This dialogue is my reply to the intellectual challenge of an outspoken HCI supporter, who graciously provided what she refers to as the "significant text" of the HCI web site "facts pages".  It's been growing a bit in the time since I first composed it, so Thanks! to all who have sent comments, inspiration, and new information.

Quick Index of this page:
 History of the 2nd Amendment
 The Obsolete 2nd Amendment?
 2nd Amendment In The Courts
 Court Decisions
 The Founders Thoughts
 Other Historical Opinions
 More Recent Opinions
 Constitutionality of Gun Control Laws
 12 Children A Day
 Those Evil Assault Rifles
 Real Assault Weapons
 We Just Want Registration
 The History of Registration and Gun Control
 You Can't Argue with Safe Storage
 Conclusions

> Subject: Re: gun control
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:58:03 EDT
> From: "Elaine Lisle" <elainelisle@hotmail.com>

The Myth Of:

(Start by reading the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution  for yourself).

> The Second Amendment states: “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 NRA tends to omit the
> first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment -- the words referring to
> a “well-regulated militia.”

No ma'am, we never omit nor ignore the full text of the article. HCI conveniently ignores the critical operative or directive clause, "the right of the people", while misconstruing the justification or establishment clause of the article.

First of all, there seems to be some confusing rhetoric from some who say that the Founders really meant "the right of the States to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the people."  Anyone who can read, and has read the other 9 Articles of the Bill of Rights, knows that when the Founders reserved rights to the States, they wrote "to the States," and that when they enumerated rights "of the people" they meant "people" and not "States."  They meant exactly what they wrote, and only a deceitful propaganda artist can possibly claim otherwise.

When the Founders wrote "The right of the people", they meant exactly that - in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th articles; and other rights are "retained by the people" (in the 9th) and powers are reserved "to the people" (in the 10th).  Subsequently, other rights "of the citizens" are enumerated in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

And there is obviously some confusion about mysterious hidden meanings of the complicated legal terms, as some claim.  Let's consult a thick law dictionary, and investigate this further.

WELL REGULATED:  "Regulate" comes from "regula" meaning "law" or "order". Hence, "regulate" means "to bind by law" or "to put in good order". So, "well-regulated" means "law-abiding", "orderly" or "well-behaved".  In colonial times, it meant "properly functioning," as in a correctly regulated weight scale will read weight accurately, and a properly regulated double barrel shotgun will hit the same spot when either barrel was fired.

MILITIA: "Militia" is the plural of "miles" meaning "soldier", which comes from "soldare" meaning "to pay". In other words, "militia" = "soldiers" = "paid agents". In colonial times, the term "Militia" was used to describe to whole armed populace, all the able-bodied men, self-organized for the civic duty of defending the general public.

INFRINGE:  "violate", "trespass", "intrude", "encroach", as "in a gradual or sneaky way"; "to advance beyond the proper, original, or customary limits; make inroads on or upon"; "curtailed", or "broken in upon, in the smallest degree"; and from Webster's University Dictionary - Infringed: 1. To violate or go beyond the limits of (e.g., a law). 2. To break (a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of: violate. 3. To defeat: invalidate. - To encroach upon something. Infringement: 1. A violation, as of a law or agreement. 2. An encroachment, as of a privilege or right.

It is clear that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to secure a balance of power between the government and the entire public.
 

A well-regulated militia,	An Orderly, law-abiding, well-equiped and well-behaved armed populace ...
being necessary to the security of a free State,	is necessary for a State to be free from tyranny and secure from crime or oppression ...
the right of the people	A right posessed by the people, which includes all of the citizens, the individuals, the general public ...
to keep and bear arms,	to own, carry and use any common weapon: knives, swords, firearms, etc., which ...
shall not be infringed.	shall not incur bureaucratic regulation, restriction, registration, prohibition, or special taxes.

Nowhere in the Constitution are Rights granted to the Federal Government or the Militia. Specific and limited powers are granted to the Government by the Constitution; Rights of the People and of the States are enumerated to establish absolute limits on these granted powers.

Pennsylvania reaffirms the individual right.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania clearly guarantees an individual right to bear arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."  There's no establishment clause to confuse the weak minded or gullible, it is just straight and to the point.  If you don't know what the meaning of "questioned" is, you're probably too dumb to know what the meaning of "is" is, too.

Most states have a similar clause in their constitutions, clearly establishing an individual right. For example, here is what Article 1, Section 1 of the North Dakota State Constitution says about the right to bear arms:

"All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed."

Pray tell, just what part of this do you not understand?

> When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own
> “militia” -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving
> as part-time soldiers. The militia was “well-regulated” in the sense
> that its members were subject to various requirements such as
> training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military
> exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service
> intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from
> internal rebellions.

The “militia” was never compulsory (at least until Lincoln conscripted the slaves into the Union Army).

> The “militia” was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply
> another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th
> century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males
> between the ages of 18 and 45 -- hardly encompassing the entire
> population of the nation.

Once again, read for yourself the words of the Founders, and your assertion could not be more plainly wrong. The Militia, the armed populace (even between ages 18 and 45) represents a majority of the adult population at the time when the average life span was 50; it consisted largely of adult males but was not by law so exclusive. This might be relevant if the 2nd Amendment granted rights to the “militia” - but it clearly does not. In addition, neither we nor the Founders are prejudiced against women, and to younger people as well, that we would deny them their God given right to defend themselves and their families.

If history and common sense aren't enough, read the law itself.  Title 10 of the U.S. Code has the current and full legal definition of the "Militia," and it specifically excludes members of the Armed Forces and the National Guard.

> The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army,
> controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George
> III’s troops fresh in their minds, many of the “anti-Federalists”
> feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias
> were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second
> Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming
> the state militias.

(Go back and read the U.S. Constitution  again). Here are the relevant sections from Article 1, Section 8:

"10)  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term
 than two Years;  11)  To provide and maintain a Navy;  12)  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;  13)  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;  14)  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The Navy may be maintained permanently; its purpose is the defense of the nation from invasion by other naval forces, and to protect seagoing trade. The Armies are to be raised in time of war as needed. The Militia, under the supreme authority of the States, acts as directed by Congress to defend the land.

State militias or the National Guard did not exist until well into the 19th century. Militias were organized at what we would consider the "county" or "township" level. In fact, the Penna. State Constitution still recognizes the establishment of the township militia, and delegates an elected office for its leader.

Besides, I've already demonstrated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective, and when you read the quotes of the Founders and of numerous Court Decisions below, it will be perfectly clear that the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent the State or Federal Government from disarming the people.

The Myth of the Obsolete:

The Second Amendment was not written to protect any militia, it only refers to the fact that one is necessary.  It specifically does protect "the right of the people" - not the right of the militia.

And actually, we do have many active citizen militias of various sizes in nearly every state. Most do not seek out publicity since certain federal agencies have demonstrated severe prejudice against their members. The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism only to those Socialists and/or Imperialists who wish to overthrow our nation.

> Today's equivalent of a “well-regulated” militia -- the National Guard
> --  has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends
> on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control
> laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws
> invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military
> service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second
> Amendment issues.

This is because the 2nd Amendment applies to people, not National Guard units. The National Guard is a state level standing army, which requires an equivalently armed populace to balance its power. If you read the Federalist Papers, Jefferson's and Madison's writings, it is perfectly clear that the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the balance of power between the people and the government.

When you consider such atrocities as the Ruby Ridge murders, the Waco massacre (talk about killing innocent women and children), and when you have a federal administration which spearheads a bombing campaign against a sovereign nation (Kosovo, where on the average 13 civilians a day really were murdered, but with bombs), one must clearly see the need for balance of power. Today.

The Myth Of:

I'll bet you've never even read the decision !!!  Here are the relevant excerpts:

[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

"The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear
such a weapon."

Miller was indicted for transporting a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  There was no evidence introduced in any proceeding that this kind of weapon was useful to a citizen - militiaman, and the Court held that such utility wasn't so well-known that it could be judicially noticed.

There was no defense presented in court, so the judge ruled summarily against the defendant, Mr. Miller, who never actually appeared in court.  He disappeared before the trial and was never seen again.

The issue on trial was the legality of Mr. Miller's possession of a short barrel shotgun, and whether the Federal or State Governments may restrict possession of that particular type of firearm from the general public. Although the decision ruled that they may, (in clear contradiction to Andrews V. State; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14, 1871) the decision in no way refuted the 2nd Amendment from being the enumeration of an individual right.

Notice that the court said nothing contrary to the 2nd Amendment in general protecting an individual right.  It obviously presumes that it does.  The court simply refused to state that the possession of that one particular class of firearm was a protected right.  It did not even say specifically that it is not!  Had Miller showed up in court with evidence to demonstrate that the sawed-off shotgun was indeed a militarily useful weapon (ask any soldier or policeman today, he or she will concur that it is), the case would surely have been decided in his favor.

> THE RENEGADE DECISION: U.S. V. EMERSON
> On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R.
> Cummings restored a domestic abuser’s firearms, citing the Second
> Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The defendant, a doctor, was accused - not convicted - of abuse; his guns were seized because his wife filed for a PFA (Protection From Abuse court order).  This ruling, in favor of the individual right, is far from a "renegade" decision.

On June 13, 2000, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard oral argument in the Emerson case, in which Lubbock, Texas, Federal Judge Sam Cummings struck down part of the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment prohibiting persons under a restraining order from possessing firearms.

The government prosecutor has argued that the Second Amendment only applied to arms issued to militia members, in Dr. Timothy Emerson's case either the Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard.  Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., a George Bush appointee, told him he was misreading the 1939 Miller case.

The court held in Miller that there had been no evidence that Miller's sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type arm.  Nothing was said about the gun having to have been issued. Judge DeMoss asked the prosecutor if Dr. Emerson's Beretta 92 9mm pistol isn't the type used by armies. Of course, it's the standard U.S. army sidearm.

Judge DeMoss also raised a critical question that addresses the Tenth Amendment. "I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun, and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home. Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce?"

All Federal gun laws are based on the power of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The present Supreme Court has struck down several laws in a series of narrow decisions based on the Tenth Amendment's stipulation that powers not specifically delegated to Congress "are reserved to the states and the people, respectively."

Judge Robert M. Parker, appointed by President Carter, and to the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government:  "I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries."

November 19, 2000 Doctor not guilty of felony charges

West Texas man involved in federal case with gun rights implications; state prosecutors appeal.

By BEN MONTGOMERY  Staff Writer

A West Texas doctor who made national headlines because of a federal case with gun rights implications was cleared of state charges on Wednesday.  Dr. Tim Emerson was found not guilty of endangerment of a child and aggravated assault in State District Court by a Tom Green County jury made up of nine women and two men.

The two state felony charges were in addition to federal charges of possessing a firearm while under a restraining order in 1998.  The federal charges were thrown out by a trial judge, who cited in part that Emerson' Second Amendment rights were violated. It was federal court action that received attention from the National Rifle Association, law-enforcement officers, media and lawyer organizations.

Some legal scholars and historians even predicted the losing side would push Emerson's case all the way to the Supreme Court.  Following the case's dismissal, prosecutors appealed the case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Both the state and federal charges resulted from a conflict between Emerson and his ex-wife Sacha McSpadden.  In 1998, McSpadden filed for divorce. She alleged that Emerson had threatened her boyfriend and State District Judge John Sutton granted a temporary restraining order.

The judge had failed to warn Emerson, however, of a 1994 federal law that made gun possession illegal under a restraining order. Emerson had represented himself in the case, so no lawyer made him aware of the law that is intended to protect spouses during pending divorces.

According to Standard-Times reports, in November 1998, McSpadden showed up at the doctor's medical office at 14 South Jefferson Street with the couple's 4-year-old daughter.  Emerson said McSpadden barged into his office and would not leave when he asked. He then pulled a Beretta pistol out of a desk drawer and laid it on the desk.

According to Emerson, McSpadden insisted on going down the hallway to retrieve the daughter's shoes and socks. According to an affidavit, Emerson said he again warned McSpadden about trespassing and held the gun in the air, cocked it, then lowered it to his side.  Emerson said he brought the weapon to work because of threats from a patient he suspected of abusing pain medication.

During the trial, McSpadden, who has since remarried and lives in Sterling City, claimed Emerson aimed the gun at her and her daughter, hence the charges of aggravated assault and endangering a child.  Prosecutors argued that the case was one of domestic violence and that Emerson put McSpadden and his daughter in danger of their lives when he drew the weapon.  "It is time to send a message that there is no excuse for this kind of domestic violence," District Attorney Steve Lupton told jurors in closing arguments.

Defense attorneys said McSpadden and an accomplice planned to ruin the doctor's medical practice. They added that it is the law in the state of Texas that a person can defend his property.

The jury deliberated for just more than an hour before acquitting Emerson of both charges.

BELLEVUE, WA - In a stunning decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has crushed over 60 years of judicial misinterpretation and anti-gun rhetoric by finding that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right.

While the court's decision in U.S. v Emerson was to reverse and remand a lower court ruling that cleared Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson of a federal violation of the 1994 Domestic Violence Act, the 5th Circuit clearly ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear private arms, "regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of the militia."

Writing for the majority, Judge William Garwood noted that the government's long-standing interpretation of the 1939 Miller case, that the Second Amendment merely expresses a "collective right" is not supported by the actual Miller decision. He further noted that, "we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment."

Ihe decision was appelase to the Supreme Court.  In July of 2002, the supreme court declined to hear the appeal, and the original ruling by  Federal Judge Sam Cummings stands.  Well Done, your honor, Judge Cummings.
 

Here are a lot more "renegade" decisions and opinions:

'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free state. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.
-- Georgia Supreme Court
  NUNN V. STATE, 1 GA. (1 KEL.) 243, AT 251, 1846

...is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, ...it shall not be infringed by Congress.
-- United States Supreme Court
  US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 1876

...while the legislature has the power in the most comprehensive manner to regulate the carrying and use of firearms, that body has no power to constitute it a crime for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of himself and his property. The provisions in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law to the contrary.
-- Michigan Supreme Court; People vs. Zerillo, 219 MICH 635

An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.
-- Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.  No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.
-- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1942)

"If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity."
-- Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 US 262

"The Court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured rights."
-- Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them."
-- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
-- Miller v. U.S. 230 F.2d 486, 489

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.
-- Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)

The police power of the state to preserve public safety and peace and to regulate the bearing of arms cannot fairly be restricted to the mere establishment of conditions under which all sorts of weapons may be privately possessed, but it may account of the character and ordinary use of weapons and interdict those whose customary employment by individuals is to violate the law. The power is, of course subject to the limitation that its exercise be reasonable and it cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those arms which, by the common opinion and usage of law-abiding people, are proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the protection of person and property.
-- Michigan Supreme Court     PEOPLE V. BROWN, 253 MICH 537

The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government...
-- United States Supreme Court
  UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK;, 92 US 542, 1875

The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.
-- Tennessee Supreme Court
  ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14, 1871

...we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.
-- Alabama Supreme Court
  STATE V. REID, 1 ALA. 612, 619, 35 AM. DEC. 47, 1840

...the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.
-- Tennessee Supreme Court
  ANDRES V. STATE, 50 TENN. (3 Heisk) 165, 178;, 1871

The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the 'arms', an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power - such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. These are but little used now in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as 'arms', which the people have a right to bear.
-- North Carolina Supreme Court
  STATE V. KERNER, 181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25, 1921

If the text and purpose of the Constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia 'for defense of the State' then the terms 'arms' most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by the Colonial Militia Men.
-- Oregon Supreme Court
  STATE V. KESSLER, 289 OR. 359, 369, 614 P.2D 94, 99, 1980

To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
-- Arkansas Supreme Court
  WILSON V. STATE, 33 ARK 557, AT 560, 34 AM. REP.. 52, AT 54., 1878

The right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the federal constitution is not carried over into the fourteenth amendment so as to be applicable to the states.
-- Louisiana Supreme Court
  STATE V. AMOS, 343 SO. 2D 166, 168, 1977

How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
-- Joseph Story, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court -- Boston, 1833

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the united states as well as of the states, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, that states cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
-- Justice Woods, Illinois Supreme Court Justice
  Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 1986

... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the U.S.' The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...
-- United States Supreme Court
  U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez, 1990

Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
-- Louis Brandeis, United States Supreme Court Justice
  Whitney v. California, 1927

History teaches us that 'Trust us' is no guarantee of due process.
-- California Court of Appeals
  Sacramento, California

Early gun control laws were directed at oppressed peoples, such as slaves and freedmen, and the politically powerless, such as immigrants and religious minorities. California followed this pattern shortly after statehood by criminalizing the gift or sale of any gun to 'any Indian.' Such laws presume the proscribed class is likely to engage in crime.
-- California Court of Appeals
  Sacramento, California

[The right to bear arms is] the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
-- Joseph Story, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court

If these aren't enough, check out the Second Amendment Law Library.

Speaking of the Founders:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison, United States Congressman
  Federalist Paper No. 46, at 243-244

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
-- Elbridge Gerry, Signer of Declaration of Independence,
  Massachusetts Congressman, Vice President (1813-1814)
  Spoken during floor debate during States ratification of
  the Second Amendment., August 17, 1789

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, Statesman and Inventor, 1759

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms... The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
  Proposal of the Virginia Constitution, June 1776

... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of Freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?
-- Delegate Sedgwick, Massachusetts State Representative during the
Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing
army could prevail over a citizens' Militia, 1779

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, United States Congress, 1779

The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry; Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth.
-- George Washington, First President

In defense of our person and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
  Declaration on Taking Up Arms

... as the military forces which must be occasionally raised ... might pervert their power to injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
-- Tench Coxe; Editorial on the Second Amendment
  Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1789

... to disarm the people - that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
-- George Mason, United States Congress
  During Ratification of Bill of Rights, 1779

The Constitution of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour.
-- George Washington, First President
  Speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle

False is the idea of utility ... that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction of liberty. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
  'Commonplace Book', 1775

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops...
-- Noah Webster
  An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal
  Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention, 1787

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry
  During Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion ... in private self-defense.
-- John Adams, Second President of the United States
  A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
  of America, 1787-88

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.
-- George Washington, First President

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ...
-- Alexander Hamilton
  Speaking of standing armies in The Federalist 29

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison, United States Congressman
  Federalist Paper No. 46, at 243-244

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them ...
-- Thomas Paine; Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
-- Zachariah Johnson; 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry -- Debates in the Several State Conventions 45,
   2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
-- Alexander Hamilton
  The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government, if we could suppose that in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
-- Elbridge Gerry, Signer of Declaration of Independence,
  Massachusetts Congressman, Vice President (1813-1814)
  Speaking on the 2d Amendment (I Annals of Congress), August 17, 1789

Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
-- Patrick Henry
  (1736-1799) in his famous The War Inevitable speech, March 1775

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
-- George Tucker, Virginia Supreme Court Justice;   In I Blackstone
   COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.), 1803

... one of my personal favorites:

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States, 1803

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
  To George Washington, 1796

Other Historical Examples and Opinions:

A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca  c. 4BC - 65AD

An armed republic submits less easily to the rule of one of its citizens than a republic armed by foreign forces. Rome and Sparta were for many centuries well-armed and free. The Swiss are well-armed and enjoy great freedom. Among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible. It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants. ... Hence it comes about that all armed Prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed Prophets have been destroyed.
-- Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian political philosopher, statesman
  The Prince; 1513

Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to so great lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as it was legal natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights [the post-Cromwellian English Bill of Rights] to keep arms for their own defense; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
-- A Journal of the Times
  Colonial Boston newspaper article, (1768-1769)

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who things he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; also he lives precariously, nd
at discretion.
-- James Burgh
  Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors,
  Defects, and Abuses, London, 1774

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society; as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms and no possible disadvantage.
-- J. Barlow --  Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of
Europe: Resulting From the Necessity and Propriety of a General
Revolution in the Principle of Government, 1792

More Recent Opinions:

The great body of our citizens shoot less as time goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world...The first step -- in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come -- is  to teach men to shoot!
-- Theodore Roosevelt, President
  In his last message to Congress

What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear -- and long lost --  proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.
-- Orrin Hatch, United States Senator
  Preface, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms., 1982

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
-- John F. Kennedy

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible.
-- Hubert H Humprey, United States Senator (D-Minnesota) 1960

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
  Gandhi, An Autobiography, M. K. Gandhi, page 446

Liberalizing concealed carry laws won't lead to a return to the Wild West - though it wouldn't be bad if it did. ... in 19th Century cattle towns, homicide was confined to transient males who shot each other in saloon disturbances. The per capital robbery rate was 7% of modern New York City's. The burglary rate was 1%. Rape was unknown.
-- David Kopel , Research Director, Independence Institute
  Quoted in The Wall Street Journal, "Have Gun, Will Eat Out.",
  February 28, 1994

The data from the 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study suggest that 150,000 Americans die every year from doctors' negligence -- compared with 38,000 gun deaths annually. Why are doctors not declared a public health menace? Because they save more lives than they take. And so it is with guns. Every year, good Americans use guns about 2.5 million times to protect themselves and their families, which means 65 lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.
-- Edgar A. Suter, MD
  San Francisco Chronicle, Opinion, Page A17, July 12, 1994

A government that intended to protect the liberty of the people would not disarm them. A government planning the opposite most certainly and logically would disarm them. And so it has been in this century. Check out the history of Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Cambodia.
-- Charlie Reese, Syndicated Columnist

It's wrong for a few police chiefs to endorse the Brady Bill, or any legislation, and say they speak for everyone in law enforcement.
-- Bill Krulac, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper
  U.S. Capitol Rally, September 7, 1988

The authors take Dodge City in 1871, as the archetype of lawlessness in American history. Yet its murder rate was only half that of the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in 1990, a rate of 80 per 100,000 annually, meaning that your chances of being murdered over a lifetime in the city are about 1 in 16. Indeed, among children under 12, murder is now the leading cause of death in Washington.
-- Paul Johnson's review of the book "The Great Reckoning: How the World
Will Change in the Depression of the 1990's, by James Dale Davidson and
William Rees-Mogg, in the National Review., November 4, 1991

My inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed only by my ability to defend myself against those who wish to violate those rights.
-- RON STOKES, 27 year veteran of the Philadelphia Police

    You might also point out that Article I, Section 10 of the main body of the constitution PROHIBITS the states from maintaining military units without the express approval of CONGRESS.  Thus "state militias" in the model of the National Guard were prohibited, unless they were expressly approved by congress.
    Some might argue that the later Second Amendment was over-riding of that issue of Article I, Section 10, but in a historical context that cannot be true.  The Bill of Rights was put in the constitution to satisfy the reservations of some (not all) Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification of the constitution.  A primary concern of most people (including the Federalists) was dread of the very existence of standing armies, so it hardly seems they would have been guaranteeing the right to a standing army, as a palliative to people who opposed the concept.  And I could imagine the cries of the Anti-Federalists that "Your constitution isn't even ratified yet, and already you're changing your mind!" if the effect of the Second Amendment had been thought to override Article I, Section 10.  My extensive reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers of 1787 - 1788 shows not one breath of a sentence indicating that such a concept was even discussed, so ALL parties must have agreed that the Second Amendment was NOT permitting that which Article I, Section 10 prohibited.
    The National Guard as configured exists at the pleasure of congress, consistent with Article I, Section 10, and in no way is a "militia."
-- Andy Barniskis, May 22, 2000

The Myth Of:
> GUN CONTROL LAWS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Constitutional limits on rights all have one thing in common: they penalize those who abuse their rights and would inflict harm upon their fellow citizens. They may not be arbitrary. You cannot lawfully yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire because others may be injured or killed in a panic. You cannot shoot someone in the head (unless that person is trying to kill you) because, besides being morally wrong, it is already a serious offense in all 50 states.

What the Second Amendment, and Article 1 Section 21 of the Penna. Constitution say very clearly is that neither the state nor the federal government may question or infringe upon the the right of the citizens to buy, sell, own, carry, and use to defend their lives and properties, any form of militarily useful weapon. Unfortunately, the federal government, and many states and cities are currently in severe violation of the law due to the unconstitutional restrictions they have placed on the right to keep and bear arms.  It is only in the recent century that a few courts have upheld restrictions which are so utterly repugnant to the intent of the Founders.

What the government may and should do is remove from society those who commit violent crimes against the people. Anyone who is so dangerous that they must be prohibited from possessing a gun will have demonstrated that by committing or attempting to commit a violent crime. That person would be tried and convicted, then sentenced to prison, to remain there until that person is no longer a threat to society.

The Myths of the Killing of Children, and those evil assault rifles:

Let's put these into perspective.  The tragedies you cite are in reality extremely rare considering the size of the population, and especially rare compared to deaths by other causes.

Of those "30,000" deaths, half are suicides, most of which would succeed by other means without guns. Look at Japan which has virtually no civilian gun ownership, and 6 times the suicide rate of the US.  The majority of the remaining 15,000 are criminals shot by police or by their intended victims during the commission of a crime.  A small fraction of these deaths are actual homicide or accident victims.

Of the "12 Children a Day Killed" by guns, 70% of these "children" are 17 to 19 years old, shot by police or by their intended victim during the commission of a violent crime (typically drug or gang related crime). Good Riddance!  Many of the rest are suicides, some are genuine victims of violent crime, and a small fraction are accidents.

Accidental deaths by guns are incredibly rare compared to the total population, and children are: twice as likely to die by suffocation, or in a fire, or 3 times as likely to drown, or 7 times more likely to be poisoned, or 10 times more likely to die by falling, or 31 times more likely to die in an automobile, than to suffer accidental death by a gun.

And, Americans murder each other with cars, bats, fists, feet, knives and other improvised weapons 5 times more often than with guns.  When HCI says our murder rate is higher than other "industrialized" nations; it's still higher even if you discount the murders by gun.

It's not the weapon which is evil, it is the crime.

Crime is an Attitude and Behavior problem -- not a Hardware problem.

Oh yeah, about those "evil" assault weapons ... During the LA riots after the Rodney King beating trial, shop owners who sat on their roofs with military style rifles saved their businesses from certain destruction while other un-defended stores were looted and burned.

An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun (even though civilian semi-automatic look-alikes are frequently referred to as AK-47's), and is a medium power, not high power rifle. The average hunting rifle fires a much more powerful cartridge.  Also, AK-47's are not "available on the streets".  I challenge you to go try to buy a genuine military AK-47 "on the street".  If you can, I'll give you double the price for it (and then I'll have to arrest you!).

The Hollywood bank robbery of 1998 is one publicized event used to demonize "assault rifles" - except those thugs did not use the civilian semi-automatic military style look-alikes which the gun-grabbers want banned.  They had real machine guns - which to buy legally you need to pass an extensive FBI background check, get a permit from your county sheriff, pay a $200 transfer tax and register with the ATF, and cough up $4000 or more for each rifle.

More Qualified Opinions:

Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers.
-- Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ Deputy Chief

Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.
-- Joseph Constance, Trenton NJ Deputy Chief
  Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, August 1993

Firearms have been around for over 400 years, yet it is only in the last 20 years that people have begun shouting "gun control". Why then, only recently, has this  become such an issue? Moreover, why are there more mass-murderers than at any other time in our known history? It is not because weapons are more powerful -- 200-year-old muzzleloaders have a much greater force per round than today's "assault rifles". It is not because weapons are semi- or fully-automatic -- rapid-fire weapons have been available for most of the last century. It is not due to a lack of laws -- we have more "gun control" laws than ever. It IS, however, because we have chosen to focus on "gun control" instead of crime control or "thug control." It IS because only recently has the public become complacent enough to accept, by inaction, the violence present in our society.
-- Kevin Langston
  October 29, 1991

25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?
-- Andrew Ford

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.
-- William Burroughs, 1992

Please, we only want Registration!

I'm glad you brought that up. If we treated guns like cars:
 

You would not need a background check to buy a gun, and there would be no age restrictions.

You would not need to license or register a gun if you only keep it on your own property.

You could buy as many guns as you want, whenever you want to.

You could buy as much ammo as you can carry, no questions asked.

You can register your gun with a simple form that even an idiot can fill out, and never be refused.

You can take a very simple test and get a license to carry your gun anywhere in all 50 states and Canada with no hassles.

This would be an improvement over the current firearm laws in every state but Vermont.

You teach every child to stay out of the street, and when they're old enough, to look both ways before crossing the street, and when they're ready, you teach them to drive. This type of education works the same with children and guns. Children who learn about guns and gun safety from a responsible adult are far less likely to be accidentally injured or killed, or to use a gun irresponsibly.  Hey - that's what we all want, isn't it? And we already know how to accomplish it !

We see that registering cars does nothing to prevent criminal misuse. People still drive drunk; they rob banks and drive away. And, just last year, 20 miles from my house, a crazy man used his car to push another car into the path of an oncoming train. His ex-girlfriend, another woman and their two children in that car were killed - with a registered, licensed car.  (This occurred on April 20, 2000 in Reading, PA; the perpetrator was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison)

* Turkey established gun control in 1911.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

* The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.  From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* China established gun control in 1935.  From 1948 to 1976, 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

* Germany established gun control in 1938.  From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Cambodia established gun control in 1956.  From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

* Guatemala established gun control in 1964.  From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Uganda established gun control in 1970.  From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

In case you haven't noticed, Governments are responsible for killing many times more people than individuals are.  If anyone should be restricted from having guns, it should be the governments.  If that's not enough, the following quotes alone should make it perfectly clear to anyone with a brain why comprehensive gun registration must never be permitted to occur in this country.  Those who are promoting it have exposed their methods by mirroring these infamous propaganda techniques.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.

"... the rank and file are usually more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious ... The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly ... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." - Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA ... ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." - Hienrich Himmler.

"For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future !"  -- Adolf Hitler

Disclaimer: It's come to my attention that some have challenged the historical accuracy of this quote.  Even if they are not Hitler's actual words, they surely and correctly describe his philosophy and actions.

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz; March, 1933.

We all know what happened next in Germany.

If you do not learn from history, you WILL repeat it.

Any questions ? ? ?

New York City started requiring the registration of rifle and shotgun owners in 1967. Then in 1991, the city banned certain shotguns and rifles that had always been legal, and notified the effected 2,340 licensed citizens that they had to surrender their guns to government authorities or render them inoperable.

California started registering "assault rifles" in the mid 1990's after promising up and down that there would never be confiscation.  OOPS!  They really didn't mean that, so now that you're registered, you have 'till January 1, 2001 to turn them in.

Canada started registering all rifles and handguns in the mid 1990's after promising up and down that there would never be confiscation.  OOPS!  They really didn't mean that either, so now that you're registered, you have 'till January 1, 2001 to turn in this year's selected list of makes and models.  And just so you know, they're already working on next year's list.

Even where confiscation has not yet resulted in massacres, the violent crime rate always rises sharply against a newly defenseless population, as was clearly demonstrated recently in England and Australia.

On the other hand, the government of Kosovo disarmed the Albanians just a few years ago and you know what happened to them.  (By the way, if you want to know what the war in Kosovo was really about, try researching the Stari Trg Mining Complex, just north of Pristina).

"Children" intent on committing violence will get guns out of locked cabinets or find other weapons to use.  There's no hurry, they can take all the time they want to get their hands on a weapon.

But if you have an emergency and need a gun to defend yourself -- and it's "safely" locked away -- you're in big trouble if you can't get it quickly when you need it.

California already has "safe storage" laws.  Saved any lives?  Not that we know of.  Cost any?  Just ask 14-year-old Jessica Carpenter of Merced, Calif. who watched a crazy man with a pitchfork murder two of her siblings, John William and Ashley Danielle Carpenter, and seriously injure a third.  There were guns in the house and she was an experienced shooter who could have stopped the attack.  But the guns were "safely" locked away because her father was afraid of persecution by the California police.

If you really cared about the children, you would be outraged and this story would have been plastered all over the nightly news.  Instead, the silence is deafening, and the situation is perfectly clear.

The truth of this matter is that to you, Elaine Lisle and the rest of your "Commie Mommies," those children were an "acceptable loss" -- just as all other defenseless victims are.  The real motive for "safe storage" laws is to protect the "authorities" who plan to confiscate those registered firearms from their rightful owners who might forcefully defend their property.
 

Conclusions?

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! -- You have already proved that you know nothing about the Founders, and you are drawing inaccurate conclusions from a few carefully worded surveys. Most Americans are very aware that criminals don't obey the law, including gun control laws. They want criminals to be prosecuted for their crimes; they want all forms of violence including gun violence reduced. They are clearly aware that the only effective means of reducing violence is to imprison those who commit such crimes.

If you've read this far, you should have new insight into what the Founders meant. If you can comprehend the historical tendency of gun control, you see how it never protects the public, and the price is often staggering.

I formally challenge you -- and anyone out there -- to refute any of my arguments, and to prove that any of the "gun control" measures touted by your buddies at HCI would accomplish any net gain in safety.  Remember that ordinary citizens prevent millions of crimes each year -- many thousands of rapes and murders are prevented because the intended victim was armed.

If your "gun control" saves one life, but costs the life of just one person who was defenseless because of it -- is it worth it?  Besides, who the hell do you think you are that you can impose your policy which determines who lives and who doesn't?

If your "gun control" saves one life, but costs thousands of others -- is it worth it?

Are you willing to be one of those thousands?

I am not.

So, do you have the "balls" to do the research and get the facts - any facts - which refute any of my positions?

       E-Mail Me!       I'm Listening !

Doc's Home Page