[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Sonart Because all illegal guns begin as legal guns. Quote by: Roxdog False.

Really? Care to give me an example of an illegal gun manufacturer?

Quote by: Roxdog Statistically, very few. Why does crime skyrocket whenever guns are banned?

Who says they do? Gun loons made a big deal about how gun crime in Texas dropped 30% in the '90s after Texas passed liberal carry laws... or something to that affect. What they failed to mention was that gun crime also dropped 30% nationwide!

Then there's the futility of passing gun control in one state that borders another that has next to none.

But more than anything there's this simple fact... among the world's wealthy, democratic nations, nearly all of whom - unlike the United States - maintain strict gun control, the U.S. is the most violent civilized nation on earth. Proud of that distinction, are ya?

Quote by: Roxdog No way to really know but probably very little. Inanimate objects don't magically turn law abiding people into murderers.

Guns just make it really, really easy. A gun is not just a tool... it is a WEAPON! It is invented, designed and built to do one thing... easily and quickly kill from a distance. Therefore it makes anyone carrying a gun infinitely more capable of killing, no matter how strongly or marginally motivated they are, with just a few ounces of trigger pull.

Quote by: Roxdog Your silly fantasy world has little to do with reality...

Really? What have I said here that's wrong? Guns aren't weapons invented and designed to kill from a distance, which make it so easy to do so that two small, pre-teen boys could kill 5 people and wound 10 from 200 feet away?

Quote by: Roxdog Writing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights was basically a suicide pact when it was written. The so-called "revolution" barely existed at that point and any semblance of "success" was a half decade away.... Just admit it....you're clueless.

Who's clueless??

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written nearly10 years after the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a pre-revolution list of grievances, an international PR document, and mentions nothing about any right to bear arms.

Quote by: Roxdog No one is talking about "overthrowing" the current govt. There is nothing unreasonable about law-abiding persons having the ability to defened themselves....unless your a socialist bootlicker.

Really? Then what the hell are they talking about when they say things like, "the right was not intended for protection against crime, it was intended primarily from protection against tyrannical government." A bunch of libertarians are going to march on Washington, wave their guns around in an angry but peaceful manner, and the mean 'ol tyrannical government will promptly run away to Canada?

When someone says that being 'armed' is a defense ones own government, the obvious implication has to be the intent to use those guns in an armed insurrection to throw off that government. And NO government is going to allow an armed insurrection against themselves. Period.

For all their romantic belief in an armed citizenry as a defense against tyranny, none of the Founding Fathers, when each of them became President, would have allowed an armed rebellion against THEIR government to succeed. And in 1861 we found out just how far the government would go to prevent such an armed rebellion from succeeding. 600,000 dead.

Quote by: Roxdog It is an individual right. The Bill of Rights are individual rights. Facts. Funny how you get to decide which decisions are the "anomolies" and which ones aren't...

I don't decide anything... the US Supreme Court and "such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" do. And until Heller, only the 5th Circuit Court in Texas (go figure ) agreed with you. The Supeme Court and the various Circuit Courts of Appeal agreed that the 2nd Amendment is a "Collective Right" only, based on the necessity of maintaining a well-regulated militia.

For example...

United States v. Rybar, 3rd Circuit Court -- "Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. section 311(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 ...
citizens of the United States....

Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997, 113 S.Ct. 1614, 123 L.Ed.2d 174 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976).Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms."

Love v. Pepersack, 4th Circuit Court -- "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."

United States v. Warin, 6th Circuit Court -- "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):"


Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 7th Circuit Court -- "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, 8th Circuit Court -- [I"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."[/i]

Silviera v. Lockyer, 9th Circuit Court -- "Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED. . . . The constitutional challenges to the validity of the California Assault Weapons Control Act are all rejected, with the exception of the claim relating to the retired officers provision."

Got any other clever ways of demonstrating your ignorance, Roxdog?

Quote by: Roxdog (cough, cough).....Fascist.....(cough)....

Ah, yes, apparently you do. Godwin's Law.

Quote by: Roxdog Almost EVERY state constitution proves this.

So? I beleive the U.S. Constitution trumps State Constitutions.


.