"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

chris April 27th, 2007 12:04 pm "We need to clarify that it is ok for the gun nuts to own guns provided that there are restrictions."
Well gun hater chris you need to read the 2nd amend and tell me where it states a person must be in a militia to exercise their right to bear arms. The 2nd amend does not say the right of the militia, it states the right of the people. The same people in the 1st amend and other amendments.
The militia lie is just another way gun haters attack a right.

Well, Jagermann, you caught me in an embarrassing mistake. Congratulations. However, whether the militia is well "organized" or well "regulated" doesn't change the basic fact that the Second Amendment is defined in terms of a militia and not as a general right of every individual. The Framers chose their words carefully. If they'd meant to grant an unrestricted right to firearms ownership, they'd have done just that instead adding the qualifier.
Moreover, in the original debates over the Bill of Rights it's clear that the primary purpose of the militias was regarded to be suppression of armed rebellion by the citizens, not the support of an armed resistance to the government. That's exactly how the militia was used in 1786: to put down Shay's Rebellion (against the federal government.)
But frankly I don't care about the antique meaning of the Second Amendment. Whatever purpose it may have served is no longer relevant in an era when one deranged person can erase thirty innocent people in a matter of minutes. What does matter is the fact that in a free society your rights don't include threatening my safety or that of my family, which you do each time you add to the flood of deadly weapons in this country. Since you and the other gun nuts don't care about other people's safety, as long as you can indulge your ridiculous Ramboesque fantasies, my aim is find and organize sane, like minded people so that eventually we can take your dangerous toys away from you.
Hunting's a dying activity, I'm happy to say. An increasing majority of Americans favor laws that regulate gun ownership, and that majority gets a little larger each time another psycho massacres a bunch of people using weapons that you claim make us safer. Just as it has in nearly every other civilized nation, the day will come even in this benighted land, when all you psychos will be disarmed.

Now one must assume that before one can be considered to be oppressed by the government tyrrany that one would have to know what that statement means. Everyone is not stated in the constitution, but a construct of your own. We can't argue starting with your warped interpretation, because it is flawed from the start. Some people being more equal that others is another construct of your own. And I don't hug my gun, but rather stroke the trigger lightly when I want to discharge it. Get a clue.

We can absolutely talk about legal ages when the law states that you must be of legal age to purchase or own a firearm. If we don't start with the laws we have then you are conceding that there is anarchy and that puts the need for gun ownership and self preservation at the top of the list. Using such firepower to oppress others or to gain the respect of hoodlum friends is to be resisted. How? By the appropriate use of firearms.

And the idea that given our country's military firepower, which I will concede is intimidating and horrendous to the thinking man, does not imply that it can not be resisted by the use of rifles and pistols. Or roadside bombs made from the powder derrived therefrom. Or haven't you been keeping up on the resistance to our overwhelming mis-use of our military munitions in Iraq & Israel?

Liberal Gun Owner 7:04 pm
'William C, where the heck are you going with your inane questions?!!
We must all assume you are speaking of black males of legal age, if not then they are criminals, and the fault goes back on those charged with enforcement.
So what is your stinking point?'

My questions are directed, annoying little mind, to the central point I stated at the outset. If you assume there is a basic human right to take up arms to protect oneself and to prevent government tyranny, then EVERYONE has that right. True? Not just middle-aged, white, paranoid, divorced, male misogynisists that make up the NRA: EVERYONE has the right, correct? And the term EVERYONE, presumably includes the groups of people that are most likely to be victims of crimes and victims of tyranny, which, in our society, is black, teenage males. Correct? One cannot talk about "legal ages", as your tried to do, when the discussion is about basic rights, because EVERYONE has the same basic, human rights. Isn't that correct? Including black teenage males, correct?

Or, little mind, is it your opinion that some people are more equal than others?

It stuns me that you gun huggers--at least the ones posting here--seem to have so little awareness of the logical inconsistencies they so persistantly spout. I wonder if that comes from reading American Rifleman; it'll rot your little mind, you know.

Darren is your typical gun nut when the argument is weak, change the subject l was talking 2nd Amendment he counters with a comment about the Fourth. Let´s get together on what we can agree on weaponsñ used for sport or self defense seem to me permissible, weapons used in the commission of a crime ie rape, assault, robbery, etc. must be discourage and those who provide those weapons must be held accountable. Now how can we do that_

William C, where the heck are you going with your inane questions?!!
In many states in the southwest, bearing arms is perfectly legal, as long as they are in plain sight. Those are not the guns people need to worry about. Even those worn by concealed carry permitted folks one needn't worry about.

So the heck what?!! We must all assume you are speaking of black males of legal age, if not then they are criminals, and the fault goes back on those charged with enforcement.

So what is your stinking point? Make it or stop typing you annoying little man. Or are you off your meds too and ticked off that they wouldn't sell you a pistol the minute you walked into the gun shop?!!

I'm not clear want point you're trying to make with the Monty Python skit, Darren, so I still don't know where you stand on concrete points, even though I have asked three or four times for clarification. I wonder if you have a problem reading, focusing, or following a line of argument. Or perhaps you are able to deal only in vague generalities rather than specifics.

So let me ask once more to see if we can get a yes or no out of you: 1)Given that their demographic group is the most likely a)to need self-protection and b) most likely to experience government tyranny in the form of arbitrary arrest: In your opinion, do black, male teenagers have a fundamental, basic unabridgable human right to "keep and bear" arms? 2)And doesn't the word "bear" imply the right to carry them on one's person? 3)And doesn't the word "right" imply that the government cannot legitimately require you, them, or anyone else to obtain a permit? 4)And doesn't the phrase "shall not be abridged" reinforce this notion?

I'm frankly appalled that you have apparently given no thought to these points, or if you have, that you decline to provide answers.

(Oh, and do you know the difference between "your" and "you're"?)

WmC, Darren is right on about you.
First, you probably shouldn't believe everything your government tells you via their corporate cronie owned business partners, the media.

Second w.r.t.: "With regard to a basic human right to take up arms against a democratically elected government or its law enforcement agencies, there is none. In my opinion, child molesters such as David Koresh do not have it. Federal building bombers such as Timothy McVeigh do not. The Black Panthers do not. Patricia Hearst's Symbionese Liberation Army does not. Abortion clinic bombers like Eric Rudolph do not. Which of these parties in your opinion DO have the right? All of them?"
Before any of the groups you mentioned committed any alleged crimes, they all had the right to bear arms. Or don't you understand the wording of the constitution?

Your logic is flawed, and I'm glad I don't live in your amerika: land of the shoeple, home of the oppressed cowards, though you and the Dr. César Chelala are doing your best to give up your huevos and take those of everyone else too. The very people who founded this country were criminals in the eyes of the establishment of England. However they understood oppression and fought against it. I refuse to give up my right to do so as well.

As to your question:
You see, the problem you gun huggers are going to have if the Supreme Court ever DOES recognize the second amendment as a basic human right: that will mean EVERYONE is entitled to that same right without regard to race, religion, age, degree of mental incapacity, or history of alcoholism, drug abuse, or violent behavior. You really think the Supreme Court will take this position? More importantly, do you really WANT them to take this position?

I believe they have taken that position, and as a responsible gun owner I see that as a good thing. You see, the law was already written w.r.t. the issue of mentally deranged folks purchasing firearms. The law you wish to resort to for your protection didn't work. Now, had several students at VT been packing, or better, had everyone been compelled to carry a gun, Cho would have pulled the trigger on himself after taking that picture instead of risking his chicken neck in a real fair gunfight. It is my opinion that had some students been firearm savvy, they would have recognized their opportunity and broken his arm with the benefit of surprise when he tried to enter the second room. Or would have attacked him whenhe was reloading. Why? because they would have known he was in fact vulnerable. If he had made it that far given that someone in the first room would likely have taken him out beforehand. Where were the police you expect to protect people? 15 minutes away. Who did they protect? No one! And to my point,when Cho found out that the fight was about to even up, the deranged gunman took himself out first.

I don't know what part of central or south america Dr. Cesar Chelala is from, but I do know that every one of those countries is corrupt and has problems that stem from official oppression and corruption. I for one do not want the U.S. to be like them, but I do know that as soon as the guns are taken away from the people that they are subjects and not citizens. Their circumstances and their subject lifestyle leads them to want to come here where equality was earned through a better idea and a lot of bloodshed.

WmC, Darren is right on about you.
First, you probably shouldn't believe everything your government tells you via their corporate cronie owned business partners, the media.

Second w.r.t.: "With regard to a basic human right to take up arms against a democratically elected government or its law enforcement agencies, there is none. In my opinion, child molesters such as David Koresh do not have it. Federal building bombers such as Timothy McVeigh do not. The Black Panthers do not. Patricia Hearst's Symbionese Liberation Army does not. Abortion clinic bombers like Eric Rudolph do not. Which of these parties in your opinion DO have the right? All of them?"
Before any of the groups you mentioned committed any alleged crimes, they all had the right to bear arms. Or don't you understand the wording of the constitution?

Your logic is flawed, and I'm glad I don't live in your amerika: land of the shoeple, home of the oppressed cowards, though you and the Dr. César Chelala are doing your best to give up your huevos and take those of everyone else too. The very people who founded this country were criminals in the eyes of the establishment of England. However they understood oppression and fought against it. I refuse to give up my right to do so as well.

As to your question:
You see, the problem you gun huggers are going to have if the Supreme Court ever DOES recognize the second amendment as a basic human right: that will mean EVERYONE is entitled to that same right without regard to race, religion, age, degree of mental incapacity, or history of alcoholism, drug abuse, or violent behavior. You really think the Supreme Court will take this position? More importantly, do you really WANT them to take this position?

I believe they have taken that position, and as a responsible gun owner I see that as a good thing. You see, the law was already written w.r.t. the issue of mentally deranged folks purchasing firearms. The law you wish to resort to for your protection didn't work. Now, had several students at VT been packing, or better, had everyone been compelled to carry a gun, Cho would have pulled the trigger on himself after taking that picture instead of risking his chicken neck in a real fair gunfight. It is my opinion that had some students been firearm savvy, they would have recognized their opportunity and broken his arm with the benefit of surprise when he tried to enter the second room. Or would have attacked him whenhe was reloading. Why? because they would have known he was in fact vulnerable. If he had made it that far given that someone in the first room would likely have taken him out beforehand. Where were the police you expect to protect people? 15 minutes away. Who did they protect? No one! And to my point,when Cho found out that the fight was about to even up, the deranged gunman took himself out first.

It's obvious to me from this discussion, and I believe well documented sociologically, that people who advocate gun ownership genrally perceive the world and the people in it as fundamentally violent and dangerous, with hidden danger constantly lurking ready to spring out at them. Those who do not advocate gun ownership believe that generally the world's problems can be solved by means other than violence - that people have other, stronger resources they can draw on.

The former group ceaselessly points to violent events in the world and in history, with varying degrees of relevant context, as proof that "reality" is on their side, ignoring that it's been business as usual - huge US arms market, imperialistic national policies, individualistic US culture, violence-filled US media - that has in large part brought the world to be gun-filled and increasingly violent.

Having college students carry concealed handguns as an antidote to other students already carrying handguns, filling the whole ecosystem of college campuses and higher learning with dangerous weapons, carried by all-too-human people with emotions that will naturally get out of control in various situations in life, is an NRA masturbation fantasy, idiotic in the extreme.

Answers lie in the direction of both dealing with the root causes of violence and in limiting the weapons which make it easy. It would also be extremely helpful for gun advocates to stop envisioning modern life and structuring their own as if it were 1775 or as if wild west frontier mentality were a good thing which is relevant to today.

And yes, governments can and occasionally do become despotic and control their citizens through force and terror, and the US government is on that road. But the truth is that no amount of citizens packing heat can stand up to the huge, sickening firepower of the national arsenal of a country like the US - attack helicopters and jets, missiles, "advanced" ray weapons which cause pain under the skin and disable victims, cluster bombs, mines, etc. etc. etc. etc. I'm sorry to inform all the types here, who envision themselves with wife and kids pointing rifles and handguns out the windows at the oncoming injuns/government agents, that they will be largely ineffective against a modern police state, and such a state will make our lives hell in many different ways which will have little to do with immediate personal protection.

There are two choices therefore: keep encouraging more and more proliferation of bigger and more dangerous weapons even among the common citizenry, making violence purposeful or accidental ever more likely; or start inculcating values in people which steer us away from respect for guns and from the worldview of violence, making the police state and the campus lunatic decreasingly likely.

The liberal-authoritarians (as opposed to progressive-populists) would be better suited in today's day and age in aiming their vitriol above, rather than below. The US is the leading arms exporter, we've basically been in a war-time economy for the better part of a century, the military industrial complex runs D.C. Our Executive Branch is in a shambles. As for "democratically elected government", we don't have that either. Bush lost the popular vote, we're a "modern" democracy that can count votes overnight and declare a winner, but cannot really recount them at all. We don't have sufficient safeguards, papertrails, and genuine open source voting machinery, etc.

We need to call upon US leaders to end unjust wars, ban the use of landmines, quit supporting rogue/narco-states, shut down the School of the Americas, end nuclear proliferation, return us to a peacetime economy, return the habeas corpus, end torture, shut down secret prisons, return privacy and civil liberties, etc.

Asking Joe Sixpacks to give up his shotgun, rifle or handgun first rather than after significant progress on the aforementioned issues has been made is awfully frightening.

Labor camps would appear to be next?

Well, Liberal Gun Owner 7:16 am, since Darren appears unable to answer a simple yes or no question for me, perhaps you can.

With regard to a basic human right to take up arms against a democratically elected government or its law enforcement agencies, there is none. In my opinion, child molesters such as David Koresh do not have it. Federal building bombers such as Timothy McVeigh do not. The Black Panthers do not. Patricia Hearst's Symbionese Liberation Army does not. Abortion clinic bombers like Eric Rudolph do not. Which of these parties in your opinion DO have the right? All of them?

And another question that Darren seems to be unable to answer was this one: "Since black make teenagers are the demographic group most likely to be victims of crime and also the most likely to be victims of a tyrannical government in the form of arbitrary arrests, are they assumed to have an unabridgeable right to "keep and bear arms"?

You see, the problem you gun huggers are going to have if the Supreme Court ever DOES recognize the second amendment as a basic human right: that will mean EVERYONE is entitled to that same right without regard to race, religion, age, degree of mental incapacity, or history of alcoholism, drug abuse, or violent behavior. You really think the Supreme Court will take this position? More importantly, do you really WANT them to take this position?

About the Olden days WELL REGULATED MILITIA the Gunnnies like to talk about. Here In Central Pennsylvania I know of at least 2 times where Native Americans were massacred > Somewhere in one some book about PA. there is a story about putting the last Susquehanock into a local jail to protect him from being murdered. There was another incident were good Obey the law citizens broke into the Carlisle jail and took out a Native American that never had a trial.

True these incidents happen before our Constitution,but it doesn't take that much digging to see even worse things happen afterwards. Especially if you happen to be an African Or Native American those gunnies could kill you and never even get their hands slapped for doing it.

Another thing, why is it only Americans that have never been convicted of a crime can own a gun? A person that has been convicted has to pay taxes, has the right to marry,earn a living, many states vote ,Yet he or she can never enjoy the thrill of discharging a firearm into a deer.
If every person that ever broke the law but wasn't caught or tried.There might only be a couple of thousand guns in this whole USA. Don't Laugh You know you got away with that crime MR, Or MRs.

Besides if we are attacked by blood thirsty Eskimos from Brazil you Legal gunnies well regulated militia wouldn't venture out your own domain to help any non gun owner anyway and you know it.
You gunnies just talk a good game. If the deer had firearms to protect themselves many of our gunnies would gladly give up hunting.

Yes, it was a outright shame about those 3o some victims including the killer. Where was That Well Regulated Militia?
Ah I Give Up
genaman

Hey WmC,
"Individuals DO, however, have a right to leave a country which is a tyranny, and this is a right–as I recall–recognized by the UN. And the UN obligates countries to open their borders to human rights refugees."

Like they had in Europe when the Nazi's, their sympathizers, and other small minded, lesser educated folks scapegoated them as the cause of their problems? Remember that Hitler in 1939 had all guns in Germany registered. And also remember how the Germans, by and large, didn't want to know what was going on and didn't do much to stop the atrocities. Now, to refresh your memory, once the persecution started, those of the persecuted with guns had a better chance of escaping and/or fighting back.

Personally, I will not place my safety or that of my family in your or any other shoeple's hands. With regard to this issue, if you want to take my gun, come to my house and try! (Fair warning, you or anyone you try to send will end up leaving toes first with more holes in you than when you came.) This does not mean that I will go off and shoot someone undeserving, to be clear, however, it does mean that I refuse to be a servant.

We can't always just vote someone out. Wasserman's work in Ohio and others before in Florida after the 2000 election have proven that. In times of constitutional crisis like we're headed for now, I would be in that militia, and you, most likely would be pushing up daisies or cooking brownnies for your opressors. Shame on you.

As for expecting the UN to protect and enforce your or anyone else's rights, you are purely delusional, and not living in this real world. In fact we, who represent the America the rest of the world sees, don't respect the UN and don't defer to it as you imply, unless it suits us. That seems to put many of us at odds with our government. A government that you would apparently give up your right to protect yourself to, and get on your knees for, rather than fight to be responsible for your own human rights.

"You are correct in your assumption. Americans do not have a basic human right to take up arms against a democratically elected government or its law enforcement agencies."

Like the founding father's said, ...to paraphrase: blood will likely need to be shed on the altar of freedom every couple of generations. Seems like we're at least about 3 generations overdue.

And the point about cops protecting us? You're mad. A cop helped a criminal steal guns from me in the past. And not hand guns, but rifles and a shotgun. Cops are mainly to serve as a revenue stream to write traffic tickets, and occassionally to enforce our oppressor's commands. Sure, they claim to be ready to serve and to protect, but how many of us have a different experience? Many are just now realizing that without a required higher standard for them; starting with a college education, police are bullies, thugs, and criminals themselves.

Thus, you can have my gun if and when you can pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Aajhill you idiot!

Aajhill said, "Instead the present version was chosen, which explicitly includes the context of "a well organized militia." You'd probably know this, if you spent more time reading instead of practicing at the firing range (or at least boasting about it.)"

The second amendment in its entirety has been posted on this web page numerous times already and it does not say "a well organized militia." You would know this if you weren't busy whacking off to gay porno or boasting about how much you read. For such a reader you sure have one skewed idea of the constitution. Obviously any factual information on the constitution wasn't part of your reading material.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution says, "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."

Where did you get the 'well organized militia' from Aajhill? A 'well regulated militia' (like it really reads) can very well be portrayed as a militia consisting of 'the people,' hence the fact that they are the ones guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms and not the state. A bunch of pissed of revolutionists did not grant their new government the right to bear arms and deny it among themselves. This is the most absurd notion I have ever heard. Use a little common sense you incompetent fool.

I was waiting for someone to bring up the DC Appeals Court decision and sure enough, Darren did it, which seems typical. That decision, Darren, stands alone in the face of contrary opinions by federal courts across the country, as well as by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Miller. Moreover the DC decision was a 2 to 1 vote pushed through by "Justice" Lawrence Silberman, a notorious right wing hack who's been advancing far right causes for decades and who was placed on the DC bench by senile right wing icon, Ronald Reagan, to perform just this kind of disservice.
The American rebels to whom you impute such contempt for governmental authority used the militia to put down two armed rebellions within the first decades after the Revolution. This was exactly the purpose for which they maintained militias (and wrote the Second Amendment.) When Congress debated the Bill of Rights, the delegates considered provisions that stated exactly what you maintain: that every citizen has an unrestricted right to own firearms. These versions of the amendment were defeated! Instead the present version was chosen, which explicitly includes the context of "a well organized militia." You'd probably know this, if you spent more time reading instead of practicing at the firing range (or at least boasting about it.)
As for citing Iraq as a model for patriotic fervor, the place is a free-fire zone where every day, besides taking pot-shots at American invaders, freedom loving Iraqis gun each other down by the score. Do you seriously contend that's an example to emulate? Cherry picking massacres like the one at VA Tech and claiming without any proof that the killing would have been reduced or prevented by an armed student body (or janatorial service or whatever crazy scheme you have in mind) may work for your fellow gun nuts, but rational people see it for the shameless nonsense it is. I'll take my chances any day with a mass murderer armed with a sword over one carrying a 9 mm Glock. And I'll take my chances with an armed, responsible police force long before I'll endorse the wild west fantasies of you and the other crazies. People like you work tirelessly to flood society with guns of every description - 80 million handguns and still counting - and then you claim smugly that it's futile to try to restrict them. Give me a century of the kind of complacent (or complicit) legislators that the gun lobby has had and I'll put paid to that argument. Of course, then you'd have to find some other means of compensating for what Nature evidently didn't give you.

"Of course Cho had no right to do what he did. I'm rather disturbed that you need someone to tell you that and can not figure it out for yourself."

Oh I was able to figure it out for myself, Darren, but I wasn't the one who made the statement that EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms, or that EVERYONE has the unabriged right of self defense. So apparently we agree. Great. I would like to know how you decide who, exactly DOES have those rights, and I hope you will answer in an "elevated" fashion.

But in response to your first question which was: "Do I understand from your comment that American citizens do not have the right to take up arms to defend themselves against threats when goverment agencies can not or will not intervene?"

You are correct in your assumption. Americans do not have a basic human right to take up arms against a democratically elected government or its law enforcement agencies. Child molesters such as David Koresh do not. Federal building bombers such as Timothy McVeigh do not. The Black Panthers do not. Patricia Hearst's Symbionese Liberation Army does not. Abortion clinic bombers like Eric Rudolph do not. Do you disagree? Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you do not.

Individuals DO, however, have a right to leave a country which is a tyranny, and this is a right--as I recall--recognized by the UN. And the UN obligates countries to open their borders to human rights refugees. Concerned as you are about human rights, I assume you agree with the US obligation to do so. Am I correct?

Please respond to these and my other two questions as to the intentions of the framers of the consititution and the right of black male teenagers to keep and bear arms, and I will be more than happy to respond to your second question.

..The right of the people..Words mean things. Had the constitutional guys meant "state" it seems to me the 2nd amendment woul read:..the right of the state to keep and bear arms..but it doesn't.
I have successfully defended myself twice using a firearm. According to the statistics cited, I must be due for 86 firearms accidents. I'll remember that next time I'm enjoying a little target practice.
If I need a treatise on lowering my cholesterol I will consult the New England Journal of Medicine. If I need gun advice I will consult Guns N Ammo.
The GOA and NRA are not nameless/faceless corporations. They are both sustained by monetary contributions from literally millions of law abiding gun owners.
It is already, and has been for quite sometime, for minors to possess hand guns. Would the auther of this piece presume that additional legislation would deter the gangbangers from doing their deeds? Thats just plain foolish.

I have already researched the hell out of both sides of this debate. The Brady Campaign blows things so out of proportion with their misleading statistics and baseless assumptions that I have found I cannot believe a thing they have to say anymore.

Let me show some examples here:

On their website it states, "NRA MYTH #3: ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE RARELY USED IN CRIME. Response: Not true. Crime gun traces performed by ATF showed that between 1986 and 1992, assault weapons were traced to 1,578 murders."

There were over 140,000 murders between 1986 and 1992, which means only 1% of those murders were traced back to assault weapons. We better still ban them anyway. They "look" scary enough don't they? Pistol grips and folding stocks. Oh no! What will we ever do?

"According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, among 26 developed countries, 86% of gun deaths among children under 15 occurred in the U.S. In 1998 (the last year when this kind of statistic was compiled) 19 people were murdered with handguns in Japan, compared to 11,789 in the U.S."

Many people have been led to believe that thousands of children die from guns each year. A total of 642 children under the age of 15 have ever been reportedly killed in a gun incident in this country. Almost all of these incidents were gang related. More children die from accidents involving bikes, space heaters, and drowning than incidents with firearms. I guess we better ban bicycles, space heaters and swimming pools too. They are just too dangerous.

As for the second amendment not being an individual right... don't kid yourself. Every right listed in the Bill of Rights is an individual right — so why would the second amendment differ? IT DOESN'T! In the November 2, 2001 case of U.S. vs. Emerson the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the right to bear arms was indeed an individual right. It proved that 'the people' meant all of the people in the United States and did not imply only those serving in the U.S. Military. In the Constitution the people always have rights and powers. The federal and state governments only have powers or authority, never rights. 'State militia' is a very broad term. Though, it is obvious they are referring to the unorganized civilian militia, which refers to all males between the age 17 and 45. So if you want to constitutionally challenge the right to bear arms you may be able to prove that it does not belong to woman or the elderly.

Militia is defined in United States Code Title 10, Chapter, 13, Section 311 as the following:

Militia: composition and classes

(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.

Darren

Is it possible for you gun huggers to answer a simple yes or no question? Let me repeat for your benefit:

Do I understand from your comment, massud 12:00 pm, that you DO support Cho's right to take up arms to defend himself against threats, including imaginary ones? And that the writers of the second amendment had this in mind and sanctioned it? And while we're at it, since black make teenagers are the demographic group most likely to be victims of crime and also the most likely to be victims of a tyrannical government in the form of arbitrary arrests, are they assumed to have an unabridgeable right to "keep and bear arms"?

Once it is clear to me where you stand on these points, I would be happy to deal with the questions you pose. Assuming you really are interested in an "elevated" argument, of course.

chris, thanks for the post. I wasn't advocating anything really. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the way our country is going, I am very scared. Yes, we can vote. But even our vote is in question these days with electronic voting machines. We don't know who we are actually voting for until there is a paper trail. I'm sure you've been following Ohio and Florida.
I am not a violent person and don't advocate violence. I wish things could be talked and argued about and some compromise found. But looking around me, this country is becoming a corporate owned land. And I won't be the least bit surprised to begin seeing Blackwater soon patroling our streets. They already are in New Orleans.
Call ne paranoid, but I can undestand completely why some people want to make sure they have their own state militias armed and ready because it looks like only another rebellion is going to take back our country

Even if the second amendment suggested each individual have the right to keep an bear arms if we consider the time frame that would be flintlock single shot pistols an rifles. not Uzis, AK 47s, 15 shot Glocks, 50 caliber desert Eagles,etc.,etc.

hybridoma2001 sorry to hear about what happened to your father, and what happened to the other 14,000 killed each year from the bullet of a handgun. This is the 21st century, if you don't like the way society is run you vote them out of office, you don't shoot them. You can not kill an idea with a bullet, but you can kill it at the ballot box. For every person you fight against with a gun there are a thousand behind them. The only solution is appropriate gun control. Kucinich is proposing a bill to prohibit ownership of handguns and the bill includes a buyback provision to sweep hand guns from the streets. We need to take a lesson from the UK and compare their murder rate with ours, and recognize that we could join the list of civilized countries, finally.

No one is proposing the elimination of hunting rifles, although they are disappearing of their own accord. The NRA stands for National Rifle Association, not Nutcases Rejecting Authority.

Do I understand from your comment, massud 12:00 pm, that you DO support Cho's right to take up arms to defend himself against threats, including imaginary ones? And that the writers of the second amendment had this in mind and sanctioned it?

How about a simple "yes" or "no" before launching into any obfuscatory explanation.

I find it so interesting that many a common dreams reader has, over the course of the gun debate taking place on here, mentioned his disbelief that there *could* be liberals who support all ten amendments of their bill of rights. Its also interesting to see self-proclaimed progressives, who rightly denounce stereotypes, prejudice and bias turn around and openly try to paint anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment as "Bubba". Nice.

"effective and lethal self defense is a fully owned right of every human being."

Yes, it's truly refreshing to see posters here stand up for Cho's right to take up arms to defend himself against any and all threats, even imaginary ones. But you know, I'll bet even his family wishes he never assumed he had that right.

I've said this before. My father was shot in the head four times and killed. I still think people should have a right to own a gun. And now, with the way our government is turning into a totaltarian state, I think it's more important than ever for the citizens to prepare themselves. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound for the cure.

I would say that the folks that advise violating the Constitution by removing guns from the law abiding citizen would be the same folks that argue "violence never solved anything" Check with the Cartheginians on that.

"effective and lethal self defense is a fully owned right of every human being."

I couldn't agree with this however, there are obviously people that should not have guns. As EMtnGoat points out.

Perhaps if we concentrated more on controlling the distribution, perhaps handguns only to licenced folk.

I don't have an answer, but I know that changing the Constitution or letting everyone have anything they want isn't it.

MtnGoat 3:58 pm

"Effective and lethal self defense is a fully owned right of every human being."

Let's see where this logic takes us: When you say "everyone", does that include the mentally unstable, the mentally deficient, alcoholics and drug abusers? Does it include violent felons who have paid their debt to society? We don't deny any of these individuals their first amendment rights, do we? By your logic, we can't very well deny them their second amendment rights either, can we?

The term massacre doesn't fit for senseless murders at VT. Let's hope this doesn't become a issue in the pres. primary.

For you who object to killing lots of people, you don't understand the hidden rational of the gun nuts. Most of them are also right-wing, patriarchal religious types who are opposed to contraception and believe that women should just shut up and do what they are told. But they realize that the resulting population explosion that would result from their idiocy is unsustainable. Therefore we need to control the population, preferably at the "pre-breeding" stage, so we need endless wars, unrestricted guns. This is the mindset that necessarily follows from their religious fantasies. Right to life only goes so far, say about 30 seconds after your first breath.

It's the HANDGUNS stupid!

The trouble is that the people who get all excited about restricting gun ownership are playing right into the hands of those entities who would like us to be easier to control. I think it would be wonderful if there were no such thing as guns, and this was a peaceful utopia. But obviously that is not the case - there are already enough guns and ammo out here to blow us all to kingdom come. (and there already is a black market, by the way)

Like iwarrior, I flip-flop because guns are powerful things, and it is a big responsibility to own them. I live out a ways from the city, and my neighbors and I have all kinds of guns (to tell the truth, we're armed to the teeth) - it's almost like a part of the culture. The founding fathers had to lead an armed revolt to break free from the tyranny of the king, and they saw that such a revolt might be necessary again in the future. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but it's not hard to imagine our supremely incompetent federal government using some "emergency" as an excuse to send in Blackwater thugs to whip us into shape. In that case, It gives some small comfort to know that they couldn't just roll over us.

ezeflyer: in a way, you have proven my point perfectly by trivializing and vastly oversimplifying the problem.

The new legislation that is at this moment working its way through the system, as a result of the VT massacre, is going to add millions of new names to the list of people who will not be allowed to legally purchase a firearm. And although, it may true be that handguns are responsible for most murders, the legislation does not restrict just handguns. See how it works? For some reason, it's all or nothing with these control freaks at the helm.

i'm a lifetime member of the NRA but certainly don't support all their political beliefs at all. Now here's a thought, this angry jerk who blew away all these folks...if there was "gun control", he certainly could have started a fire, or created a bomb or even used another kind of weapon. But no, it's the gun's fault, it's the gun owner's fault, always their fault. Why wasn't this lunatic locked up or given help?

I flip-flop on this issue all the time. Sometimes I think we should institute a full-on ban on all guns for civillians. Other times I think that making guns illegal will just create an underground market for them like drugs.

Dennis Kucinich must be one of the liberal, pro-gun people mentioned above. He said at the debate that he had had a gun in his house.

I guess that kind of pops the bubble for everyone that thought he was perfect. But maybe he's so liberal he thinks he needs protection.

I never relized that more than one gunlover redneck reads Commondreams articles. Maybe there is hope.

But, how many more than 30,000 gun deaths a year will it take before we can have a rational discussion and debate about guns, especially handguns, and their place in our society.

"You can spin stats any way you want, but you might want to try living in the real world for a change."

But it is through statistics that we characterize the real world. It is a the egoist attitude that "statistics don't apply to me" that is unhinged from reality and gets tens of thousands people killed in accidents - automobile, aviation, industrial and guns.

Everyone needs to get back to reality here. Last week, thirty people in the US were randomly killed by a deranged person, while 299,999,970 people werent. Assuming you aren't a drug-dealer or a gang member, there are dozens of things that are much more likely to kill you than someone deliberately shooting you. I live next to a rough neighborhood, and aside from a few very rough bars, the only place I ever avoid for fear getting shot is the woods during the two weeks after thanksgiving.

Gun nuts.
Its just the sense of power they get from a device that doesnt require any sort of physical prowess. You just press a button. Look at the pathetic case of the old blind man who wanted the right to hunt. Sure he was blind-and frail
but a gun does all the work so you can think you are tough guy even when you are a wimp.

"If the Founding Fathers really believed that only government men should be permitted to bear arms, then there wouldn't have been a American Revolution and there wouldn't be any Founding Fathers."

This is exactly the core problem with right-winged conservative thinking. I believe we give way too much credit to the founding fathers. With all due respect, the founding fathers were not "Jesus" (if I may use that benchmark for infallibility) and every word penned down by them does not have timelessness embedded within it. The argument is ridiculous when you use the 2nd Amendment to justify your right to carry a gun. We are not living in the 18th century and an "armed" revolution against a corrupt government is not possible. Gun supporters know exactly well how the 2nd amendment does not give them a right to possess guns so they go to the next alternative - self defense.

NRA is notorious for twisting stats to brainwash their followers. They consistently use the statistics on declining crime rate in US as a example of how gun ownership influences crime whereas the fact is there are no studies which prove the corelation between gun ownership and rise/fall of crime. The NRA also fails to notice the statistic (as pointed out in this article and many more) of the number of deaths in the US compared to the world.

"In Scotland, handguns are banned and the assault rate is 300% higher than in the US. Criminals there are using knives and swords to attack their victims. A gun can make a little old lady the equal of any attacker, but grannies seldom perform well in knife fights."

Does your logical reasoning include other factors which may contribute to higher assault rates that presence or absence of guns? Your statement is self contradictory. If the little old lady can buy a gun then the criminal can find a gun much easier than her. Also, clease checks stats on the probability of death or mortal injury when a sharp weapon is used in a violent crime vs a firearm. Besides granny who has poor eyesight and shaky limbs is a dangerous person to be wielding a firearm.

It is shameful that a group of people can place a low price on other people's lives for right which they shouldn't have to begin with!

Amerikkkans are nothing but violent, stupid, gun-crazed thugs...

Did you see the video of two of those government employees poking their guns around the tree they were hiding behind while the shooting at Virginia Tech was going on? It now appears that there was a five minute delay in getting to the scene because the doors were chained, until someone shot the chains loose. What the first person on the scene didn't think of that?

By the way Darren, not only grannies but police officers get their gun taken from them - a police officer in the USA is more likely to be killed by their own weapon than any other way. A weapon doesn't make you an equal, it makes you a fool. Read the stats in the article.

We need to change the 2nd amendment. We need to clarify that it is ok for the gun nuts to own guns provided that there are restrictions. As written the 2nd amendment either means that only well regulated malicias can own guns, or that every convicted prisoner has the right to have any weapon of their choosing.

However, in proposing the 2nd amendment multiple states observed that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, directly contradicted by the assertion that a militia is necessary to a free state.

We also live in a police state in the USA where we spend more on police and on prisons than any society should. The police to me are todays militia, and they also need to stop carrying handguns.

It took a shooting incident like Virginia Tech to ban all handguns in England, let us hope that something good comes out of Virgina Tech as well, which would be the banning of handguns here, and changing the 2nd amendment, to something like, "A well regulated militia if necessary for the security of a free state, and the right of authorized persons to keep and bear approved arms is recognized."

It seems unwise to have the police have guns if the citizens do not have guns.

Perhaps the police and the citizens should both disarm and declare peace.