marine Air Wing, Vietnam Veteran

To our fathers and grandfathers who fought in World War II:

America owes everything to you. You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism.

We can't even measure how much we owe you -- you, and the staunch women who stood with you -- the WACs, the Waves, the nurses who treated the wounded under unthinkable conditions, and the Rosie-the-Riveters who kept the country going back home. Yet, in the decades since the end of the war, your victory has been stolen. From you, from your children, your grandchildren, and from all of us.

You won a long, hard, painful battle. But when you came home, you lost the war. You lost the Bill of Rights and freedom. And so we all lost.

America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought against.

The country you fought for was a land of self-reliant people, people proud to stand on their own two feet. It was a country of decency, of neighbors and neighborhoods, where people took care of each other, their families and themselves. It was a country where citizens had a say in what their government did, a country where the government respected private property, family life, the right to worship, the right to express opinions without fear, the right to own firearms, and the whole way of life those freedoms stood for.

It wasn't perfect, but it was America.

The countries you fought against were rule-ridden bureaucracies where citizens did what they were told -- or else. They were countries where people were supposed to hate whomever the government wanted them to hate, and to love and trust the government more than they loved and trusted themselves. In these countries, children belonged more to the rulers than to their mothers and fathers, and private property was subject to control by bureaucrats. In these countries people didn't dare do or say anything the politicians didn't approve of.

Today in the United States there are people who spit on the memory of your sacrifices -- people like Sen. Charles Schumer, who successfully pushes "gun control" laws that trash the Second Amendment, and Sen. John McCain, whose infamous "campaign finance" law made free speech a federal crime for independent advocacy groups. We shrink before officials who decree that unpopular opinions are "hate speech." We endure leaders who tell us that it's wrong to hate certain groups of people, but perfectly okay for those groups to hate and malign others. Today much of America is controlled by people who'll fine us or even put us in prison for doing perfectly harmless things to our own land and homes.

Free speech. The right to keep and bear arms. Property rights. The right to live your daily life free of interference from people who want to push you around. Weren't these rights the very things you were fighting for?

The steady downhill slide

This process of destruction isn't new. You no sooner came home than the government you fought for started handing over power to the governments you defeated -- and even worse governments. They did it by handing authority to the United Nations, an organization dominated by unfree countries who don't share, or even have minimal respect for, the values that gave us the Bill of Rights. All they want is to take what they can get from us.

The U.N. quickly dragged us into another war in Korea - where many of you also suffered and died. Since then its powers have expanded so much that the U.N. has gained control over some U.S. lands (in the name of "biosphere sites," "world heritage protection," and "anti-desertification" treaties). Now they've even got a world court -- run from our own New York City, even though the impotent U.S. voted against it. This court can try American citizens and soldiers without giving them any of the constitutional protections you fought so hard for.

And next they're talking about imposing global taxes. On you. On what Tom Brokaw rightly called The Greatest Generation. And on us, your sometimes-less courageous successors.

The downhill slide has been steady: inflationary spending, debasement of the currency, punitive taxes, propagandizing of schoolchildren so they can't think for themselves, restrictions on property rights. Politicians have maneuvered to prop up the dangerously broken Social Security system, which Ronald Reagan rightly called an "intergenerational Ponzi scheme." They've created giveaway programs that let everyone from drug addicts to billionaire businessmen live off the sweat of ordinary working people. The regulations of this Nanny State have us so wrapped in bureaucratic red tape we can hardly move. And often we dare not express our honest opinions for fear of being labeled -- sometimes even punished -- for being a "hater," a "gun nut," or an "extremist" (which sometimes means nothing more than being an independent thinker).

Your federal government even passed a "gun-control" law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) based directly on the Nazi law that Sen. Thomas Dodd had the Library of Congress translate for him. This Nazi law was then signed by "Mr. Great Society," President Lyndon Johnson1

Did you risk your life fighting Hitler so that American politicians - some of whom you voted for and contributed money to -- could impose Hitler's very own laws on you? But that's exactly what happened -- and that was only the camel's nose under the tent when it came to "gun control."

Who's to blame?

Good Americans were once spirited, individualistic, independent, and skeptical of government power. Now, good Americans are a lot like the stereotypical "good Germans" of Hitler's day, compliant, docile, and worshipful of government.

This is largely our fault -- we of the Baby Boom and Generation X. We let you down. We, who in many cases knew nothing but comfort and security, weren't willing to sacrifice for freedom, as you did. Fat, happy, and lazy, we believed our government when it said it would take care of us, so we could remain children forever. We believed the slickly smiling politicians when they told us that if we just handed them enough power and money, they would eliminate every danger and make us as eternally content as sleeping babies in a nursery.

We chose to ignore the fact that this is the path to an all-powerful police state. We chose not to remember the historic truth that Ronald Reagan and many others have expressed: A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. Already we see the government rationing heath care -- rationing care to the very people it falsely and grandly promised to protect! How long before the old, the chronically ill, the "unfit" are decreed to be, as the Nazis put it, "useless eaters"?

Maybe you won't live to see the all-powerful state at its most cold and brutal. Will your children or your grandchildren be the ones to suffer?

It's a crime and a shame. It's un-American in the truest sense.

But when you cry, "Why are they doing this to my country?" at least part of the answer also has to be, "Well, where have you been all this time?"

Look in the mirror.

Your early life was tough, scarred by the hunger, insecurity, and national self-doubt of the Depression. You did your duty in a war that was longer and more brutal than anybody bargained for. When you came home, you were tired and just wanted -- perhaps for the first time since your childhood -- to live normally. And you deserved your peace.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The dirty little secret is that freedom wasn't stolen from us entirely by other people. We lost freedom ourselves because we weren't vigilant. We didn't exercise our rights or responsibilities as citizens -- we of the Baby Boom and Gen X, but also you, our fathers and grandfathers of World War II..

We went on voting for politicians who lied to us. We obeyed -- or maybe even enforced -- unconstitutional regulations. We had our hands out when politicians bought our freedom in exchange for subsidies, grants, and "entitlements." We tolerated, sometimes even cheered, violations of the Bill of Rights, as long as they were committed against people or groups we didn't like, not realizing the Bill protected our rights, too.

When every president since Richard Nixon told us we had to fight another war, a War on Drugs, we paid our taxes and cheered as millions of our fellow Americans went to prison, as no-knock midnight raids became an American institution, and as police forces were corrupted by the lure of illegal drugs and black-market money, just as they had earlier been corrupted during Prohibition. None of this has saved our children from drugs or made American streets safe. On the contrary, it's been one of the biggest destroyers of the Bill of Rights, and one of the biggest factors in increasing violence and police-state power in the U.S.

Even those of us who called ourselves conservative or libertarian often demanded that "there ought to be a law" against every activity we disliked. We forgot the very essence of freedom: The essence of freedom is leaving our fellow citizens, and the citizens of other countries, alone as long as they're not using force or fraud against others.

It's a fact -- though sometimes not a simple one to live with: If you want freedom you have to accept that, every day, millions of people might be doing things you don't personally approve of. You have to recognize that it isn't your right to stop them. That was what people came to America for. We hate it when others try to keep us from living our lives as we wish. But how often have we demanded laws to keep others from going about their own peaceable business?

Look in the mirror. We have met the enemy. And as Pogo said, "He is us."

It's time now for True Americans to act.

You World War II veterans, you World War II nurses, and you Korean War veterans ... you all have one last job to do in the fight for freedom. My fellow Vietnam veterans, this goes for you, too -- and for the young soldiers who fought in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and Somalia. It goes for you, also, Rosie the Riveter.

You must teach the coming generations about what freedom really means. You must teach them it's not just having a lot of consumer goodies and fancy electronic toys. You must remind them that those pleasures are the product, not the heart, of free individual choices - and that those choices are protected by the Bill of Rights. You must remind them of the real meaning of the things you fought for -- the freedom of peaceful individuals to speak, believe, and live as they wish, unfettered by government dictates and punishments -- and to respect the right of others to do the same.

In fact, each and every one of us must do this if we want to restore and maintain freedom.

We must all live our personal lives like free men and women while we fight to restore the values of freedom to our country and our culture.

We must fight ALL enemies, foreign and domestic -- as you pledged to do when you signed on to serve your country. We must recognize that some of our most ruthless, implacable enemies ARE domestic -- men and women who look like us and talk like us but whose values are as foreign to America as those of any Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. We must not allow ourselves also to become domestic enemies of freedom by supporting their policies.

America today seems a fallen land -- politically and economically powerful, but empty inside. A land that has lost its heart, its passion for freedom.

But freedom doesn't have to be gone forever. Many times in the past enemies made the mistake of thinking that America was lazy and complacent, too well-fed and self-satisfied to put up a good fight. The Japanese believed it before World War II. The terrorists believed it before September 11.

Our enemies have always been wrong.

You can never underestimate the fighting spirit of the American people, once they know that a fight is necessary to preserve their own future and their children's. An awakened America is a powerful thing, and dangerous to all opponents. We put aside our petty political differences, our daily pleasures, and our selfishness and we fight like wildcats.

There's hope for freedom -- if we can unite behind the Bill of Rights, unite behind freedom and individual rights. We must remember what the Bill of Rights is. It is a list of things an honest government -- a government that is truly of, by, and for the people -- is forever forbidden to do. And we must never ask our government to do these forbidden things, or stand by silently when it tries to.

To unite behind the Bill of Rights is to unite against crushing, bloated, grasping government power. This time our fight may not have to be with guns and cartridges. This time our weapons can be ideas and ideals. This time our job is to fight against the apathy and ignorance of our own culture. This time our aim is to arouse other Americans so they'll neither want nor tolerate an un-American government whose false promises of security are used to enslave them

Let us make forever sure that our American dead have not died in vain, that they have truly died for freedom. Let us live -- and cherish -- that freedom every day of our lives.

Ways you can use this article to help restore freedom:

1. Read it yourself and discuss it with others.

2. Download copies from the JPFO Web site.

3. Share the article with everyone you know who was in the armed forces, is thinking about enlisting, or has children who may enlist.

4. Reprint it in your organization's newsletter; encourage veterans magazines to reprint it. (It's free of charge; all we ask is that publications include our full copyright, contact information, and credits)

5. Reread, reprint, or re-circulate it on Patriots' Day (April 19), VE Day (May 8), Armed Forces Day (third Saturday in May), Memorial Day (May 30 or the last weekend in May), D-Day (June 6), Flag Day (June 14), Bunker Hill Day (June 17), Independence Day (July 4), the anniversary of the writing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" (September 14), Citizenship Day (September 17), the anniversary of the end of the Revolutionary War (October 19), Veterans Day (November 11), Pearl Harbor Day (December 7), or Bill of Rights Day (December 15). Or re-circulate it on a date that's as important as any of these -- August 1, the anniversary of the day in 1946 when newly returned veterans had to take up arms once again to rid themselves of corrupt politicians at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee (

http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

).

6. If you belong to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion or any veterans group, circulate this article at meetings and social events.

7. Take copies of the article to the Rolling Thunder veterans rally on Memorial Day weekend in Washington, DC.

8. Leave copies at your local barber shop, gun store, book store, or other business that will welcome them.

9. Encourage others to download additional copies from the JPFO Web site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bill of Rights

With modern language explanations of each article

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government can neither impose a state religion upon you nor punish you for exercising the religion of your choice. You may express your opinions, write and publish what you wish, gather peacefully with others, and formally ask government to correct injustices.

Amendment II - 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.

Individuals (the people) have the right to own and use weapons without interference from the government.

Amendment III - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The government cannot force you to house its agents.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You may not be arrested or detained arbitrarily. No agency of government may inspect or seize your property or possessions without first obtaining a warrant. To obtain a warrant, they must show specific cause for the search or seizure and swear under oath that they are telling the truth about these reasons. Furthermore, the warrant itself must state specifically and in detail the place, things, or people it covers. Warrants that are too general of vague are not valid; searches or seizures that exceed the terms of the warrant are not valid.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No one outside the military may be tried for a serious crime without first being indicted by a grand jury (of citizens). Once found not guilty, a person may not be tried again for the same deed. You can't be forced to be a witness or provide evidence against yourself in a criminal case. You can't be sent to prison or have your assets seized without due process. The government can't take your property for public use without paying market value for it.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Trials cannot be unreasonably postponed or held in secret. In any criminal case against you, you have a right to public trial by a jury of unbiased citizens (thus ensuring that the state can't use a "party-line" judge to railroad you). The trial must be held in the state or region where the crime was committed. You cannot be held without charges. You cannot be held on charges that are kept secret from you. You have a right to know who is making accusations against you and to confront those witnesses in court. You have the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in your favor and a right to the services of an attorney.

Amendment VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The right to trial by jury extends to civil, as well as criminal, cases. Once a jury has made its decision, no court can overturn or otherwise change that decision except via accepted legal processes (for instance, granting of a new trial when an appeals court determines that your rights were violated in the original proceeding).

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bail, fines, and punishments must all fit the crime and punishments must not be designed for cruelty.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You have more rights than are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights.

Amendment X - 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.

The U.S. federal government has only those specific powers granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers belong either to the states or to individuals.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, taken together, mean that the federal government has only the authority granted to it, while the people are presumed to have any right or power not specifically forbidden to them. The Bill of Rights as a whole is dedicated to describing certain key rights of the people that the government is categorically forbidden to remove, abridge, or infringe. The Bill of Rights clearly places the people in charge of their own lives, and places the government within strict limits - the very opposite of the situation we have allowed to develop today.

For an even more thorough, but extremely friendly explanation of the Bill of Rights, order and read copies of the booklet, "It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights" (Gran'pa Jack #3), by attorney Richard W. Stevens. (

http://www.jpfo.org/gpjack3.htm

)

-----

While everyone's busy fighting little skirmishes, the armored column of the police state is rolling down the middle of the highway, almost unnoticed. If you want to see the big picture of why America and other English-speaking countries are losing freedom, read The State vs. the People: The Rise of the American Police State, by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman. Order The State vs the People for just $19.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive three "Gran'pa Jack" educational booklets: Gran'pa Jack #2: "Can you get a Fair Trial in America?," Gran'pa Jack #3: "It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights," and Gran'pa Jack #5: "The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!" (a total $10.00 value, free when you order The State vs the People today. (

http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm

)

If you want to understand the ultimate progression of "gun control," read Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It begins with "reasonable measures" to control the unruly; it ends in the death of a thousand cuts - and millions of disarmed citizens. Order Death by "Gun Control" for just $16.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive Gran'pa Jack #6: "Will 'Gun Control' Make You Safer," and Gran'pa Jack #7:"Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?" (a total $6.00 value, free when you order Death by "Gun Control" today. (

http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

)

1 This is documented on the Web site of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership at

http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

and in the book Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny by Aaron Zelman.

┬® 2002 Aaron Zelman. Permission is granted to distribute this article in its entirety, so long as full copyright information and full contact information is given for JPFO. You may edit this article for publication as long as Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is given approval of the final edited version and you provide full credit.

Published by:

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. P.O. Box 270143 Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745 Fax: (262) 673-9746

http://www.jpfo.org

┬® 2002 JPFO < [email protected] >

---

[Guest]

I am also going to add a few other things to this thread, only because I think it will be educational for those that do not understand what the constitution says and what it ACTUALLY means, mainly this is on the 2nd amendment.

Emerson and the 2nd amendment

quote:

---

Quite a number of us have been following the U.S. v. Emerson case pertaining to the Second Amendment. Therein, the federal trial court judge wrote one of the finest decisions ever to come out of a federal criminal court -- which tracked perfectly with the original intent of all of the Founding Fathers when they approved the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights.

However, the decision was appealed.

Alas, although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, they reversed that part of the lower court's decision which benefited Emerson.(1) So, Emerson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now considering if it will hear the case.

Lawyers speak to the Court through their briefs and last May 6 was the deadline for filing them. In a nutshell, attorneys for Emerson are petitioning the Court to hear the case. Attorneys representing the federal government do not want the Court to hear it.

Last year, in a letter to National Rifle Association, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens, and not just to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Amendment's preamble. "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.

It would be kind of hard to support our Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers without agreeing with that. So, Ashcroft's letter got a lot of hopes up around the country. But "saying" it and actually enforcing it are two different things. So, we waited. Meanwhile, people were still being arrested around the country for unconstitutional and archaic gun laws.

Finally, last week, the Attorney General, via two U.S. Supreme Court briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, tied actions to his words. Sort of, anyway.

As Linda Greenhouse reported in The New York Times May 7: "The Justice Department, reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution 'broadly protects the rights of individuals' to own firearms.

"The position, expressed in a footnote in each of two briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, incorporated the view that Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed a year ago in a letter to the National Rifle Association. Mr. Ashcroft said that in contrast to the view that the amendment protected only a collective right of the states to organize and maintain militias, he 'unequivocally' believed that 'the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.'"

Linda Greenhouse was exactly correct. That is what was filed in both Emerson and another case. Unfortunately, "unequivocally" is not exactly what Ashcroft or Olsen intended. Unequivocal would mean that they support the words "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment with "no doubt or misunderstanding" and the meaning is "clear and unambiguous."

The words "shall not be infringed" are unequivocal to many of us. "Shall not" is rather clear and needs no explanation to anyone outside of a government office. However, public officials want tight control over the people. Therefore, the Justice Department does not think of our right to keep and bear arms as a "right." Rather, to them it is an inconvenient "privilege" that must be strictly regulated by capricious bureaucrats.

Justice does not want Emerson to be heard by the Supreme Court simply because they know the Court is going to take a very dim view of many gun laws and may wipe our hundreds in one opinion. One only need read Justice Thomas's opinion concurring with the majority in the 1995 U.S. v. Lopez(2) case for a hint. We are sure the Justice Department knows Lopez quite well. Congress tried to regulate guns via the Commerce Clause. But, the Supreme Court did not buy it.

Justice Thomas wrote: "While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination."

With that in mind, let's examine some of the Solicitor General's argument filed in Emerson:

"In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

That's ten steps in the correct direction, to be sure. But, it most certainly is not "unequivocal" support of the Second Amendment. The Amendment clearly says "shall not." That is greatly different than restricting "possession of types of firearms" as the government wants to continue.

So, saying that the Emerson Appeals Court decision reflected the kind of narrowly tailored restrictions by which that right could reasonably be limited, the Solicitor General requested the Supreme Court to turn down the appeal.

If the government keeps control over our "right" to keep and bear arms, that right, then, becomes degraded to but a privilege.

It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the American people shall have the unequivocal right to keep and bear arms and that government "shall not" interfere with that right. That intent was for personal arms one may "bear." Not cannon, howitzers, Apache helicopters, or tanks. Small arms only. Therefore, for small arms made to carry, there should be no restriction by government whatsoever.

To do otherwise is to violate the Constitution, as written. Because, restrictions would violate what Ashcroft called "the amendment's plain meaning and original intent" of the Founding Fathers. What the words "shall not" mean is that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right that government may not violate for any reason. As inconvenient as that may seem to our socialist tainted minds nowadays, that was the intent.

The Justice Department wants to have it both ways. That is why we expect the Supreme Court to seriously consider hearing Emerson -- and we hope they do.

-----------------------------

1.

http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html

2.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10287.html

END

---

[Guest]

And last, but definitely not the least!!

quote:

---

The Unabridged Second Amendment

Published: September 13, 1991 Author: J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus", has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did "not" give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

*** "July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

***

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

***

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms "solely" to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" "granted" by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence, "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" "only" to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

***

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

---

[Lotharr]

This looks like the right spot....

I'll let the Supreme Court tell me what the second amendment says. That is their job. To protect the Constitution and interpret its’ meaning in the context of today.

I want you to know something. I like guns. Guns are cool and guns are fun.

However they are dangerous. Fire is a wonderful thing but not in the hands of a pyro.

You think any of your weapons are going to stop a tank? You think that if the military decided it wanted to hold Washington they couldn't do it? You think the military would even be able to successfully "take over" without imploding?

Anyway the Army can't really take over anything they are too small and the country is too big. Sure they could project force around the nation but lets be real here. There is no way that this country would stand for that. And not because we are armed with hunting rifles and handguns. It wouldn't happen because the citizen soldiers that comprise our military won't allow it to happen.

And I don't know how current you stay with weapons tech but trust me when I tell you the weapons of today are going to be child’s play compared to tomorrow. Unless the NRA or a private citizen can finance a satellite launch into orbit of a device with the capacity to drop munitions with pin point accuracy……you can stock all the fire power you want....it won't change a thing if the US Army wants to project force on your house.

The NRA does teach gun safety. The NRA is composed of mostly responsible personnel. The NRA is misguided and using an obsolete philosophy. Our founding fathers never had to deal with a nuke. Maybe then they would have understood the quantum leap in power the state wields over the population from their time to ours. And maybe they would have reworded the language.

The fact is that a nut with a knife cannot set up kill zones around a school. Or walk into a daycare center for some ethnic cleansing.

Guns are cool and guns are fun but they represent a clear and present danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Guns are cool and guns are fun but they represent a clear and present danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

---

That whole statement is so full of holes that is unreal.

Guns are for the defense and preservation of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To think otherwise is falling into the socialist trap and breaking your oath to the constitution.

You took an oath to that document, I advise you read it again and figure out exactly what you are defending, if you are unable to do honestly believe in that oath and the document you took that oath to, then you need to get out of the military and into the civilian world.

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there for a reason, and it is not for civilians to have Nuclear weapons or whatever. BEAR arms, which means that you are allowed ANY weapon that you can carry, as long as it is NOT a WMD. (Weapon of Mass Destruction)

[Guest]

bah, guns are for insecure wimps.

[XenoZohar]

Yeah, real men use name calling....ok, so I'm bored.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guns are cool and guns are fun but they represent a clear and present danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That whole statement is so full of holes that is unreal.

---

Really? I thought it was pretty good and to the point.

quote:

---

Guns are for the defense and preservation of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To think otherwise is falling into the socialist trap and breaking your oath to the constitution.

---

Yes.the guns in the Army. The only thing a gun at home is doing is endangering a young person's life so the owner can feel empowered and have a little fun once in a while. I own two myself but if I have kids I'll take maximum precautions. Unless the wife puts her foot down that is However people on a national level are too irresponsible and put too many lives in danger. So if they told me to turn in my six shooter I would. After they gave me proper compensation.

quote:

---

You took an oath to that document, I advise you read it again and figure out exactly what you are defending, if you are unable to do honestly believe in that oath and the document you took that oath to, then you need to get out of the military and into the civilian world.

---

You are entitled to think whatever you want about the oath I took. That is your right. As it is mine to think what I will about firearms in America.

quote:

---

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there for a reason, and it is not for civilians to have Nuclear weapons or whatever. BEAR arms, which means that you are allowed ANY weapon that you can carry, as long as it is NOT a WMD. (Weapon of Mass Destruction)

---

Funny I didn't read that clause. If I want to buy a nuke I should be able to because it is not written into the Constitution as such.....we were in a arms race with the Soviets right..etc.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Amendment II - 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.

---

What part of that is NOT understandable?

Read it again, and again, and again, and then tell me what it says. Seems pretty simple and to the point to me.

The right to keep and bear arms, bear means to carry, in other words, you are allowed ANY weapon that you can carry.

Common sense, WORDS MEAN THINGS!! None of this "it depends on what the meaning of IS, is"

Is this SO hard to understand? I should hope not.

[Steve Schacher]

Here's another subtlety:

...the people... are the same people that are referred to in the First, Fourth, and Tenth amendments.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II - 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What part of that is NOT understandable?

Read it again, and again, and again, and then tell me what it says. Seems pretty simple and to the point to me.

The right to keep and bear arms, bear means to carry, in other words, you are allowed ANY weapon that you can carry.

Common sense, WORDS MEAN THINGS!! None of this "it depends on what the meaning of IS, is"

Is this SO hard to understand? I should hope not.

---

So then I can buy and carry a nuke in briefcase right?

Are you starting to see how when you really start looking at what the words mean, in context of today as opposed to 250 years ago, they start to lose that common sense feel you want me to go for?

And question...if the words are so simple why does it take a PHD to tell us what it means?

[Lotharr]

Look all I'm trying to say is that I don't want to be at the mercy of the state like any other independent American.......but little kids are being killed...

[Steve Schacher]

The Founding Fathers never imagined a world where they would have to define the meaning of the word IS.

Carrying a suitcase nuke for self-defense is absurd. What is the point of security if you destroy yourself in the process? Arms necessary for the defense of yourselves against the onslaught of others with hostile intent is what the 2nd amendment is about.

Nukes clearly do not fit the meaning of 2nd amendment.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Look all I'm trying to say is that I don't want to be at the mercy of the state like any other independent American.......but little kids are being killed...

---

Well, thatÔÇÖs why the constitution can be amended. If you donÔÇÖt like part of it (such as the right to bear arms) then you try to get it changed, you donÔÇÖt forget about it.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

but little kids are being killed...

---

Which little kids are you talking about?

The little kids that the Palestinians are sending to the front lines of the warzone?

The little kids that Janet Reno burned at Waco?

The little kids blown up by suicide bombers?

The little kids who are suicide bombers?

The little kids who see all this, and the attention that is paid to little kids, and then try to mimic it themselves?

[Sunanta]

The second Amendment is far from clear:

"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."

Notice the bold formatting that I have added. This is the juncture between the two most important clauses in this amendment. Some interpret the second clause to be dependent on the truth of the first clause. Some intepret it otherwise. If it is dependent on the first clause, the "...well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," then the second clause (...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...) is invalid. If the right to bear arms is for the sole purpose of maintaining a "well regulated militia" then it no longer applies, since "well regulated militias" are no longer of much use in the defense of the state. Hunting rifles are not gonna stop the Chinese army if they decide to invade Hawaii--the military forces stationed there with their M16s and Aircraft Carriers will.

Now if the second clause is not dependent on the first clause then, obviously, the second clause applies regardless of the truth and validity of the first. The reason not everyone believes this indepedence to be true is because there is nothing to indicate that it is in fact independent of the first clause. One can fairly infer that because the clauses are linked by nothing more than a comma the clauses are related. After all, we can't maintain a militia if we can't bear arms. It's important not to dismiss semantics (though technically this is "syntactics," I think, though I'm no expert, but you get the picture) because it is integral to the understanding of language. Sometimes messing with technicalities is absurd, especially when no real confusion exists (like questioning the meaning of "is"). Sometimes messing with them is critical, especially if you've got something that isn't entirely clear--like the 2nd amendment.

[ 05-14-2002, 04:22: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

[Sean Mudge]

Originally posted by Lotharr:

[QB]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II - 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not putting my self out as an expert here but I do deal with alot of what is called "legislative interpretation" and, well, the problem with this Amendment II is that not only was it drafted over 100 years ago it was drafted poorly. The wording of it can be left open to interpretation depending on who reads it.

Jaguar has meticulously put foward an argument that based on his interpretation and that of many others is logical and appears to be bang on.

However the rather lazy drafting of the arcticle allows for another interpretation which may, be just as valid if put forth properly.

In general law the nature or meaning of such a clause depends solely on what the drafters desired and no on else.

This document was drafted to support a counrty the established itself by doing the remarkable and unthinakble at the time, kicking England out. If it wasnt for the ability of your nation's people to have such access and ability to bear "arms" the War of Independance may very well have failed. It only makes sense that the "fathers" would want to protect the right that essentially gave birth to your nation.

The problem lies in what did they forsee happening over the next hundred years and how was this amendment drafted to incorporate that. What would they say today, powdered wigs, wooden teeth and all?

Dragon Lady is right I think when she states it is up to you to change it, and I admire Jag for doing his part to protect his view of his country. Change needs to come from within, and that clause is open for interpretation and needs to be rewritten or clarified. Most of us however are now more concerned with selfish goals, myself included, like protecting our investments and lowering our tax rate, than worrying about the fate of our countries.

As far as courts are concerned "dictionary" definintions and interpretation mean little or nothing when seeking a legal definition of a word.

The same generally goes for lower court "criminal" decisions. Accordingly I would agree with whomever said that until the Supreme court tells you so, it isn't so when it comes to the constitution.

I guess the point is that it appears its well past time for them to tell you so one way or another.

Good Luck Jag and others

Cheers

[Lotharr]

One also has to keep in mind that the "bureaucratic limiting" of people being able to buy weapons is a manifestation of the people's desire to stop the violence. Constitutional or no that is what is be represented.

So an amendment may be in order. Or the Supreme Court could interpret that only the national guard is authorized to pack that kind of smoke.

The kids....

One problem at a time. I didn't create a Jewish state in the middle of hostile forces so please don't ask me about that. I have no answer to give other than it is a terrible situation and I hope they can work it out so that the violence ends.

I can speak only for the young guy who wants to play cops and robbers with his friends. Or, for whatever reason he's goanna take dad's gun to school to teach some people a lesson. Thank god they didn't have access to a fully operational assault rifle with ammo to spare.

***my opinion***

I am SICK of people thinking there is some moral high ground for citizens to pack military grade or lethal devices to defend against "the government" while countless lives are being lost to the stupidity of people who shouldn't be allowed to own a blender let alone a fully automatic assault rifle. Anyone can see that if the "government" ignored the Constitution we would be in a world of doo doo and there wouldn't be a thing some rifles auto or not could do about it. One would have to be able to field a couple of heavy divisions with organic assets mixed in with the intelligence capacity to coordinate them properly. The only one who can do that is "the government".

People think that they could hide in the hills like Red Dawn and fight the oppressors....sorry bub they have already spotted your camp from orbit and a tomahawk will be there shortly. The SF squad will follow after that. A twelve man team with the right gear and training will annihilate the noble freedom fighters on their turf or wherever....

The only thing people can do in the end is to have unity and compassion for and with their neighbors. Mix that with more access to the government for the people and this scenario should never happen. Or issue every citizen a tank....

I think it was clear what the founding fathers wanted but, in my opinion, there is no safe way to keep the citizens armed properly to do the job. Muskets and cannon are one thing...orbital weapons platforms and fully integrated battle suits (it's in the works) are another.

Everything changes and we better look at how we can bring about that change in a manner consistent with the founding fathers intent...not live in a past that is still being debated.

***end***

[ 05-14-2002, 10:34: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Kevin Trotter]

Lothaar that was the best response to the those who wish to interpret a 250 y/o law that simply no longer applies. I must add in the original thread that started this discussion the author goes on and on about an America that was "not perfect" and well was he ever right. That same America he looks back so lovingly upon was not a great place to live if your skin was the wrong color or if you were a woman with aspirations beyond Ozzie and Harriet type suburban dreams.

African American soldiers sent to die for thier

country were treated worse in the deep south than

German prisoners of war. Japanese Americans interred in Manzanar and the other camps probably don't look back too fondly on that time either.

And therein lies the problem with some of the

rhetoric espoused by some of these "patriots"

in some cases it is very thinly veiled supremecist type thinking. Look at Europe where in several contries neo fascist movements are building in strength and numbers spouting the same codespeak like France for the French and national purity. It is a scary thing indeed.

In no way am I lumping Jag in this group. I have read many of his posts and while I rarely agree with his political views , I interpret them as well thought out and genuine and open for debate. However I must say that a number of people who share some of his views appear to have a different agenda.

I love my country and gave years of my life

in service to it. As such I feel I have the right to criticize it and when things get too bad to do something about it, such as back the campaigns of like minded people who run for office. I have worked in over 15 such races in varying degrees of participation from licking envelopes to assisting with media relations and speachwriting. How many of you have done the same? It's one thing to b***h about the uncaring monolithic

"Government" as if it is one entity with one goal and quite another to get off your ass and do something about it.

Kudos for Lothaar on getting it right.

[Steve Schacher]

Go back to an old thread (I believe it was Knife Control) where I posted at length from the Federalist Papers.

The militia was a term of art used to describe ordinary people who were called on to protect the region in times of trouble. The Founding Fathers discussed at length the difference between the militia and a standing army. It is clear from their writings that they are referring to ordinary citizens with arms who defend their property when no other help is available.

[Epsilon 5]

I believe if you disarm the people, you disarm both innocent and dangerous people. Real criminals will always be able to find guns, and they will (mostly) always more trained and hesitate less when it's time to shoot. I saw only 1 gun in my entire life (aside from TV, police and 2 hunting rifles my father once had), and it wasn't in a situation of danger.

I can walk in Montreal downtown never fearing I'd be shot - I'll fear I could be beaten thought. An american city? I'd fear to get shot. No joke.

Guns are cool... but too many dangerous people get them legally.

quote:

---

Amendment II - 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.

---

Note that grammatically the first part is a kind of addemdun to the second part. Rewriting the phrase in another manner, without making it lose it's meaning would be :

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Noticed I just swapped each part from each side, and now it only looks like you need guns to form a militia. A militia to defend against who? Today, criminals, real criminals/terrorists acts in a mostly undefendable way.

And what if the lowly citizen carrying a gun being held hostage in a bank get its gun out and miss? What happen do you think? Same for a shooter, or any similar situation.

And most killers use the element of suprise to kill.

[ 05-14-2002, 13:23: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Lotharr]

Thank you.

You are dead on about many of these so called patriots. And I agree with all aspects of the remaining text. It was disturbing and insightful.

I am not proud of a lot of this country's history but that should make us humble....and focus us on seeking a better way for the future and not reliving the injustices of the past.

As for putting something on the line before you b*itch I think we could all agree that this would be a good thing.

PS--Hey EP5 anytime you want a tour through the hood you let me know....I squatted down in Detroit for a while and I know where we can get some gats for cheap

[ 05-14-2002, 14:41: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

I am not proud of a lot of this country's history but that should make us humble....and focus us on seeking a better way for the future and not reliving the injustices of the past.

---

I on the other hand am VERY proud of this countries history and heritage, sure, we did some things that may not have been real nice, Indians, slavery etc, but the fact is that those things were OK then, just because they are not OK now, does not mean that we should be ashamed of them. Learn from them and move on.

The 2nd amendment is there for a reason, not just for defense of country, but of defense for yourself. A person that is NOT allowed to defend themselves is a victim just waiting to be victimized. You might say that that is what the police are for, but that is NOT what they are for. Police do not keep crime from happening, they are there after the fact to try and catch the perpetrator that has ALREADY comitted a crime.

Since I have a gun, if a criminal tries to victimize me, he is the one that will be victimized. Why? because I will A: either hold him until the police arrive to arrest him, or B: I will shoot him and he will be hospitalized, or C: I will shoot him and kill him, and he will no longer be a problem.

But, if I am disarmed, then the government is responsible for my safety, therefore we end up with a police state, because in order to be safe, there had better be a cop on every corner to protect us from the criminal before, during and after the crime. The before part is the tricky one. You end up guilty before anything happens, you are NO longer free.

With Freedom comes responsibility, you people seem to have forgotten that. You seem to think that the government is responsible for your safety, well, if that's the way you want to live, feel free, but to make me live that way as well is wrong.

Be afraid of guns, that's fine, I am not afraid of guns, they are a tool, just like anything else. Safety comes from within, If you are going to outlaw guns to keep people safe, then what's next? Knives? Those are dangerous, what about nail guns? how about cars, more children die in car accidents in a month, then have died from accidental shootings in this century.

This "it's for the children" crap is for the birds. I have 2 daughters, one is 20 months and the other is 6. My 6 year old already has a winchester 61A single shot .22, she knows how to shoot, where to shoot and how to safely carry and clean it. She respects guns, she knows what they are capable of, and knows that they are not toys.

If you feel that your children should be afraid of guns, then that is indeed what they will be, afraid of guns. No one should be afraid of guns, respect them, YES, know how to use one, YES, but be afraid of them, NO.

I guarantee that my daughter, because the fascination with guns won't be there, she will not be one of those that takes a gun to school and shoots all her classmates. She respects guns, she knows their power, and their responsiblity.

With freedom comes responsibility, so you can either be a subject and let the government take responsiblity for your life and safety, or you can be a free person and take that responsibility on yourself.

I know what I choose to be. And I have the right to do so, according to the constitution of the United States. And according to that document, those are god given rights that cannot be taken away. The first 10 amendments are inviolate, they CANNOT be changed, without those first 10 amendments to the constitution, the United States would not exist. Those first 10 CANNOT be changed, that is why they are called " The Bill of Rights" They are god given rights, and cannot be taken away by man.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

I know what I choose to be. And I have the right to do so, according to the constitution of the United States. And according to that document, those are god given rights that cannot be taken away. The first 10 amendments are inviolate, they CANNOT be changed, without those first 10 amendments to the constitution, the United States would not exist. Those first 10 CANNOT be changed, that is why they are called " The Bill of Rights" They are god given rights, and cannot be taken away by man.

---

That is an inaccurate statement. I have in front of me a copy of the Constitution of the United States (FM 22-100 appendix F). Please read Article V then read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights are all amendments themselves.

The only thing that cannot be changed by any amendment is "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of the person behind it. I am afraid of my countrymen (all genders) and what they do to each other every day. I am afraid of a group of people who defend an idea that costs innocent lives every day.

You'll find if you took the same money spent on the war on drugs and applied that to keeping illegal arms out only very well financed criminals would be able to have any real weapons. These people would then in turn commit crimes that are well thought out and probably limit civilian casualties. They will not go crazy and start blasting their co works.

Then the only thing you really have to worry about is hand to hand....sounds good to me. I plan on carrying a baton when I get out....if they won't let me have that I also plan on studying martial arts. I'm not afraid.

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

I'm not afraid.

---

you dont have to be afraid to know youre going to die at the hands of some meathead on crack. and when its your time... all the batons and the "martial arts" in the world isnt going to stop a bullet.

first post/last post