[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER I am sure that the German people felt the same way you do till Hitler took power.

{{YAAAWWWN!}} Please don't bore me with this old saw. There are many, many peaceful democracies all around the world that have survived just fine with strict gun control. The major difference between them and us is that we are considerably more violent as a society.

Quote by: TRIGGER I don’t have to there have been no insurrections,

No Trigger, there's actually been quite a few... just no successful insurrections.

Quote by: TRIGGER They don't have to. There are arsenals all over the US just waiting to be broken in to.

Provided we can break into them. Look Trigger, you can invent all the positive scenerios you want, the result of an armed rebellion in the U.S. today would be a massive blood bath, with the rebels losing badly, and everyone knows it. There are vastly better ways to change the government. India, 1948. The Phillipines, 1986. And many more since. You're rationalizing a national catastrophe for the sake of justifying gun ownership.

Quote by: TRIGGER For a revolution to get started in the US, the government would have to do something so egregious that the people would rise up against them.

And personally I don't see that happening, and definitely not before other, less drastic options have been used.

And yet you would prefer our country continue indefinitely as the most violent, murderous 1st world country on earth just in case something that can't really happen should by some nightmare actually happen.

Quote by: TRIGGER If it means protecting the public against that mindless killing machine that you have referred to then yes.

YOu really don't get it, do you... either that or you're arguing just to argue. What you're talking about it not "protecting the public against that mindless killing machine". You're talking about unleashing the 'mindless killing machine'.

Quote by: TRIGGER Since they are a mindless killing machine as you claim

Only if they are ordered to do so, but the one thing that will guarantee such orders would be ARMED REBELLION.

Quote by: TRIGGER Right... cuz it's working so well in Iraq.

Look at Iraq and then think hard about this statement.

This (Silviera v.Lokyer) is the only case that used Miller and it is also the only court to do it.

No it wasn't. You need to learn to read, Trigger.

Examples:

Love v. Pepersack -- "In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia."

Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis -- "Although the limited nature of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment may not deprive Gillespie of standing, it does foretell the outcome of his challenge. For Gillespie has not convinced us that he can demonstrate a "reasonable relationship" between his own inability to carry a firearm and "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S. Ct. at 818. Because Gillespie has no reasonable prospect of being able to demonstrate such a nexus between the firearms disability imposed by the statute and the operation of state militias, Judge Barker was right to dismiss his Second Amendment claim."

United States v. Hale -- "Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103.

Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that Hale's possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia. The allegation by Hale that these weapons are susceptible to military use is insufficient to establish such a relationship. Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and the preservation of a well regulated militia."

United States v. Warin -- "Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United States, supra, that the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule in Miller, we consider the present case on its own facts and in light of applicable authoritative decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1):"

etc. etc.

Quote by: Winter wind You can't compare facts state to state like that. There could be a whole host of other mitigating factors.

Explain the mitigating factors here.

Quote by: Kite Rural areas on the other hand, are a very pro-gun environment, and criminals know that. City people are much easier prey, since they have been de-fanged by the laws that are supposed to protect them. Similarly, criminals tend to stay away from rural areas because, as an ex-con acquaintance of mine said, "some crazy hillbilly ass mo-fo will problably cap you as soon as you set foot in the door."

If that's true, Kite, then why are countries with stricter gun control than ours so much less murderously violent than we are?

.