Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?

[MakeMe$$$$]

...

We are a Republic, and therefore the rights of the individual are protected by law. In our land, the Constitution is the ultimate Law of the Land. And the 2nd Amendment limits the actions of the Federal Government, not the actions of the People. "A well regulated militia..." doesn't mean that the Government regulates the militia, the milita regulates itself. It drills, has structure, etc. The National Guard doesn't fit this description because while it is well regulated, it is regulated by the Government. The "...shall not be infringed." portion seems pretty clear-cut to me.

The standing joke is that the difference between the Air Force and the Boy Scouts of America is that BSA has adult leadership.

By your statement the KKK could form a lawful, weapons bearing militia as log as it drills, has a structure and self regulates itself. So, by extension any group of camo wearing, government hating, gun toting people can be called a constitutionally protected militia. HMMMM...More guns please.

[sludg]

Nothing needs to be changed, actually enforce the gun laws we already have and you are good. They can ban guns completely in this country and the criminals that don't abide by the law anyways will still have guns, problem is at that point is we won't have anything to defend ourselves with... I grew up with a house full of guns and shot pretty damn good when I was in the Army. If they would focus more on education and cracking down on the illegal sale of guns that the criminals are getting their hands on we would be better off. Chicago banned guns and they have the most gun related crimes in the country... logic escapes these politicians, take away a persons ability to defend themselves and you make them easy targets.

[Aitrus]

Relevent and Aitrus, you each have referenced my point of a well regulated militia.

Relevent you referenced the National Guard, which is as the amendment states, a well regulated militia.

Aitrus, you referenced the Battle of Athens. The agressors in this situation raided a National Guard Armory. Again, what should be well regulated.

I know people point to the battle of Athens as a reason guns are needed, however look beyond the story and you will see that there was a mob mentality and they became the agressor when they fired on local pd without being fired upon themselves. That is dangerous.

Well said Makeme$$$$

Historically, "A well regulated milita..." didn't mean a standing army, which is what the National Guard is - it is a part of America's standing army. I should know, I'm in the Guard. If the National Guard were a "well regulated militia" as you say, then I wouldn't be issued a firearm. I would be expected to bring my own from home, a weapon I was guaranteed to be allowed to own since I'm part of the "well regulated militia". Since this doesn't happen, your definition of "well regulate militia" doesn't apply.

The 2nd Amendment referred to a group of volunteers who stood up in times of need, whose members don't normally belong to a standing army, who had little to no military training. Yet, when the call came, they willingly took up their arms and marched alongside the standing army in a common cause, or against the established government who had become the enemy. The first shots of the Revolutionary War weren't fired by the standing army, they were fired by militia members who came together, organized themselves, and took action.

In the Battle of Athens, the citizens had already been attacked / terrorized at gunpoint for years by the local PD, and in particular on that voting day. All complaints to higher levels of the government went unanswered. Just because shots weren't fired doesn't mean that the citizens weren't under attack. And yes, they did raid the local armory. Do you know why? Because firearm ownership had been outlawed in the city limits at that time. They had no recourse.

[Aitrus]

By your statement the KKK could form a lawful, weapons bearing militia as log as it drills, has a structure and self regulates itself. So, by extension any group of camo wearing, government hating, gun toting people can be called a constitutionally protected militia. HMMMM...More guns please.

Correct, they could, and would be fully within their rights to do so. What actions they took, however, would be subject to further law. Murder, theft, extortion, etc. Just because they are organized and armed doesn't mean they're evil. It's what they do with that organization that matters.

I grew up with a small number of families in the area around my home. We watched each other's property for thieves and dangerous animals, shared the results of their hunting trips, and we came together in times of trouble. In effect, we were a militia, and loosely organized. The difference between us and the KKK was our goal. The KKK seeks to control the government's policies. We didn't. The KKK's agenda was unlawful. Ours wasn't. See the difference?

[Efire]

Google this - does british police carry guns.
Hope you learn something that you don't know.

[skiehawk11]

I wanted to take a non bias view of crime in Australia. My theory was the following:

Dates are from 1996 to 2007.

Even with guns banned, violent crimes will still occur and even increase since law abiding citizens will no longer have the ability to defend themselves with guns.

So, I plotted total violent crimes to include: homicide, assault, sexual assault, robbery and kidnapping. Finally, I totaled up the results for total violent crime.

The initial chart was a steady increase in large violent crimes. Yay!!!! But wait, we need to take some factors into consideration. I wanted to normalize the data to take population growth into account. So, I found the population growth for the same periods in Australia and normalized the data.

Here are the results.

Total violent crimes growth rate un-adjusted: average of 3.6% increase in violent crimes
Total violent crimes growth rate adjusted: average of 1.9% decrease in violent crimes

I'm sure there are other things to take into account, but again I wanted unbiased results.

[nlsn]

"Regulated" should be what the militia is. Free is what he citizen is. The current "State knows best" attitude should be curtailed at the ballot box. The blood of tyrants is brought on be courts that disregard law. The government pursue felons and protect the insane and let the citizen govern himself.

[Sptms2086]

TSPking wrote in his original post:

I for one intend on exercising my right to gun ownership. I want to be prepared for Armageddon should the economy or society collapse and it's "every man for himself". It would be irresponsible for me not to be prepared to protect my family…

I think that the criminal element will always be in position of guns and any laws enacted will only hurt law abiding citizens.

I believe that many gun owners want guns not so much for defense as for offense. In the event of the Armageddon or economic or social collapse that TSPking mentions, similar to Bosnia in the 90's, many gunowners would probably turn on their non-gunowning or lesser-armed neighbors to survive. The gunowners would use their advantage by robbing their neighbors, stealing their food and goods, killing the men and boys, and raping the women and girls. After Armageddon or social collapse, there would be no law abiding citizens because there would be no laws - as TSPking indicated, the survivors would be living under "every man for himself" rules (a state of nature rather than a civil society).

Does the above seem far out? No more so than TSPking's original mythological question: "Should The Fed Be Clamping Down On The Right To Bear Arms?" - which is a phoney question since the recent proposed legislation concerned Universal Background Checks to prevent gun sales to people with a criminal history or severe mental health issues.

[TSPking]

The original question may be considered a mythological question, however I think it also could lead to a 'slippery slope' discussion. During extreme duress, I don't intend on robbing or raping neighbors, but I want to increase my changes of protecting myself and my family from others that do. I would hate to look at my wife under such circumstances and explain that we're screwed since I didn't prepare for the unthinkable.

At the end of the day, I feel that law abiding citizens should be able to own guns without traversing an overly complicated and cumbersome process. I'm not opposed to background checks for evidence of criminal and/or mental health issues.

I stand by my initial assertion that government control of gun ownership mainly affects law abiding citizens as criminals will continue to use the black market approach to obtaining guns.

Thanks for contributing to the lively discussion.

[Epeacock]

Relevant came up with some great quotes, however those quotes came from another lifetime. The purpose of those quotes is to reinforce the fact that the masses shall not be oppressed by government, and if they are they shall overthrow said governm

That is not the case today. They were making those statements in the days when weapons were essentially even. Today your AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is no match against, Apache's, C-130 gunships, F-22's, M1A1 Abrams or any other of the weapons at the disposal of the governments of the developed world.

Two words, Arab spring.

[Epeacock]

...

We are a Republic, and therefore the rights of the individual are protected by law. In our land, the Constitution is the ultimate Law of the Land. And the 2nd Amendment limits the actions of the Federal Government, not the actions of the People. "A well regulated militia..." doesn't mean that the Government regulates the militia, the milita regulates itself. It drills, has structure, etc. The National Guard doesn't fit this description because while it is well regulated, it is regulated by the Government. The "...shall not be infringed." portion seems pretty clear-cut to me.

The standing joke is that the difference between the Air Force and the Boy Scouts of America is that BSA has adult leadership.

By your statement the KKK could form a lawful, weapons bearing militia as log as it drills, has a structure and self regulates itself. So, by extension any group of camo wearing, government hating, gun toting people can be called a constitutionally protected militia. HMMMM...More guns please.

Stereotype much. Damn I would hate for you to be my supervisor.

[MakeMe$$$$]

...

We are a Republic, and therefore the rights of the individual are protected by law. In our land, the Constitution is the ultimate Law of the Land. And the 2nd Amendment limits the actions of the Federal Government, not the actions of the People. "A well regulated militia..." doesn't mean that the Government regulates the militia, the milita regulates itself. It drills, has structure, etc. The National Guard doesn't fit this description because while it is well regulated, it is regulated by the Government. The "...shall not be infringed." portion seems pretty clear-cut to me.

The standing joke is that the difference between the Air Force and the Boy Scouts of America is that BSA has adult leadership.

By your statement the KKK could form a lawful, weapons bearing militia as log as it drills, has a structure and self regulates itself. So, by extension any group of camo wearing, government hating, gun toting people can be called a constitutionally protected militia. HMMMM...More guns please.

Stereotype much. Damn I would hate for you to be my supervisor.

@ Epeacock...Who me? If so...

1. I was 6 years USAF and the BSA comment was always a running joke with my fellow comrades.
2. Not sure if my statement about organized militia has any bearing on my supervisory capabilities. I have too many other reasons I would be a bad one. LOL
3. Why would you hate for me to be your supervisor?

[MakeMe$$$$]

...

At the end of the day, I feel that law abiding citizens should be able to own guns without traversing an overly complicated and cumbersome process. I'm not opposed to background checks for evidence of criminal and/or mental health issues.

...

So, should citizens be able to buy any level of weaponry without being "regulated"? Is an M203 grenade launcher on an M16 an extension of 2nd amendment rights?

Heck, why not buy an old tank? Would having to register it with the state as a vehicle be an abridgment of 2nd amendment rights? (OK...that was a little tongue in cheek. LOL)

The slippery slope goes both ways.

[MakeMe$$$$]

By your statement the KKK could form a lawful, weapons bearing militia as log as it drills, has a structure and self regulates itself. So, by extension any group of camo wearing, government hating, gun toting people can be called a constitutionally protected militia. HMMMM...More guns please.

Correct, they could, and would be fully within their rights to do so. What actions they took, however, would be subject to further law. Murder, theft, extortion, etc. Just because they are organized and armed doesn't mean they're evil. It's what they do with that organization that matters.

...

OK...that seemed like double speak to me. The question was whether the KKK, an organization known to murder, steal, extort and such could create a constitutionally protected militia?

[Aitrus]

By your statement the KKK could form a lawful, weapons bearing militia as log as it drills, has a structure and self regulates itself. So, by extension any group of camo wearing, government hating, gun toting people can be called a constitutionally protected militia. HMMMM...More guns please.

Correct, they could, and would be fully within their rights to do so. What actions they took, however, would be subject to further law. Murder, theft, extortion, etc. Just because they are organized and armed doesn't mean they're evil. It's what they do with that organization that matters.

...

OK...that seemed like double speak to me. The question was whether the KKK, an organization known to murder, steal, extort and such could create a constitutionally protected militia?

Not doublespeak. Doublespeak would be saying "We'll ensure your freedom by enacting the Patriot Act." or "We will ensure equality of healthcare by enacting the Affordable Health Care Act." Neither of those Acts does what they said it would do, but in fact the opposite.

The 2nd Amendment, as written, prevents the government from restricting our right to own, bear and use arms. It is what people, and organizations, do with those arms that do or don't matter. It is those actions that are punished by law.

Thus, the fact that the KKK can organize a militia and be constitutionally legal to do so is separate from what they actually do with that militia. If they choose to patrol their neighborhoods to keep out unwanted elements (gangs, criminals, etc), they have that right. However, if they want to patrol, kidnap, and execute individuals they don't approve of, then the individual members who took part in that act should be held accountable to the law. The rest of the organization may remain because they didn't do anything wrong.

Their opinions and beliefs might be reprehensible to most, but the 1st Amendment guarantees them the right to have those opinions, as well as their right to assemble and petition the government. As long as they stick to those actions only, then the KKK is a completely legal entity. If the platform of the group changes to endorse actions such as kidnapping, murder, etc and individual members or the organization as a whole takes steps to act upon that platform, that the organization then becomes illegal. At that point the protective entities within the government come into play to deal with the situation. The government has no constitutional authority to act before that point, and this includes limiting the ownership and restriction of firearms.

Everything I just said above would also apply to other groups, such as the Black Panthers / New Black Panthers, etc. Another tidbit: The KKK was founded by, and is still populated by, Democrats.

Using the argument of "Well, he's got a gun, and he might do something bad with it, so we have to keep him from having it" is an illogical argument. In our country of Laws, a person is innocent until proven guilty. We do not live in a "Minority Report" world where pre-crime is punished, or even assumed.

Bottom line, any level of fear, misinformed ignorance, aprehension or differing opinion of firearms and their uses does not trump my right to own and use them.

And yes, it's legal to own a tank.
http://www.militarytanksforsale.org/how-to-legally-purchase-military-tanks-for-sale.html
http://www.military-vehicles.us/military-tanks-for-sale.shtml#army-tanks-for-sale