Oh come on, everyone says that!

You don't think our 2nd amendment has been violated already?

It states that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

Let's look at that last part.
You don't think our 2nd amendment has been violated already?

It states that the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

First, our “right to keep and bear arms.” It is NOT a privilege it is a RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution of these United States.

Second, “shall not.” This doesn’t mean might not or may not, but SHALL not.

Third, “be infringed.” From Webster’s the definition of the word infringe is “To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” Take it a step further and the word encroach is defined as “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.”

That’s precisely what’s been happening. By banning certain gun types, registration, ammo types, etc. they are in fact taking little steps into the rights of others, namely you and me and everyone else. When we fall into their trap and begin to think that, “Well, they only want to ban a little something that I don’t use anyway….,” we are accepting what they offer and feeding right out of their hand.

Bob

True Bob, but you and me don't need an AK47

....Nor do I need 90% of the other stuff I own.

What makes an AK more menacing than a Rem 7400, or a browning BAR?

That's the point. I don't need my .44 magnum handgun. Rarely use it. I don't even need my 30-06 either because I can take a deer with a black powder rifle or bow too.

You give a guy a .22 bolt-action rifle with a pocket full of clips and he can rattle off a lot of rounds in a short period of time. Enough that an unarmed classroom filled with children won't stop him either.

What we need our arms for is not to protect ourselves on a daily basis and not for taking food. What we really need our arms for is to protect ourselves from an over zealous government. A totally unarmed citizenship is far easier to manipulate than even a slightly armed one.

One has to remember that the 2nd amendment was written not only to protect the citizen's right to keep and bear arms but also for the states to have the right to maintain regulated militias. Why? To thwart off the possible threat from our federal government.

Contrary to popular belief, we are not one united country but actually 50 indivicual and separate states united through one common purpose, for the moment. That has been tested at least once and it wasn't pretty.

Bob

Sorry BobT, but that's why myself & many others believe the NRA is a dinosaur. This is an extreme opinion that not even many on the right hold anymore.

The opinion that everyone, everywhere, at any moment, should have access to any gun they want, is one that's been thoroughly discredited.

In your world a convicted rapist out of jail could get a gun the day he's let loose; a man with a record of assault & a restraining order from his wife could buy a gun right now; & Dick Cheney, too (shudder).

You really want to live in that world?

This isn't 1789 anymore. While the Bill or Rights & the Constitution are beyond brilliant documents, eventually one must accept that this is no longer an agrarian society where everyone has a loaded gun hanging in the entry way.

In the same way there's nothing in the Constitution about banks; the Originalists believe we should do away with the Fed, with banking regulation, because there's nothing by the Founders that addresses this. Which is just as absurd. The world has changed some in the past 200 some years.

Your right Max. The world has changed. The one constant has been the USA. We have kept pretty much the same style of Government, the same freedoms,(some folks have gotten more), while the rest of the world has changed styles and freedoms, in some cases many time over.

Next.

One also has to remember when the 2nd ammendment was put in place, I think our own weapons were equal to the Englands.
Given the high technology of todays US military, we would not have a chance with any of our weapons.

If that is the true reason, then why not have full autos with armor piercing ammo available for citizens?

Are you anticipating a road warrior movie set where we are all wearing black painted football pads, using handmade weapons, fighting on the feds?





Oh wait I know, lets all have machine gun bunkers at the end of our driveways!

I'm not going to argue the notion of our military taking over, but I will say, there have been more than a few great powers that have been humbled by peasants with rudimentary arsenals in world history swill.

I ask again, what makes an AK anymore lethal than a Remington 7400 auto?

Is it because it's "scary" looking?

Is it because it's an "assault rifle"?

Is it because they make the news when someone commits a crime with one?

It's a piece of machined and stamped steel, and wood or composite, that fires a 7.62 round semi-automaticly in it's legal version, that can be used effectively for deer and other game, as well as plinking and is economical to own and shoot.

The firearm is not a boogeyman.

It won't kill you anymore dead than any other firearm.

The firearm is a tool, no different than a hammer or a wrench.

I could load a .44 S&W, pull back the hammer, and lay it on a table, pointing right at your chest.

It will not harm you, now or ever unless someone exerts enough force on the trigger to release the firing mechanism.

This holds true for all firearms, from the smallest pocket derringer, to the largest weapon in the military's arsenal.

The weapon is a tool. Nothing more, and nothing less.

the person controlling the weapon is who decides whether or not the weapon fires, and if it does, where the projectile goes.

I know a gun is a tool, and a tool used to kill. And yes, you need to pull the trigger. The boogeyman??? Really that is what you think I am all about? Gezzzz

It all comes down to which tools should be legal, and which should not be legal. IN my opionion, there is no reason for citizens to own, or use automatic weapons, no matter what make and model.

I am all for conceal and carry, the right to bear arms, and for everyone right to be able to purchase firearms for defense or huning, but there is not way you can justify owning an automatic weapon.

That is the problem with the old NRA, and why they had to change. No middle ground. IF you are agains banning a full auto machine gun, you are wanting to ban all the guns in the world.

This is a stupid debate anyways, because the majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, not autos, so who cares if they are banned.

Uhhhhhhhhhh Swill................

Citizens of the United States are not allowed to own automatic firearms without the proper licensing.

The legal version of your AK in question, is SEMI-automatic. Much like my Remington SP-10, or anyone of my Berreta's, or my Ruger, or my AR... .

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

BOX

Not quite accurate. You made an assumption about what my world is like. In my world, a criminal waives certain rights because said criminal violated other's rights and therefore a criminal could be subjected to having certain, if not all, rights denied.

Bob