---

As far as this discussion goes, I'm done with it.

---

---

Quote: from jonny5 at 5:56 pm on Mar. 25, 2008

---

I'm sure the founding fathers did not foresee automatic weapons or weapons of today's caliber being in the hands of citizens. I also doubt they could have anticipated the atrocious crime rates.

---

Yes, very true, but the Bill Of Rights, as well as the Supreme court state it is our right to own guns. I personally believe there is no need for any citizen to own an automatic weapon of any caliber, but that shouldn't stop legal, law abiding citizens from carrying a concealed weapon for their own protection.

As far as this discussion goes, I'm done with it.

---

Actually, neither have stated it's our right to own them, which is exactly why the 2nd Amendment is being questioned by the Supreme Court as we speak. Game....   Blouses.

---

Anyway since you ask

---

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") to disclose information it maintains in the National Tracing Center's firearms trace database, elected officials, policy makers, reporters, academics, and the rest of us were able to discover information such as:

Almost 60% of crime guns originate with only 1% of the Nation's licensed gun dealers.  

30% of traced crime guns move so quickly from licensed gun dealers into crime that they likely have been trafficked from dealers.  

Handguns sold in multiple sales account for 20% of traced crime guns.  

In cities and states with strong gun laws, crime guns frequently originate with licensed gun dealers in other states, thus showing that strong gun laws make it more difficult for criminals to access local sources of guns.

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/what-are-the-gun-pushers-_b_40576.html

---

Wow I really appreciate that post. I know I had read, heard, and even seen what I had said before, but I hadn't bothered to look it up for all the doucheys who always demand "prove it" whenever someone states something. Good call on looking that up and finding it to be truth.

---

. Good call on looking that up and finding it to be truth.

---

---

I'm sure the founding fathers did not foresee automatic weapons or weapons of today's caliber being in the hands of citizens. I also doubt they could have anticipated the atrocious crime rates.

---

I doubt they could have anticipated the internet, radio or tv, thus free speech laws don't apply to them.

---

Quote: from Dont Tell at 6:38 pm on Mar. 25, 2008

---

Quote: from jonny5 at 5:56 pm on Mar. 25, 2008

---

I'm sure the founding fathers did not foresee automatic weapons or weapons of today's caliber being in the hands of citizens. I also doubt they could have anticipated the atrocious crime rates.

---

 

 Yes, very true, but the Bill Of Rights, as well as the Supreme court state it is our right to own guns. I personally believe there is no need for any citizen to own an automatic weapon of any caliber, but that shouldn't stop legal, law abiding citizens from carrying a concealed weapon for their own protection.  

 As far as this discussion goes, I'm done with it.  
 

---

Actually, neither have stated it's our right to own them, which is exactly why the 2nd Amendment is being questioned by the Supreme Court as we speak. Game....   Blouses.

---

Technically incorrect.  The Bill of Rights clearly states that we have the right to bear arms.  Both in an strict examination of the text and via original intent arguments.  The Supreme Court is currently deciding a case (expected ruling in June) relating to the second amendment but its scope is likely not to decide if the courts will see it as an individual rights or not as it deals more with what a "Reasonable restriction" on a right is.  Is a complete ban such as DC has "reasonable" in any way is the crux of the argument being decided as the courts have long ago inserted the "reasonable" standard as a condition for denying rights  protection and encouraging rights infringement.

The amendment reads "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."

It does not "clearly state" that individual US citizens have the right, it only mentions in regards to forming a 'militia', which is what has lead to the controversy.

"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"

Lets look at the clauses shall we:

1. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

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

The second clause is the only clause to carry an action which is to prohibit the right of the People to keep (own) and bear (carry and use) arms.  The first if written by itself neither compels prohibitions on or power to the government and is thus dependent on the first.

If it were written today it would read "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State."

Now even if it weren't the dependent clause I'm going to show you how militia is defined in US law via (10 USC 311):
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.)

Thus all able bodied males (and thanks to the 14th amendment - females) ages 17 to 45 are members of the militia as well as anyone regardless of age serving in any of the capacities mentioned.

Post edited at 12:55 pm on Mar. 27, 2008 by MushroomSatsujin

-------
www.abovetheignorance.org
The world is pretty fcked up right now
Shouldnt I be?

---

Gun control for all except police and that sort of thing. If nobody's allowed to have a gun, nobody's gonna have one to shoot, therefore nobody needs one for protection against something that's impossible.

---

the only thing that gun control with result in is an increase in the black market distribution of weapons. if you outlaw guns, you are only making it a crime to have them, ur not preventing people FROM having them. But with gun control you lose the ability to track people's weapons, if they are illegal, they will not be registered.
I dont believe in someone being able to carry ANY gun onto a school ground or being able to own military style weapons (AK47's and such) but if someone wants to own a rifle, handgun, or so on, that is their right.
If we institute gun control the only one's who are going to have weapons will be the police and the criminals. see how safe you feel when you are hiding in your closet scared for the lives of your family and waiting for the police to show up becuase you have no way of protecting the people that you love.

plus i live in Tennessee, just try taking away our hunting rifles, i dare you *lol*

-------
life's too short to live the same day twice,
so make every one unique, memorable, and lasting.

Charlton Heston needs to be shot in the dick.

Post edited at 11:50 am on Mar. 30, 2008 by thepartyboy