Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Heck, Give Everybody a Gun!
LewRockwell.com ^ | 11/11/03 | Brad Edmonds

Posted on 11/11/2003 4:03:03 AM PST by Siamese Princess

John Lott (buy his book), Richard Poe (buy his), and all manner of libertarians have been making the case that widespread gun ownership decreases crime; and that personal gun ownership is consistent with, even guaranteed by, the 2nd amendment. Even the government, following the war between the states, saw it that way as freed black slaves were guaranteed gun-ownership rights because, as several courts decided, gun ownership was the most important test of whether a man is truly free.

Thomas Sowell and John Lott have shown that multiple-shooting incidents, where a single nut goes on a killing spree, happen mainly in gun-free zones (such as government schools), and that multiple shootings are usually terminated only when someone else shows up with a gun to stop the shooter. An exception would be the Columbine massacre, where the shooters killed themselves when they ran out of nearby victims; in that one, the armed sheriff’s deputies stayed outside, away from the shooting, until the shooting stopped. They performed this heroic act on orders from the sheriff.

It should be clear why the government and your local police don’t want you to have guns: If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police, or indeed, the military. More ominously, you can defend your person, property, and family from the government itself: An armed and educated America would not only need to be less afraid of such government crimes as Ruby Ridge and Waco; that sort of America might clamor for the reduction of the size of government, or even the institution of a different one (a natural right our founders understood and held dear). That our government doesn’t like the prospect of individual gun ownership is not unique to the US – governments all over the world have gun-control laws. Naturally, such laws are no more effective elsewhere than they are in the US.

But for the time being, it remains possible for us to purchase and own guns. My recommendation: One pistol per family member, at least one short-barreled shotgun per family, and a deer rifle with a scope per family. Pistols offer mobile, concealed personal protection. Shotguns offer effective home defense. A pump shotgun is even better than a semi-automatic, since the sound of you chambering the first round is usually enough to send an intruder running for his life, so everybody wins – he learns a lesson that might prevent him from entering the next house and you don’t have nightmares about the mess his guts made in your house. The high-powered rifle, for its part, provides a threat even the government must take seriously. Few flak jackets do a very effective job of stopping a heavy, pointed bullet traveling at 2800 feet per second (the most powerful pistols manage at best 1500 fps with a lighter bullet). Additionally, you can be a threat from hundreds of yards with a deer rifle. A large city – heck, even a neighborhood – full of people owning such weapons would be a formidable problem for the ATF.

So there are bunches of reasons for me to want everybody to have guns – crime goes down, and I would venture to place a wager that government would slowly begin shrinking as well.

And I can’t think of a reason for everybody not to have guns. I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do. Just as no criminals walk into a gun show to start a shooting rampage, we can be confident that few, or no, criminals would go on shooting rampages in offices, post offices, schools, or shopping malls.

Of course, our political left wing warns us ad infinitum that our society would deteriorate into daily shootouts if everybody walked around carrying a gun. Not so. Think about the current situation: We are allowed to drive cars and to carry baseball bats. You can kill lots of people with either. Nobody ever does it. The 99% of us who aren’t criminal kooks simply don’t go around hurting other people. Think about all the people you work with, see at the grocery store, meet at church and social occasions: How many of those people would you fear? Some of the stronger ones among them already are able to kill you with their fists. How often do they do that?

So: It has been established empirically that we would have less ordinary crime if everybody walked around armed. It has been established empirically that we would have less fear of foreign invasion, and less fear of terrorist attacks, under the same conditions (remember the statement by WWII Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."; and see how often Switzerland has been invaded). It was established logically by our government itself in the early days that the government would be better kept at bay with gun ownership. And those towns that have high levels of gun ownership prove what common sense suggests: Widespread gun ownership doesn’t make criminals out of ordinary people – only criminals are made to feel unsafe when everybody’s armed. Indeed, data in the US show that you and I are more trustworthy gun owners than the cops themselves.

Go out and buy yourself some guns today, and give some as gifts. You’ll love yourself for it, and make me feel safer at the same time.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
Holiday season is approaching and it's time to buy gifts for those you love, even if only for yourself. Give the gift that keeps on giving.
1 posted on 11/11/2003 4:03:04 AM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Wow, something I can agree with from Lew Rockwell...
2 posted on 11/11/2003 4:08:39 AM PST by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do.

Also of note: felons weren't prohibited from owning firearms until the 1968 GCA.

3 posted on 11/11/2003 4:16:22 AM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang!
4 posted on 11/11/2003 4:16:44 AM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
bump
5 posted on 11/11/2003 4:18:00 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Good grief, Lew Rockwell is actually making sense.

- from one Siamese Princess to another.

6 posted on 11/11/2003 4:20:56 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Djarum
if some one has served his time and paid his debt to society, he should not be denied his rights...

then again, in 1968, it was all about getting thugs back onto the streets to wreak havoc so they could enforce more stringent laws on our freedoms.

keep us in fear and we depend more on the government for protection...

teeman
7 posted on 11/11/2003 4:32:04 AM PST by teeman8r (due to technical difficulties beyond our control, no tagline is available at this particular time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Problem is the author of the original article clearly isn't
reading Schumer--or Rosie--If only he had read these
outstanding authors I am shur ehe would be able to see
our nation is less safe for all the availability of guns--
people don't kill people--guns do.
8 posted on 11/11/2003 5:10:09 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Another author has read my mind. When did they put one of those chips in me?
9 posted on 11/11/2003 5:38:02 AM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
Are you sure you don't wanna put a (/sarcasm) tag on the end of that one? I mean, there is humor and then there are trolls....
10 posted on 11/11/2003 5:48:19 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
And I can’t think of a reason for everybody not to have guns. I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them, as long as the rest of us do.

If a released felon wants a gun to commit a crime, no law will stop him.

If a released felon wants a gun but doesn't want to commit a crime, no law should stop him!

11 posted on 11/11/2003 5:50:39 AM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
This article had me until the ATF statement.
I have met and talked to the agents of this oft smeard agencey. What professionals. Who do you think investigated the '93 World Trade Center bombing?
And as for Waco, that was a manager's call looking to impress Washington. Not the agents who got chewed up by the stupidity. I talked to the FBI Swat who responded for the seige. It was more Dessert 1 cluster than evil empire.
(I say this because of an expected response from the ATF-is-evil crowd)
They enforce the laws given them by congress the same way any cop enforces the laws on the books. Want to have a positive view of your government? Elect conservatives that make sensible laws and position professionals in management. Elect Democrats and you get activist laws and biased unethical management. (FILEGATE IRS AUDITS etc)
As for gun ownership, I have always owned them and do not think present gun laws are constitutional. By repealing them you would see gun prices go down and crime go down. The cost of building new prisons and the insurance claim reductions also would be down. The time in manhours and cost to law enforcement in enforcing gun laws is reduced.Less crime victims and less cost to the taxpayer. What's not to like?
Oh, and the ATF would still be there working with other agencies to protect us all. I remember the agents wearing the ATF jackets at the Oklahoma federal building and the World Trade Center and on the capture of Muslim bomb makers in New Jersey......
12 posted on 11/11/2003 6:13:52 AM PST by IrishCatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
It should be clear why the government and your local police don’t want you to have guns: If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police...


Clearly.

Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.

As a threat to their profitable "turf."

13 posted on 11/11/2003 6:46:59 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
I have met and talked to the agents of this oft smeard agencey. What professionals. Who do you think investigated the '93 World Trade Center bombing?

What is a tax-collection agency doing investigating crimes? Wasn't the FBI in charge?

And as for Waco, that was a manager's call looking to impress Washington. Not the agents who got chewed up by the stupidity. I talked to the FBI Swat who responded for the seige. It was more Dessert 1 cluster than evil empire.

"I vas only followink orders!" (And if this was the work of one bad manager, why did the agency lie and cover up, instead of imprisoning - or at least dismissing the scapegoat?)

They enforce the laws given them by congress the same way any cop enforces the laws on the books...

...Stomping on kittens, committing perjury to gain a conviction, planting evidence, and putting people in jail for 10 years for failing to pay a $200 tax.

I remember the agents wearing the ATF jackets at the Oklahoma federal building...

I remember hearing how the ATF agents who worked in the Murrah building were suspiciously absent the day of the blast. But that's only a rumor about our heroes in black kevlar, the standing army our founders feared.

14 posted on 11/11/2003 7:01:06 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
re: (I say this because of an expected response from the ATF-is-evil crowd)
 
Professionals in action.
15 posted on 11/11/2003 7:26:03 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
ugh... that'll teach me to post a link without reading it all the way through.
the noticed towards the end the author got kind of flaky conclusion-wise (plus I completely missed the 'paranet/ufo garbage at the top of the page). still the first portion with the survivor accounts is accurate and in sync with more credible sources.
better linkage: Worldnet Daily's pretty reliable. check the archives.
Waco expert's death 'suspicious'
 
Vin Suprynowicz, solid as always. Speaking the unpalatable truth
 
Davidian Masscre  
16 posted on 11/11/2003 7:55:15 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Governments and liberals agree:

Only the police and military need guns.


17 posted on 11/11/2003 7:57:08 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
one more (dang I'm getting prematurely senile or something)
 
(excerpted) Supports earlier claims made by independent reporters that FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) imagery examined by noted expert Dr. Edward F. Allard indeed shows federal agents firing automatic weapons at fleeing Davidians.
full article: Silence on Waco evidence
18 posted on 11/11/2003 7:58:42 AM PST by tomakaze (Todays "useful idiot" is tomorrows "useless eater")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Generally a good article, but a few quibles are in order.

If you can defend yourself, you don’t have as much need of the police, or indeed, the military.

The police and military are fundamentally different. The police do what we could do for ourselves, generally acting against individual transgressors, unlikely to be more armed, organized or disciplined that ourselves. The military exists to defend against heavily armed, trained and organized forces of foreign countries or in some cases sub or trans national groups. Although I hate to disaggree with Hamiliton, the prospect of having the entire militia (i.e. the people at large) as well trained, organzied and equiped as the Peoples Liberation Army, is a very daunting prospect and probably not practicle. Thus the Congress was given the power by the Constitution to raise armies.

A pump shotgun is even better than a semi-automatic, since the sound of you chambering the first round is usually enough to send an intruder running for his life, so everybody wins – he learns a lesson that might prevent him from entering the next house and you don’t have nightmares about the mess his guts made in your house. The high-powered rifle, for its part, provides a threat even the government must take seriously. Few flak jackets do a very effective job of stopping a heavy, pointed bullet traveling at 2800 feet per second (the most powerful pistols manage at best 1500 fps with a lighter bullet). Additionally, you can be a threat from hundreds of yards with a deer rifle. A large city – heck, even a neighborhood – full of people owning such weapons would be a formidable problem for the ATF.

Agree on the effectiveness of "deer rifles", and of pistols and shotguns as well. However the hoary old "rack the first round into the chamber" is best left unrepeated. The first round should *be* in the chamber, and if you don't want to do that, the sound of the bolt opening and closing on a semi auto is just as intimidating as the snick-snick of a smoothly functioning pump. (Still, I have two pump shotguns, one dedicated to "serious social purposes" and no semi auto shotguns. But that's due to reliability and cost factors, plus family tradition in the case of the "bird gun")

19 posted on 11/11/2003 9:42:28 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
I'm a size .45, but I can fit into a .357.

Do you need my address? ;-)
20 posted on 11/11/2003 9:53:20 AM PST by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Djarum
" Also of note: felons weren't prohibited from owning firearms until the 1968 GCA."

And they're going to get them anyway regardless of any law.

21 posted on 11/11/2003 9:54:45 AM PST by Badray (Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
"I don’t even care if convicted criminals have them..."

They already do. Only honest people worry about breaking the law.
22 posted on 11/11/2003 10:01:17 AM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.

As a threat to their profitable "turf."


ALLRIGHT!!!, I'm a double threat!
23 posted on 11/11/2003 10:04:02 AM PST by cyclotic (Forget United Fraud (way) donate directly to your local Boy Scout Council.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
You bet.

Each year, acquire for each of your loved ones a Homeland Security arm and optics, and the FReeper standard 1,000+ rounds of ammunition, reloading tools, supplies, and books. Be a shooting buddy always. Make it a point to teach tyhree younger people to shoot well, always a woman (mother when possibled) and responsible kids.

A durable copy of our ratified Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers also make for good stocking stuffers.

The culture and religious wars are here. In 1993 the Clintons' administration did assault on full auto the Branch Davidians' church, home to 142 men, women, and children - to "arrest" one man for the BATF Video cameras.

To exercise our 2nd Amendment under our 14th's equal protection is a Patriot Act.

Know which laws and politicians violate our ratified Constitution, the ultimate Law of our Land. Forget their oaths of office; they did. We shall never abide SCOTUS or their inferiors to rule over us corrupting our ratified Constitution ordering that our Law of our Land does not now mean what it actually proclaims to all.
24 posted on 11/11/2003 10:07:09 AM PST by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
However the hoary old "rack the first round into the chamber" is best left unrepeated. The first round should *be* in the chamber

Here here.If I wake up in the wee hours and somebody is mucking about in my home the first evidence of my presence will be me lighting them up with the million watt spot wired onto the fore end of my remi 870. It's nice to think you can relly on "scarin' em off", but if they happen to be armed, every advantage should be taken by you, including suprise.

25 posted on 11/11/2003 10:17:21 AM PST by Dosa26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Dear Santa,

I've been a good conservative this year. For Christmas I would reeeeaaallly like a .40 Glock, model 23 I believe.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease?
26 posted on 11/11/2003 10:25:10 AM PST by opus86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
I have met and talked to the agents of this oft smeared agency. [ATF]

So have I. The ones I have talked to honestly felt they were serving citizens.

BUT they honestly felt the best way to serve them was to disarm them. And this was so important that intimidation was a valid tactic. ("Scare 'em so bad when you show up that they won't even think about resisting. That way no one gets hurt.")

Except of course people do get hurt. Including innocent ones who are the very people they are supposed to serve.

There is a natural and virtually unavoidable tendency, when you are forced to confront illegal weapons as part of your job, to begin to consider that all weapons - and those who possess them - are either already illegal or should be. It's inherent in the job, and in the type of people who would work at that job, to want to eliminate the problem.

That's a fine attitude - for the Gestapo. Not for US civil servants. Yet I truly believe the vast majority of basic ATF officers are fine, honorable people. The problem is the job, and the Agency itself. The ATF has to go.
27 posted on 11/11/2003 2:38:42 PM PST by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Lew Rockwell often carries good pieces. There was another one there today about guns, by Charley Reese, but I thought that one was enough.

Awww, she's a beauty! The original Siamese Princess is a 15 1/2 year-old, fat, cranky seal-point with the name of Her Royal Highness the Princess Jessamyn of Siam, Jessy for short. That's for sharing the picture.

28 posted on 11/11/2003 9:01:21 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
actually rank and file officers have a different view than the elected sheriffs and chiefs. It should be noted also that activist judges HATE people who help themselves when it comes to defense.
29 posted on 11/11/2003 9:03:36 PM PST by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.

As a threat to their profitable "turf."

The goal of modern day government is to encourage as much dependency on the government as possible. I've said for years that you cannot separate the welfare state from gun control and a disarmed citizenry. Not long ago, self-reliance was both a virtue and a necessity and the highest form of self-reliance was self-defense. Nowadays, the government that considers you too childish and stupid to provide for your own sickness, unemployment, old age, etc., also promises to "protect" you from the bad guys.

Liberty and security are incompatible. If you wish to be taken care of as if you were 12-years-old, be prepared to be treated as if you were 12-years-old.

30 posted on 11/11/2003 9:13:17 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Governments and liberals agree: Only the police and military need guns.

"We're from the government and we're here to help you."

31 posted on 11/11/2003 9:15:08 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: opus86
I've been a good conservative this year. For Christmas I would reeeeaaallly like a .40 Glock, model 23 I believe.

What I would like for Christmas is a Smith & Wesson 21, .22 semi-auto revolver. Beautiful gun, retails new for over $800.

A friend of mine owns two. I asked him to remember me in his will.

32 posted on 11/11/2003 9:19:12 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
My state constitution says that all able-bodied men aged 18-45 unless exempted are the "militia," and the public rifles are to be stored in armories. I do not know of such public arms and armories, though I ought to speak with Travis' Luke Tanner, who knows people there.

So I guess we all have to buy "Springfield Armory" manufactured goods, for the security of a free state.
33 posted on 11/11/2003 9:22:20 PM PST by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Great article.
34 posted on 11/11/2003 9:32:47 PM PST by Looking4Truth (I'm in one of 'those' moods again....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
actually rank and file officers have a different view than the elected sheriffs and chiefs. It should be noted also that activist judges HATE people who help themselves when it comes to defense.

I belong to a gun club and have been told that it's easier to get a new handgun permit in some towns than in others. I had no problem here in Caldwell, New Jersey, and a friend can expect to get her permit approved in one day (she has a large gun collection). On the other hand, another friend was given the run around for nearly a year. Strangely enough, this was in a rural area of New Jersey but the police chief thinks that only the police should own handguns!

Of course, activist (read liberal) judges hate people who defend themselves. They don't believe that people should do anything for themselves. After all, that's what the government is there for -- to look after you and take care of all of your needs! (sarcasm off)

35 posted on 11/11/2003 9:38:10 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
I believe you're thinking of a Smith and Wesson Model 41.

I have a 22A that I like a lot. It was inaccurate until I finished a box of 50 and then it became a tackdriver.
36 posted on 11/11/2003 9:47:28 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Is it not true that many semi-automatic firearms are restricted by law in your state, and that you are limited to revolving-, pump-, and single-action arms?

Does this categorization under the cognizance of New Jersey law not seem arbitrary, abusive, or otherwise contrary to the U.S. Constitution?
37 posted on 11/11/2003 9:50:36 PM PST by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Unknowing
Lever-action also, I guess.
38 posted on 11/11/2003 9:55:32 PM PST by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Unknowing
New Jersey doesn't have a "Second Amendment" in their Constitution.

Until we get at least one more conservative on the US Supreme Court, we won't be overturning any gun laws for a while.
39 posted on 11/11/2003 9:55:38 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Badray
No I don't need your address you seem to have things under control.

I don't dial 911, I dial 357.

40 posted on 11/11/2003 10:12:43 PM PST by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
My recommendation: One pistol per family member, at least one short-barreled shotgun per family, and a deer rifle with a scope per family

That's a good start

41 posted on 11/11/2003 10:16:36 PM PST by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unknowing
bump
42 posted on 11/11/2003 10:26:03 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Unknowing
My state constitution says that all able-bodied men aged 18-45 unless exempted are the "militia," and the public rifles are to be stored in armories. I do not know of such public arms and armories, though I ought to speak with Travis' Luke Tanner, who knows people there.

So I guess we all have to buy "Springfield Armory" manufactured goods, for the security of a free state.

According to the 1792 Militia Act, all able-bodied male citizens of military age (about 17 or 18 to 45) were automatically enrolled in the citizens' militia. This does not mean the National Guard, which did not exist in 1792. The National Guard is the organized militia, versus the unorganized militia consisting of the citizenry. Even at the outbreak of the Civil War, a number of states still had laws on the books mandating that male citizens, accompanied by their firearms, muster once a month for drill. At that point, though, it seems that the typical militia outfit was simply a private social club, giving the members an excuse to get together every so often, dress up in smart uniforms, parade around and impress the girls and then go for drinks. They sure made pretty targets at First Bull Run.

Here in New Jersey, use of the M-1 carbine is banned. I assume that I may own one (I'd like to), but I can't fire it in New Jersey. Imagine: A man could use one to fight with in WWII but nowadays can't use it for target practice in New Jersey.

43 posted on 11/11/2003 10:28:01 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I believe you're thinking of a Smith and Wesson Model 41. .

41, you are right. I had a senior moment there. Smith & Wesson is no longer on the doo-doo list for shooters. The first revolver I bought was a little S&W .22, but I shoot much better with the 41. Thanks.

44 posted on 11/11/2003 10:35:15 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Unknowing
Is it not true that many semi-automatic firearms are restricted by law in your state, and that you are limited to revolving-, pump-, and single-action arms?

As far as I know, only the M-1 carbine is banned -- but I'm no legal expert. Semi-autos are still legal. A month after 9-11, I bought a Bushmaster XM-15 "Shorty" semi-automatic rifle at the Allentown gun show. It came with a .223 magazine and I bought a couple more, but according to New Jersey law, a magazine cannot hold more than 10 rounds and these held 15. So a friend put a small piece of wood inside of each magazine to partially block them. Someone told me that it is illegal to even possess a 15-round magazine in NJ, but another person said that's not true.

It doesn't bode well that the Democrats swept both houses of the legislature last week and have the governorship, as well. There is a legitimate fear of tough new gun control laws. The libs here are big on "smart guns."

Does this categorization under the cognizance of New Jersey law not seem arbitrary, abusive, or otherwise contrary to the U.S. Constitution?

Who cares about the US Constitution any more? You, me and the man behind the tree, perhaps.

45 posted on 11/11/2003 10:58:17 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Thank You

You took the words right out of My mouth (and was much nicer that I would have been)

46 posted on 11/11/2003 11:21:16 PM PST by ChefKeith (NASCAR...everything else is just a game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
see post 46

And by the way I overheard some Bad Attitude Towards Freedom "agents" gloating about what they pulled off in the Branch Davidian (Waco) arson murders.

They are SCUM!!!

47 posted on 11/11/2003 11:27:17 PM PST by ChefKeith (NASCAR...everything else is just a game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: opus86
Dear Santa,

I've been a good conservative this year. For Christmas I would reeeeaaallly like a .40 Glock, model 23 I believe.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease?

My Dear Santa letters usually start out with...

Dear Santa

I can explain....

48 posted on 11/11/2003 11:34:54 PM PST by Conservative4Ever (Wm. Wallace did not cry 'diversity' while being disemboweled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
Heads up, Siamese Princess. From the NRA Website:

"New Jersey law restricts the ownership of certain semi-automatic and other firearms based upon their military appearance. The list includes:

Algimec AGM1 type
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"
Armalite AR-180 type
Australian Automatic Arms SAR
Avtomat Kalashnikov type semi-automatic firearms
Beretta AR-70 and BM59 semi-automatic firearms
Bushmaster Assault rifle
Calico M-900 Assault carbine and M-900
CETME G3
Chartered Industries of Singapore
SR88 type
Colt AR-15 and CAR-15 series
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1 and Max 2,
AR 100 types
Demro TAC-1 carbine type
Encom MP-9 and MP-45 carbine types
FAMAS MAS 223 types
FN-FAL, FN- AR, or FN-FNC type semi-automatic firearms
Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12 Shotguns
G3SA type
Galil type
Heckler and Koch HK91, HK93, HK94, MP5, PSG-1
Intratec TEC-9 and 22 semi-automatic firearms
M1 carbine type
M1 4S type, MAC10, MAC11, MAC11 9mm carbine type firearms
PJK M-68 carbine type
Plainfield Machine Co. Carbine
Ruger K-Mini-14/5F and Mini-1 4/5RF
SIG AMT, SIG 550SP, SIG 551SP, SIG-PE-57 types
SKS with detachable magazine type
Spectre Auto carbine type
Springfield Armory BM59 and
SAR-48 type
Sterling MK-6, MK-7, and SAR types
Steyr AUG semi-automatic firearms
USAS 12 semi-automatic type shotgun
Uzi type semi-automatic firearms
Valmet M62, M71S, M76, or M78 type semi-automatic firearms
Weaver Arms Nighthawk

Any firearms which are substantially identical to any of the above firearms; any semiautomatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a conspicuous pistol grip, or a folding stock; a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 15 rounds. Any magazine with a capacity greater than fifteen rounds is prohibited, even if there is no semi-automatic firearm to accompany the magazine."

Bear in mind that I am not licensed to practice law in the Garden State, and this does not constitute a legal opinion.
49 posted on 11/12/2003 4:16:45 PM PST by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ChefKeith
No, you didn't. If you knew anything about law enforcement you would know that killing someone isn't like it is on T.V. From the investigations to the potential civil lawsuits that can take everything from you and drive you into bankruptcy you would know that no pro takes it lightly. Not to mention the taking of a human life which is a lot to deal with on it's own.
There was more than one agency at the raid and more than one at the seige. None of those agencies would have been willing to put up with murderers in their midst. Cops and feds are concerned with the law and keeping people safe.
Go back to the militia club house and watch Dukes of Hazard reruns. You have nothing to contribute.
50 posted on 11/12/2003 10:57:05 PM PST by IrishCatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson