WM -

I am not a scholar of constitutional law.  In fact, I found it difficult and confusing in law school, and that hasn't changed much 40 years later.  So, I'll limit my comments to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment only.

To me, it is clear that the American Revolution was basically a series of acts of treason, rebellion, and armed conflict by loose groups of citzens against the then all powerfull British Empire.  Only later did the Continental Army actually come together and function as an organized army, with a command structure and all of the other indicia of a true army.

So our founding fathers chose to preserve a mechanism that allowed citizens ot take up arms to protect themselves not only from robbers, muggers, burglars and other common criminals, but also from a tryannical government.  That mechanism is to have an armed citizenry.

The modern problem is much different from 1785.  Then, armies and citizens had similar weapons; rifles and primitive handguns, except for the cannon, which ordinary folks didn't have.  But a citizen "army" back then was on a fairly even footing with a governmental army in terms of available weaponry, again except for cannons.

Today, the 2nd Amendment has lost most of this "anti-government" power, because obviously no group of citizens has tanks, fighter jets, attack helicopters, large artillery pieces and most of the other conventionla weapons of modern warfare, let alone atomic weapons.

Congress and the courts have long ago enacted, and held constitutional, laws that prevent the average citizen from possessing RPGs, heavy machine guns, fighter jets ( except historical ones that are de-militarized ), tanks (again except historical and de-militarized ones ), attack helicopters, atomic weapons, and on and on.

So, where does the 2nd Amendment really stand now?  I don't know, but I do know that no longer can we say that the average citizen has to be in a constitutionally guaranteed position to protect himself from his gov't, and be in a position to take up arms against tyranny.

I think it will all come down to reasonable restrictions.  Is it reasonable that I cannot own a fully functional RPG, tank, or fighter jet?  Of course it is.  What about my owning a quad set of 50 caliber machine guns?  I doubt many would say it would be reasonable.

The problem with "reasonable" is that it is subjective.  I personally have no fear that my shotgun, nor my 380 Webley are at risk of being outlawed.  I also see no reasonableness in my owning a full auto fire M-16.  Somewhere between those ends of the spectrum is "reasonable"; but precisely where, I can't tell you.

3.5% of violent crimes are commited by rifles. I dont know how many of those rifles can be classified as assault rifles. The rest are pistols, knives, baseball bats etc. Outlawing assault rifles is not going to make much of a difference in the violent crime rates. My heart goes out to the parents in Conn. I dont want to imagine what it would feel like to lose a young child. I could have taken two razor sharp bouie knives or a sword and done the same thing before the LEO's arrived. You cant outlaw insanity and the only way to stop evil is to fight back. Also shooting is a sport. Are we going to start outlawing sports? There are statistis everywhere that when the public is disarmed the crime rate goes up. Australia is a good example. I cant tell you what the 2nd amendment really means but common sense tells me if you take my guns away from me I wont have my guitar collection very long. There's no common sense in Washington, all they worry about is getting rich  and relection. Our veterans fought and died for the right to be free. One of our freedoms is the right to arm and protect ourselves. Take our guns away and we become just like the countries we fought against.                     "The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

I agree with Miss America, Miss Hagan,You shouldn't fight violence with violence,As far as putting guards in school.Sometimes young people come up with the right answer.

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 01/12/13 at 12:05:18:


You forgot that the early American settlers were originally on a government funded mission.


--Steve

Reparations have been made. How long until we're able to move on from something that occurred 400 years ago?

You cannot use that as a counter argument for gun control because the government is still an oppressing force.


--Steve

Paraquat wrote on 01/13/13 at 08:33:23:


I meant to say 100. The 4 is right ion top of the 1 and my fat sausage finger slipped on it.

The number of firearm victims (injured, wounded, fatalities all included) in 1993 was 1,248,250.
That number in 2009 was 352,810.

Are you kidding me? We dropped to nearly 25% in less than 10 years?! Show me any other statistic that did that.


--Steve

The right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

It says that

Yes, there is a preamble that causes some questions.

BUT, deductive reasoning I apply there tells me that IF we could sit down with the Framers, that Preamble wouldnt say anything that would contradict with the part that simply states
The Right of the People to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

All thru the Constitution, the People have remained the same,The C is a POwer Limiter for the goobs, not the people. Who here believe the Framers said

"The Federal Government gets to decide WHO the People are & the Right of the People to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed."?

Who here believes the Framers said

"Only the People in a State Militia are considered People & the Right of the people toblahdeeblahhblaahblaah blaahhh"

Who believes the preamble, written by the same people who wrote all the rest of it, somehow contradicts with the part that says

And the RIGHT of the People to Keep & Bear Arms SHALL NOT Be infringed...

???