Heel Fly
Well-known member
If you want an AR you'd better get to getting one, they will be banned soon.
Let Freedom Ring
- Thread starter Heel Fly
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Frankk
Well-known member
passin thru said:
You guys are acting like the boogieman is real. When you are scared of the boogieman it's like being scared of your shadow. Aplusmnt had a gun for everything else. I was wondering what he used to shoot out in the dark with if he heard something.
For now I'm not scared of being unarmed. if the time comes when the people around the area makes me fearful I"ll move. I refuse to live in fear.
I have a old liberal brother who for years has posted his name and address on the internet and give directions to his home to people claiming to do him harm. Last I checked couple days ago he's still there. There has been only a few friendly folks come by to see if he was telling the truth.
aplusmnt
Well-known member
Frankk said:
Sorry I did not answer your question, the boogie man is the Ithica 16 gauge because I am only concerned about him if he enters my house.
As for fear, I have no fear, I do not lock my doors all the time. I leave my keys in all my vehicles because in general I live in a low crime area and have no real fear of anything.
As for being scared I am not scared and one reason is because I know I can do the best anyone can to defend my family if the need arises. With that comes a sense of peace.
Do you have that inner peace? If two guys get out of a car with mask on carrying a gun heading to your front door, can you really do anything to protect your family? You see you really on others for the safety of your family.
I rely on myself, I am the head of this family, it is my responsibility to Provide Food, Shelter and Safety for them! Owning a gun just helps me to have the tools I might need one day to fulfill my responsibility. I not only think it is wise I think any head of a house that does not own a gun for protection is not taking the responsibility they have to protect their family serious.
I do not play the lottery because it takes food out of my families mouth, and I do not gamble with their safety either!
passin thru
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,603
- Reaction score
- 0
Frankk, I can only say one thing...............Second Amendment. Are you trying to depriving us of that? Are you?
Frankk said:
if you really think for one second that the wacko or bunch of crackheads that enter your house are going to give you the option of moving you are more niave than i thought, they are not going to look at you and say"ok frankk, you go ahead and pack all those nice things you have take your pretty little wife and move to another place"
they are going to have their place with your wife, sell and hock your belongings and make your wife a widow!
it only takes one wacko frankk, to make your brothers wife a widow!!!
and your children fatherless
you do not have to own a gun just do not try and take mine from me
Mike
Well-known member
Come down here and put a sign in your yard that says:
THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME
if you make it over a week, you can then talk about the boogeyman.
THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME
if you make it over a week, you can then talk about the boogeyman.
aplusmnt said:
What happens If these two with masks shot back,might you get killed in the gun fight.That would leave your family without their supporter...What if they shot another family member by mistake shooting at you....You seem to think you will see this comming,but how could you if your asleep..Your own gun could then be used against you....I understand you feel safe having guns near by,and that is ok,as we are all different....I just think that there is not always positives in owning an loaded gun in your night stand.....As it would make no sense having an unloaded gun near you if its sole reason is for protection....many innocent kids get killed by finding and then playing with dads loaded gun,even if they have been taught not to.....I do not think your right to own should be anyone's decesion other than your own,I just think there is more responsiblity then killing intruders when involving a gun...
passin thru
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,603
- Reaction score
- 0
Just a repeat of the old liberal scare tactics which facts disprove. The odds are in your favor if you have a gun not vice versa as liberals try and portray. If you want to believe your own hogwash I can not help it and nothing I say or do will change your following the liberal brainwashing.
Mike
Well-known member
What if...............
What if.....................
Hey dummy. Calculate your odds if you were to show up at a gun fight with out a gun! :lol: :lol:
Engage brain! Please?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'd much rather die taking a few of them with me than let them just kill me defenselessly... :roll:
Montana is contemplating a new self defense law- which I believe will pass the Legislature (passed the House) allowing more use of a firearm in self defense-- and clarifying the Constitutional right to bear a weapon for protection, use it for self defense, and that if threated you don't have to back down...
Also another one in there giving a private person much more authority in making citizens arrests and using a firearm for making a citizens arrest...
---------------------------------
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Purpose. The legislature declares that:
(1) the right of people to defend themselves from harm or loss of life is fundamental and beyond question;
(2) the use of firearms for self-defense is recognized within the right reserved to the individual people of Montana in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution;
(3) self-defense is a natural right under 1-2-104 and is included in 49-1-101 and 49-1-103;
(4) the lawful use of firearms for self-defense is not a crime or an offense against the people of the state;
(5) if self-defense is asserted by a defendant in a criminal action, the state has the burden to prove the absence of justification beyond a reasonable doubt;
(6) the use of firearms for self-defense discourages violent crime and prevents victimization; and
(7) the purpose of [sections 1 through 5 4] is to clarify and secure the ability of the people to protect themselves from wrongful assault.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to summon law enforcement assistance prior to acting in self-defense or to retreat from the threat.
NEW SECTION. Section 3. Defensive display of firearm not crime. (1) A person who displays or shows a firearm for a harmless defensive purpose may not be held accountable for a criminal act.
(2) Displaying or showing includes but is not limited to:
(a) openly wearing, carrying, or possessing a firearm;
(b) verbally informing another that one possesses a firearm; and
(c) holding a firearm in a position so that the firearm does not point directly at another person.
(3) The right to show or display a firearm does not include:
(a) pointing a firearm directly at another person or sweeping another person with the muzzle of a firearm;
(b) discharging a firearm in the direction of another person; or
(c) deliberately provoking another person into threatening words or actions when possessing a firearm; OR
(D) OBSTRUCTING A PEACE OFFICER OR PUBLIC SERVANT IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATES 45-7-302.
NEW SECTION. Section 4. Investigation of OFFENSE INVOLVING self-defense claim. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident in which a firearm was used and the use of a firearm appears to have been or is alleged to have been in self-defense, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony, that might support THE ALLEGED OFFENSE AND the apparent or alleged self-defense.
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0340.htm
Frankk
Well-known member
passin thru said:
No I think you should be able to have as many guns as you want. all my friends and neighbors have them
Frankk
Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Aplusmnt for someone who is not scared of anything you sure come off as one fearful young man, even afraid of snakes.
passin thru
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,603
- Reaction score
- 0
Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)
Cause Number
Motor-vehicle 3,059
Drowning 1,060
Fires, burns 833
Mechanical suffocation 459
Ingestion of food, object 213
Firearms 181
Source: Figures are for 1995. National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 11, 18.
Children and Guns
* Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase.94
* Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children (see above), most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse.95
* Dr. Kleck also notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked."96
* Myth: One child is accidentally killed by a gun every day. Dr. Gary Kleck notes that to reach this figure, anti-gun authors must include "children" aged 18-24.97 As noted above, there were only 181 fatal gun accidents for children in 1995.
* Myth: 135,000 children take guns to school every day. This factoid was based on a survey that did not even ask children if they carried a weapon to school. The "take guns to school" statement is completely imputed into the survey results. With regard to the 135,000 figure, Dr. Gary Kleck has shown that this number is wildly inflated.98
* Myth: There are more guns in schools today because of lax gun control laws. To the contrary, two facts put this myth to rest:
* Fact: Currently, there are strict laws that, with few exceptions, prevent adults from possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. These and other gun control laws have failed to keep guns off school grounds.
* Fact: In the past, "guns in schools" were never a problem during the era when children had the greatest access to firearms. For example, even though there were far fewer gun control laws on the books in the 1950's, there was not a problem with illegal guns in schools. Rather, the top problems in American classrooms during that era were such (non-violent) activities as chewing gum, talking in class and running in the halls.
* More on guns in schools. So what has changed? Why do illegal guns make their way onto school grounds today, even though federal gun control laws have now grown to comprise more than 70,000 words of restrictions and requirements?99 There are several possible reasons, including:
a. Lax punishment of juvenile children. Several state studies have shown that juvenile offenders will make several journeys through the legal system before doing any time in a penal facility.100 This problem, of course, is not just limited to juveniles. A murderer of any age (in 1990) could expect to serve only 1.8 years in prison, after one considers the risk of apprehension and the length of the sentence.101
b. Imitation of T.V. violence. Before completing the sixth grade, the average American child sees 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on television.102 Two surveys of young American males found that 22 to 34 percent had tried to perform crime techniques they had watched on television.103
c. Morality shift. "The kids have changed," says Judge Gaylord Finch, speaking with the help of a dozen years of observation from his bench, where he sits as chief judge of Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. "The values have just become so relative, and it sometimes seems we have no values in common anymore."104
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
Cause Number
Motor-vehicle 3,059
Drowning 1,060
Fires, burns 833
Mechanical suffocation 459
Ingestion of food, object 213
Firearms 181
Source: Figures are for 1995. National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 11, 18.
Children and Guns
* Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase.94
* Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children (see above), most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse.95
* Dr. Kleck also notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked."96
* Myth: One child is accidentally killed by a gun every day. Dr. Gary Kleck notes that to reach this figure, anti-gun authors must include "children" aged 18-24.97 As noted above, there were only 181 fatal gun accidents for children in 1995.
* Myth: 135,000 children take guns to school every day. This factoid was based on a survey that did not even ask children if they carried a weapon to school. The "take guns to school" statement is completely imputed into the survey results. With regard to the 135,000 figure, Dr. Gary Kleck has shown that this number is wildly inflated.98
* Myth: There are more guns in schools today because of lax gun control laws. To the contrary, two facts put this myth to rest:
* Fact: Currently, there are strict laws that, with few exceptions, prevent adults from possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. These and other gun control laws have failed to keep guns off school grounds.
* Fact: In the past, "guns in schools" were never a problem during the era when children had the greatest access to firearms. For example, even though there were far fewer gun control laws on the books in the 1950's, there was not a problem with illegal guns in schools. Rather, the top problems in American classrooms during that era were such (non-violent) activities as chewing gum, talking in class and running in the halls.
* More on guns in schools. So what has changed? Why do illegal guns make their way onto school grounds today, even though federal gun control laws have now grown to comprise more than 70,000 words of restrictions and requirements?99 There are several possible reasons, including:
a. Lax punishment of juvenile children. Several state studies have shown that juvenile offenders will make several journeys through the legal system before doing any time in a penal facility.100 This problem, of course, is not just limited to juveniles. A murderer of any age (in 1990) could expect to serve only 1.8 years in prison, after one considers the risk of apprehension and the length of the sentence.101
b. Imitation of T.V. violence. Before completing the sixth grade, the average American child sees 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on television.102 Two surveys of young American males found that 22 to 34 percent had tried to perform crime techniques they had watched on television.103
c. Morality shift. "The kids have changed," says Judge Gaylord Finch, speaking with the help of a dozen years of observation from his bench, where he sits as chief judge of Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. "The values have just become so relative, and it sometimes seems we have no values in common anymore."104
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
passin thru
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,603
- Reaction score
- 0
Six Common Gun Control Myths
A. Myth #1: If one has a gun in the home, one is three times more likely to be killed than if there is no gun present.
1. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make such claims are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms.110
2. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.111
B. Myth #2: Most homicides are committed by otherwise law-abiding people who end up killing a friend or relative.
1. While most murders do involve the killing of an acquaintance, it is fallacious to assume these are otherwise law-abiding people killing one another. In fact, sixty-one percent of murder victims themselves -- and an even greater majority of murderers -- have prior criminal records.112 This indicates that most murders occur between criminals who have already demonstrated a pattern of violence.
2. The problem? The criminal justice system is a revolving door which continues to throw violent offenders back onto the street. Nationwide, 70% of murderers (under sentence of death) have prior felony convictions.113 This number does not include criminals who have plea-bargained their felonies down to lesser charges.
C. Myth #3: Gun Control has reduced the crime rates in other countries.
1. England and Canada's murder rates were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. 114
2. The murder rates in England, Canada and Japan have risen tremendously since passing their gun control laws.115 And most crime rates in England have now surpassed the rates in the U.S.:
* In 1998, a study conducted by a British professor and a U.S. statistician found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study that was published by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."116
* The murder rate in the United States is higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."117
3. United States: Take away the guns, and there is still more murder. United States' NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan.118 In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns -- such as with knives, fists and feet.
* It is absurd to claim that the U.S. has more murders because it has more guns. If one were to "magically" make every gun disappear in the U.S., the hard fact is that Americans would still kill each other-without guns-more often than the citizens of England, Canada or Japan kill each other will ALL types of weapons.
* The problem is not the type of weapons used, but rather, the failure in America to keep violent criminals off the street. (See point 2 under Myth #2 above.)
4. Violence by any other name is still violent -- Many countries with strict gun control laws have higher violence rates than the United States does. Consider the following rates:
High Gun
Ownership Countries Low Gun
Ownership Countries
Country Suicide Homicide Total* Country Suicide Homicide Total*
Finland 24.4 2.86 27.2 Romania 66.2 n.a. 66.2
Switzerland 24.45 1.13 25.58 France 21.8 4.36 26.16
U.S. 12.2 7.59 19.79 W.Germany 20.37 1.48 21.85
Israel ** 6 2 8 Japan 20.3 0.9 21.2
* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Israel's total violence rate is lower than the total rates in England/Wales or Canada.
Source for table: Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990):42.
D. Myth #4: Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate.
* Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed. Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.119 Thus, the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law.
* Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths. The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that, "An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link -- the significant rise of murder in the late 1960's, and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population. This age group is the most violent one, as well as the group most likely to be victimized -- and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks."120 (Emphasis added.)
E. Myth #5: The Courts have never overturned a gun control law, and thus, there is no individual right guaranteed by the Amendment.
1. U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982)
Courts have used the Second Amendment to strike down gun control: Nunn v. State and in re Brickey are just two examples where the Courts have struck down gun control laws using the Second Amendment.121
An individual right protected: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."122
2. U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). "'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [and] it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
U.S. v. Lopez (1995). The Court struck down a federal law which prevented the possessing of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in no way grants Congress the authority to enact such gun control legislation.
Printz v. U.S. (1997). The Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force state authorities to conduct so-called Brady background checks on gun buyers.
3. U.S. Congress:
Fourteenth Amendment (1868):
The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to protect an individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by striking down state laws that denied this right. As stated by a Senate subcommittee in 1982, "[During] the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action."123
Firearm Owners' Protection Act (1986):
The 1986 Law affirms individual right to keep and bear arms: "The Congress finds that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution . . . require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies."124 [Emphasis added.]
4. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to pass gun control legislation (see U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue, indicating that judges are just as political as the common man.
F. Myth #6: The Second Amendment militia is the National Guard.
The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia.
1. Founding Fathers
* George Mason: "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."125
* Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . ."
* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."126
2. U.S. Congress
* The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The Act stated:
"Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."127
The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.
* U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard." 128
* Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."129
3. Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller (1939). In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."130
A. Myth #1: If one has a gun in the home, one is three times more likely to be killed than if there is no gun present.
1. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make such claims are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms.110
2. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.111
B. Myth #2: Most homicides are committed by otherwise law-abiding people who end up killing a friend or relative.
1. While most murders do involve the killing of an acquaintance, it is fallacious to assume these are otherwise law-abiding people killing one another. In fact, sixty-one percent of murder victims themselves -- and an even greater majority of murderers -- have prior criminal records.112 This indicates that most murders occur between criminals who have already demonstrated a pattern of violence.
2. The problem? The criminal justice system is a revolving door which continues to throw violent offenders back onto the street. Nationwide, 70% of murderers (under sentence of death) have prior felony convictions.113 This number does not include criminals who have plea-bargained their felonies down to lesser charges.
C. Myth #3: Gun Control has reduced the crime rates in other countries.
1. England and Canada's murder rates were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. 114
2. The murder rates in England, Canada and Japan have risen tremendously since passing their gun control laws.115 And most crime rates in England have now surpassed the rates in the U.S.:
* In 1998, a study conducted by a British professor and a U.S. statistician found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study that was published by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."116
* The murder rate in the United States is higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."117
3. United States: Take away the guns, and there is still more murder. United States' NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan.118 In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns -- such as with knives, fists and feet.
* It is absurd to claim that the U.S. has more murders because it has more guns. If one were to "magically" make every gun disappear in the U.S., the hard fact is that Americans would still kill each other-without guns-more often than the citizens of England, Canada or Japan kill each other will ALL types of weapons.
* The problem is not the type of weapons used, but rather, the failure in America to keep violent criminals off the street. (See point 2 under Myth #2 above.)
4. Violence by any other name is still violent -- Many countries with strict gun control laws have higher violence rates than the United States does. Consider the following rates:
High Gun
Ownership Countries Low Gun
Ownership Countries
Country Suicide Homicide Total* Country Suicide Homicide Total*
Finland 24.4 2.86 27.2 Romania 66.2 n.a. 66.2
Switzerland 24.45 1.13 25.58 France 21.8 4.36 26.16
U.S. 12.2 7.59 19.79 W.Germany 20.37 1.48 21.85
Israel ** 6 2 8 Japan 20.3 0.9 21.2
* The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
** Israel's total violence rate is lower than the total rates in England/Wales or Canada.
Source for table: Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990):42.
D. Myth #4: Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate.
* Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed. Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.119 Thus, the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law.
* Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths. The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that, "An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link -- the significant rise of murder in the late 1960's, and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population. This age group is the most violent one, as well as the group most likely to be victimized -- and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks."120 (Emphasis added.)
E. Myth #5: The Courts have never overturned a gun control law, and thus, there is no individual right guaranteed by the Amendment.
1. U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982)
Courts have used the Second Amendment to strike down gun control: Nunn v. State and in re Brickey are just two examples where the Courts have struck down gun control laws using the Second Amendment.121
An individual right protected: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."122
2. U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). "'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [and] it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
U.S. v. Lopez (1995). The Court struck down a federal law which prevented the possessing of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in no way grants Congress the authority to enact such gun control legislation.
Printz v. U.S. (1997). The Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force state authorities to conduct so-called Brady background checks on gun buyers.
3. U.S. Congress:
Fourteenth Amendment (1868):
The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to protect an individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by striking down state laws that denied this right. As stated by a Senate subcommittee in 1982, "[During] the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action."123
Firearm Owners' Protection Act (1986):
The 1986 Law affirms individual right to keep and bear arms: "The Congress finds that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution . . . require
4. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to pass gun control legislation (see U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue, indicating that judges are just as political as the common man.
F. Myth #6: The Second Amendment militia is the National Guard.
The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia.
1. Founding Fathers
* George Mason: "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."125
* Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . ."
* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."126
2. U.S. Congress
* The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The Act stated:
"Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ."127
The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.
* U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard." 128
* Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . ."129
3. Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller (1939). In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."130
Steve
Well-known member
Frank
I just answered your question....real or not the fifty cal would take care of him,... so I choose it.
as for NoNothing...I am a marksman...I seldom miss.
as for the unloaded....loaded question....my stepfather used a light salt load as the first round in the chamber....takes care of the oops.
if you have children take them hunting or plinking,.. and let them shoot a gun it removes the curiosity.....which removes the reason a lot of children get hurt according to liberals.
I just answered your question....real or not the fifty cal would take care of him,... so I choose it.
as for NoNothing...I am a marksman...I seldom miss.
as for the unloaded....loaded question....my stepfather used a light salt load as the first round in the chamber....takes care of the oops.
if you have children take them hunting or plinking,.. and let them shoot a gun it removes the curiosity.....which removes the reason a lot of children get hurt according to liberals.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Steve said:
AMEN
CattleArmy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 3,633
- Reaction score
- 0
Red Robin said:
Aww I see even when I'm not around much I annoy Red Robin so my work is done................
I'd rather be original in my ideas and not liked for them then to give in to high school mentality and be a follower.......
aplusmnt
Well-known member
nonothing said:
See Mikes comment, lots better odds having a gun in a gun fight than not having one.
As far as intruder goes while I am sleeping, we live down a 1/4 mile drive with a Dakota alert on it, and dogs. someone comes on my property I know it even when a sleep.
No innocent kids getting killed by my guns, they decide they want to play with them they might get their butts spanked but not killed. Besides they have their own guns in their rooms if they need one :wink:
Ok before you slam me that was a joke sort of, they all three have their guns in their rooms but on kids guns I have Trigger locks and only I know the combination.
aplusmnt
Well-known member
Frankk said:
Ok you got me, I am scared of two things, Snakes and Liberals Or would that be the same thing? :wink: :lol:
CattleArmy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 3,633
- Reaction score
- 0
A wise gun trader once told me to never get out a gun unless I was prepared to shoot with it. He said if you get out a weapon and the intruder doesn't have one you have to either be prepared to shoot or have the intruder take the gun from you and use it on you.
As for children and guns. I'm very much for gun safety. I believe in gun safes and cabinets locked. I believe it is an Americans right to own a gun but their responsibility to keep it up and those around it safe. To often children get a hold of a loaded gun and their innocent lives are never the same.
A few years back in a small town in Nebraska teens had a gun one was shot all on accident and one teen won't walk again this life........Were they old enough to know better? Yes. Did they? Obviously not.
As for children and guns. I'm very much for gun safety. I believe in gun safes and cabinets locked. I believe it is an Americans right to own a gun but their responsibility to keep it up and those around it safe. To often children get a hold of a loaded gun and their innocent lives are never the same.
A few years back in a small town in Nebraska teens had a gun one was shot all on accident and one teen won't walk again this life........Were they old enough to know better? Yes. Did they? Obviously not.