Why do you own a gun?

[Roadkill]

Wish I could take credit-I just found it. Link posted below.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm not going to parse it word by wordâ??or on second thoughts, maybe I should, given all the crap that liberal idiots have tried to throw over its intent. Let's deal with the low-hanging fruit first.

The "militia" does not mean the frigging National Guard, which came into being over 150 years after the American Revolution. There are essentially two versions of the word militia: the way it was understood by the Founding Fathers and other original patriots, and the actual legal definition.

For the former, we only have to rely on the actual words of one of them (and the others agreed, as you will see):

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

That's the firebrand Patrick Henry. He makes no mention of state governments, nor of standing armies (like the National Guard), which the Founding Fathers regarded with as much liking as for a snake in a bedroll.

The United States Code of Law narrows the definition somewhat, but not overly so:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..."

~~Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

Note that the U.S.C. doesn't say "as maintained by state government" or any other nonsenseâ??it's an unequivocal statement of all able-bodied males.

Oh, and one more thing about that pesky first phrase: "regulated" does not mean "beset by rules and laws". In 18th-century English, "regulated" meant "trained and equipped", in other words, ready for action. Hell, we've even lost that because of the abolition of the military draft. Aaargh.

Now for the next phrase of note, the "security of a free State" one. Note that security of a free State does not just mean of the country as a wholeâ??but by using that other pesky word, "free", the Founders made it plain that the whole concept of a free state is that which requires security. It doesn't just mean a state free from Nazi tyranny, for example, but also a state inherently free, from its own government if necessary.

How do I know they meant that? Let's roll the tape, Simon:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

-- Alexander Hamilton.

Need another?

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson.

And one last one:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

-- John Adams.

Those phrases make the blood of government lackeys run cold, or rather, they should.

Now for the penultimate phrase: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Not just "the people who can afford to buy a gun license", or "only the police," or "only Mayor Daley's bodyguards"â??it says, "the people" without qualification. Can't be much plainer than that, reallyâ?¦

â?¦ except perhaps for the last phrase: "shall not be infringed." Note carefully that the Second does not say, "Congress shall not" or "government shall not" or "Mayor Daley shall not". The use of the passive voice is quite intentional: it is a clear, universal statement that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be circumscribed, by anyone or by any institution.

It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State.

http://www.battlerifles.com/viewtopic.php?t=19329

rk

[Greg]

RK,

That is one of the best commentaries that I have ever read regarding the Second Amendment. It ought to find a permanent place within the Forum.

Thanks,

Greg

[Steve Richards]

I agree with Roadkill completely in his analysis. However, I take exception to the claim that all liberals are idiots and the implication that all are anti gun. I may be asked to leave this forum but I will state that I am a liberal and probably always will be.

[Tim]

RK,
I've been an occasional visitor to this forum for some time. I am frequently impressed when I read your posts, but this is possibly the most succinct and clearly elucidated description of the second amendment I've read. I checked the link, and am glad you chose to include it here. If I'm ever in Huntsville, I'd be happy to buy you a beer.

In addition to all of the social and political reasons for owning firearms, I'd like to add that some (particularly Luger pistols) are marvels of engineering and craftsmanship. I like my lugers for the same reason I drive a 40 year old porsche, over engineered, beautiful (dare I say, sexy lines), reliable and functional. What more could one ask for?

[PACKET]

What an exceptional treatise on the Second Amemdment! My hat is off to you Roadkill. Unfortunately, you are preaching to the choir. I believe that most politicians know full well the intent of the 2nd, but too many of them just cant bear the thought of the common folk bearing arms. They will continue to spin the truth of the 2nd knowing that most Americans are ignorant of the writings of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Adams. The courts will interpret the amendment to their liking and continue to infringe on our rights. After all, in a politically correct country, we just cant let the people own guns. The cant be trusted with them. The politicians are rightfully afraid of armed citizens who know whats going on. They are only interested in holding on to their power, and armed citizens are their only real threat.

[lugerholsterrepair]

RK, Great thread! Well put. We should all keep this in mind when Government jack booted liberal thugsin black ski masks storm our houses to take our guns( We're the Government, we are here to help you!) and we have to lay down their lives for our freedoms. It could come to that. I hear Hitlary is threatening to run for the Presidency.

Steve, We certainly would not want you to leave our Forum...All are welcome to come together to learn and discuss our favorite subject. I would not want to see politics come between us. As a Republican Conservative I pity anyone who will not see the forest for the trees. Liberalism and political correctness will be the ruin of a once fine country. If Hitlery is elected you will see a change in America similar to the rise of National Socialism in 1930's Germany. Jerry Burney

[ToggleTop]

Well there are two things I will not discuss, religion and politics. I will keep my gun, the problem is what will it cost me? You see I'm already starting to get into politics! Like I said I will keep my gun, but what will it cost me? By the way I could write a book on this subject but what would it be worth. I am a firm believer, I will keep my gun but what will it cost me? Why should I have to pay for a Handgun Carry Permit to protect myself and my family. Oh, this burns my ass like a 3 foot flame. The criminal doesn't pay. Like I said I will keep my gun but what will it cost me? And it ain't over yet!
I buy ammunition at Walmart and what does the clerk ask me? Are you going to use this in a handgun or rifle. I like to have melted in front of the counter. I asked why do you need to know, the reply was we have to ask the question. I told the clerk I would not answer the question, I would go somewhere else to buy the ammunition. I was speaking to the clerk in a broken voice, I told the clerk I could use half of it in a handgun and the other half in a rifle how would they know. The clerk said OK I will put down hangun. I said "no" why don't you enter rifle! I paid for the box of 50 .22 cal. shells which included of course the unexplained ammunition tax and left shaking my head. Like I said I will keep my gun but what will it cost.
As to why I own a gun, well it's like a good dog, I just like them. As individuals we all have to take a stand, right or wrong. It is our given right. As to who is right, I don't care but I will take my stand. For some reason I get the feeling I missed the whole point here. My right to own a gun is not on very solid ground.

Viele Gr�¼sse,

[susan]

rk;
excellent! thank you! a great reference to have when one gets tounge tied trying to explain these concepts. i'd like to print this, and read it to my children.
susan

[John Sabato]

I intend to print it and carry it in my wallet... and every time an anti-gunner starts talking about the subject I will just make him a gift of it...

Thanks RK.

[schwob]

R.K., you get a big gold star for your prose. I would offer another to Jerry for his reference to Hitlary. Keep your powder dry.....ME.

[Heydrich]

I own a few because they are a pathway to something way more valuable than all the firearms ever made: books and knowledge. I find myself growing bored with even the nice pieces I have in my small collection, but reading books and doing new research I never get tired of. And I honestly think that if you really want to impress someone, you do it better by elucidating your knowledge of a subject, instead of showing off rare items you might not know jack about.

Spot on legality argument up there RK. Except you left out one important detail that is mentioned in the objective history books. They actually really meant: all able-bodied white males at least 17 years of age – back then. God knows there was racism in the 18th century, but political pressure from the Southern states also played in here. I’ll refrain from vilifying the South for this (way too easy and satisfying anyway), since I realize a lot of people from that region post here, and I don’t want a Confederate boot to my butt.

And idiots like Tipper Gore and Dianne Feinstein are two reasons I don’t like watching the news much any more. I can feel my blood pressure rising if either of them is on the air talking. And ever since the 80s when Tipper tried to ban heavy metal music, I’ve really wanted to show the bird finger right to her face, and shout at her the two word meaning of that universal hand gesture, with her first name added in. Completely immature behavior, but God I’d feel better. Maybe one day.

[lugerholsterrepair]

Two years ago â?? on September 27, 2001 â?? a lone gunman shot and killed shot 14 people in the cantonal parliament in Zug, near Zurich. To the Swiss justice minister, Ruth Metzler, the country's liberal gun laws were responsible. Joined by the Swiss People's party, the Radical party, and the Swiss business federation, Metzler has called for registering guns, banning others, and tightening controls on buying guns as obvious solutions to make sure nothing like that happens again.


Ever since Switzerland's founding in 1291, an armed citizenry has been a cornerstone of its defense. The Swiss Militia also inspired American revolutionaries from John Adams to Patrick Henry and served as the model for the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which 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."

The tradition still lives in Switzerland today. All able-bodied males from 20 to 42 years of age are required to keep rifles or handguns at home. Gun shops are everywhere. A Zurich tourist brochure recommends people visit September's Knabenschiessen (a young person's shooting contest): "The oldest Zurich tradition . . . consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fair."

Yet, Swiss gun laws have already started to give up some of this freedom that they are so well know for. In January 1999, nationwide regulations greatly restricted people's ability to carry concealed handguns. But the new proposals â?? including registration â?? represent the greatest challenge to Swiss traditions. As some Swiss point out, registration in other countries has often preceded confiscation.

Registration could supposedly help identify criminals and prevent them from getting guns. For example, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, registration could allow it to be traced back to the criminal who used it.

Nice theory, but it just doesn't work. Despite spending tens or even hundreds of thousands of man-hours by police administering these laws in different areas of the United States (such as Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.), there is not even a single case where the laws have been key in identifying someone who has committed a crime.

Other countries have experienced similar problems. In Canada from 1997 to 2001, only in 3 percent of handgun murders there was it even possible that the weapon might have been registered to the perpetrator and no evidence is available on how helpful registration was in any of those cases.

The difficulties are very simple to understand. Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. In the few cases where guns have been left at the crime scene, they are not registered. It should come as no surprise that would-be criminals virtually never register their weapons. They are simply not that stupid, and try their best to keep away from authorities.

While tighter controls on purchasing guns may allay some people's fears, there is not a single academic study showing that background checks reduce violent crime. What really deters criminals are higher arrest and conviction rates and longer prison sentences for the crime, not increasing penalties for how the crime was committed.

The irony is that to stop crime Switzerland is seeking to emulate the strict gun-control regulations of its neighbors, when the reverse should be the case. Neighboring Austria, France, Germany, and Italy, all with stricter gun-control laws, had murder rates during 2000 that were 21 to 112 percent higher than Switzerland's. With the exception of Austria, they all also have far higher robbery rates. Only Italy had fewer reported rapes. In England and Wales, where handguns are totally banned and few people are allowed to own rifles or shotguns, the murder rate was 68 percent higher, the rape rate 188 percent higher, and the robbery rate a staggering 493 percent higher.

If Switzerland has made any mistake, it is that their gun-control laws are already too strict. After Jan. 1, 1999, Swiss concealed-handgun owners were required to have a permit and had to demonstrate to the authorities that they needed a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precise danger. The folly of taking comfort in regulation is clear, however: Was anyone made safer by the fact that the Zug attack took place in an area where guns were banned, a so-called "gun-free safe zone"?

If even one of the people in the Zug parliament had been armed, could the attack have been stopped? This should not be too surprising: Suppose you or your family is being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying "This Home is a Gun-Free Zone"?

It is pretty obvious why we don't put these signs up. As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm.

American politicians also understand this. From congressmen at the U.S. capitol to state representatives and city councilmen in state capitols and city halls, politicians across most of the county allow themselves to carry guns for protection.

My new book, The Bias Against Guns, examines multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and finds that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks, while fairly rare, fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent. When attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned.

While the emotional response to passing even more gun laws is understandable, laws that primarily disarm law-abiding citizens relative to criminals can have perverse effects. Switzerland has long had one of the lowest murder rates in Europe and part of that may be precisely because they trust their citizens to defend themselves. Even more perverse is how gun control can create problems that lead to calls for still further regulations. Instead of making citizens safer, gun-control laws can leave them as sitting ducks.

â?? John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns

[G.W. Gill]

"Spot on perspective"... In the 18"th century; The northern states prospered from the political weakness of those Southern people and the sustenance of the enslaved population at a great profit. Ownership of the enslaved , Bosten Beans, the building of OUR Gov't Buildings, ect. DON'T judge them by our standards. Another reminder, THREE OUT OF FOUR gunshot wounds were to the folk's that attacked the Southern people when they had had enough...And the odds were like Ten to One. (THAT WAS SATISFYING) How about a pathway to .... TRUCE.

[G.W. Gill]

Sorry, It was just a Southern boot to someones ...

[Heydrich]

... butt. Boot kick from Johnny Reb dually noted and received GW. I only mentioned the Old South because of the effect it had on the Second Amendment. But next time I’ll leave the Yankee pontificating out. What’s ironic about this is that the state I live in now turned Confederate for the Civil War.

And LHR, great post, thanks for sharing. I liked the overview that was made with Switzerland.

[lugerholsterrepair]

Tac, Sorry I left Scotland out but the article I included was about Switzerland. If I wanted to include every henious act of mass murder by a deranged gunman I know about, Scotland would be way down on the list , starting with American atrocities. Born in America, it has spread to nutcases all over the World. Conceled carry is almost the only defense against this threat but our benovelent Government is too blind to see. Soon, we here in America will follow in the footsteps of other shortsighted tyrannies and ban guns from the solid citizens and leave them to the criminal element. I may choose to change sides at that time. Jerry Burney