Durbin's Reply

[Deebz]

I understand what well regulated means. When I was in the Army, I had a list of equipment I was expected to have in ready working order when I headed into the field. I could not carry less and I certainly could not carry whatever I wanted. It was regulated. Needless to say, a member of the militia is granted a wider degree of leeway when choosing their individual loadout but I hold that there is still a degree of restraint required.

As for your idea that your rights are virtually unlimited, so long as they do not directly impact another? I disagree. There is a point in which your personal stockpile begins to pose a threat to those around you, even when you are not actively using them. There is a historical president for my argument. Crew served weapons were once allowed in the hands of the disorganized militia. Today they are not. The Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 have stood up to the scrutiny of the courts.

So you do agree with me... if something I am doing (even if that be storing weapons/arms) poses a threat to others, I have now infringed upon other person's rights to safety and well-being


I'd also agree with you that our militia is not very well regulated at this time. This is due mostly to the fact that the majority of our society has accepted the role of a subject as opposed to a citizen. Most people who go about their daily business have been indoctrinated to believe that the police and other civil servants are there to take care of us, so they don't have a need to take care of themselves. You really want to see these random acts of senseless violence stopped? Let's push to UNdoctrinate (I'm sure that's not a real word, but I hope you catch my meaning) the population. Instead of instilling fear and banning guns, let's push to show people how to take care of themselves.

I don't often proclaim my faith loudly, but there are a few sayings/scriptures that I truly believe in.

The Lord helps those who help themselves.

I can do all things through the Lord who strengthens ME.

If we are truly to find a way to combat the evil that has been rearing its ugly head as of late, waiting around for Big Brother government to figure it out for us is not the answer.

[JPH]

I've tried to repeat my belief that the issue of "gun violence" is merely a symptom of a much wider and deeper illness at work in our society.

[Deebz]

We are in total agreement there.

[xmatax]

I've tried to repeat my belief that the issue of "gun violence" is merely a symptom of a much wider and deeper illness at work in our society.

Couldn't agree more and that, along with my do what you want mantra as long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights, is how I feel about guns. Just because one person uses them for evil doesn't mean you should take them from everyone. Background checks are as far as I'd go if I were president. It is not my belief I should tell you how to live your life and I don't expect you to tell me what's best for me. Common respect for one another and we are great friends even though we may not see eye to eye on everything I'd have your back. To me that's what it's all about.

[Woods Walker]

"Reality check, WW. The militia is not in good working order. Just ask the people of Oklahoma City, Aurora, CO or Newtown, CT. I am of the opinion that we need to make adjustments to the way the militia is armed and operates."


That may be, but the fact remains that the main intent of the 2A was to designate that right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You cannot have a milita without the people, so therefore the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

You know, we've been over this arguement many times. Let's cut to the quick. If you don't think that we have a right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Constitution, then WHO get's to decide what firearm privileges we should have?(and privileges are just what they will be at that point...) You? Dick Durbin? Obama? Michael Bloomberg?

[JPH]

Let's cut to the quick. If you don't think that we have a right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Constitution...

Whoa! Say what? Are we really that brittle? Does any variance in opinion regarding regulation of armament make one wholly opposed to the 2A? This my exact problem! There is no room for free thinking on the pro gun side.

Believe you and me, I believe in the 2A. I've earned my stripes, but I won't be cowed into everything the NRA tells me to believe and repeat.

[Woods Walker]

Brittle? My Constitution tells me that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When they attempt to do just that then I am opposed. If that makes me brittle then so be it.

And this isn't the NRA talking, this is me. And my question stands. WHO get's to decide what firearm privileges we can have then if we don't have a right that cannot be infringed upon? Because whenever you start talking about magazine capacities and other hardware related issues that's exactly what you are talking about...an infringement.

Who get's to make that call?

[kellory]

Flame thrower?? LOL! We're talking about firearms! Hand held firearms used to shoot things with. Not incinerate them or blow them up. Not hand grenades, not bazookas, or RPGs. Firearms. Bullets...NON exploding ones...

Again, we either have the right to keep and bear them, or we don't. IMO once elected officials start deciding what an "arm" is for the sake of what they will "let us have" (which BTW, they have no right to do), then any thought you may have about having any 2A "rights' is a fantasy, because what they define as "reasonable" today will change as they see fit.

The analogy between firearms and other individual or crew served weapons is valid. What is the historical precedent to limiting this to a discussion of firearms with non-exploding ammunition? What about the history of fully automatic weapons? You are smart WW. You know the regulation of arms has evolved through our history. The historical militia has many cases in which private citizens on the frontier owned swivel guns (small cannons). This could easily translate to today's grenade launchers but we both know that our modern understanding of a well regulated militia does not include them.

If you assert that the people have no right to regulate the armament available to private citizens, then you must be prepared to defend that position all the way to the extreme. Or...we can agree that the "well regulated" part of the 2A does allow for the people to make adjustments to the level of firepower a militia member can access.

Oh, and on a side note. The slavery discussion in the thread you referenced was quite valid as well. It demonstrated two key points. One, that the militia has a checkered past. Two, that some on the pro-gun side will defend even the most heinous of injustices if it protects their guns.

You want a crew served weapon? Try a cannon. Perfectly legal to own and even to use. swivel guns, and punt guns? swivel gun is a small cannon and legal, Punt guns are legal to own, but the hunting rules changed, outlawing them for hunting waterfowl. The gun itself is still legal. Gatling gun? legal with permits, true military machine guns? LEGAL with the proper permits(very expensive and require background checks) but LEGAL. Grenade launchers legal. Grenades are not.Why? EXPLODING ORDNANCE, Getting hit by a grenade is not the dangerous part, not much different than being hit by a baseball. it is what is inside that is dangerous. That is what is restricted (explosives) just as dynamite is restricted. And Flame throwers don't even require a permit, but they do cost nearly $9000. ,so I think I will pass.
I can own a fully automatic military machine gun, if I pass the background checks and pony up a lot of money for the permits, and the weapon. I posted a link and story of the machine gun shoot on an other thread, And every one of these guns are in private hands. Are they trying to stop this.....NO, funny thing there, they are going after a gun that is no different than my old .22 Glenfield model #60 on the inside. It operates the same. the rate of fire is the same, I even have 17 rounds before reloading, and not only are they NOT going after mine right now, it is actually written into the propose bans as exempt! (for now)
Problem with this ban of any semi-auto, is it sets the standard for all other bans,and don't be fooled, there will be more. If we allow any semi-auto to be outlawed, we have opened the door for all of them to be outlawed. There is no real difference between the AR-15 and my old rifle besides looks, The AR is most commonly chambered for the .223, but cab also be chambered for the ,22, and the 9 mm (if I remember correctly) It shoots no faster, no farther, and is no more accurate. It is popular because it is very simple to customize and personalize. It is a semi-auto that has been PIMPED.
If they succeed in banning semi'auto as rifles, what's left? pistols are the same action, same chambering, just shorter versions right? While we got 'em, bent over, why not take all semi-auto pistols too? Of course, the gang-banger will give them up too, they will not want to stand out as a throwback right?
<Sarcasm Off>
The fact is, there is no justification for a ban, that would take away the AR-15 and leave any other semi-auto rifle. This is a gun grab, as it was done in England, one gun at a time, until they were mostly gone. They just had a protest in England with old folks trying to get their gun rights back, (I can get the link to the story if needed).
We can not allow this to happen, we can not allow this to pass. "The AR-15 is adequate for home defense" according to the CIA, (I can get you the article) they seem to like them, as they have a huge order in for them, as HDW's (Home Defense Weapons) for their own use.
I do not have an AR-15. The only semi-auto I have is my Glenfield model#60 .22. I have nothing to lose if this ban goes into place, except my Rights, and the intent of the Second Amendment, which was, and is, to watchdog the Government itself, prevent invasion, and backstop the rest of the Bill of Rights, should the Government turn against us (which is more and more possible as time progresses.)
The Executive Orders that are being used and abused, of late, are part of the War Powers Act. We have been living in a declared state of Emergency since the 60's I believe, I can get the article if needed, there have been several Emergencies, over the years, overlapping, and nearly unending. At least one of these Emergencies is still in effect. And only the President (whoever sits in that seat) can decide when the Emergency is over. Power corrupts. While the War Powers Act is invoked the President can bypass Congress. (Checks and Balances do not exist) This is much more dangerous than an AR-15. If you need to see any of the cited articles, let me know. I will retrieve them. 2A is the most important Amendment there is. Without it, you have no other Rights.

[JPH]

To WW:
The people of the United States do, by way of their duly elected representatives. It is my opinion that gun owners need to take an honest look at the problems facing our nation and explore how we may bring about solutions. Are magazine capacity limits a good answer? I don't know, I think they may be. Are universal background checks, record sharing, gun education, or other measures good answers? Again, I don't know but I know they should be openly discussed.

A wise man one said this to me and it seems to fit my philosophy as it applies to a number of complex issues. He said, "I don't have to know the right answer every time to recognize the wrong answer when I see it." The status quo is the wrong answer, yet that is all I see from our side.

I really do like you WW. You'd be welcome in my camp any day and I'd trust you with any gun ever made. We'd have some good discussions, then we'd do some shooting and laugh about our disagreements over a beer. I know you care about people and you love the Constitution because you see it as the best way to let people take care of themselves. I respect that very much.

I'm just a but worried about some of the company we keep, as gun lovers. I listen to the conversations and there seems to be a callousness toward the loss of life, racism and an unhealthy fear of big brother. I really think we'd be better off without this crowd. All I'm asking for is some reason and open discussion.

[Deebz]

The problem with that openness is precedent, JPH. You have cited several laws from history to emphasize your point. Whatever "small" concessions we make today become the precedent for the laws 10, 20, even 50 years from now. Thats how law works. If there is precedent for something it becomes valid. I know I don't have to worry about anybody taking my guns from me, but if we allow our duly elected officials (whose true ambitions and view of who they work for is a completely different topic) to take even a little of our 2A rights, I don't think it's paranoid at all to think that they may eventually take my guns from my grandchildren...