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

Skip to comments.

Heartened by Senate Vote, Anti-Gun Groups Demand 'Stronger' Ban
CNSNews.com ^ | March 04, 2004 | By Susan Jones

Posted on 03/05/2004 5:37:41 AM PST by beaureguard

(CNSNews.com) - Gun control groups not only want Congress to pass an extension of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban -- they also want the ban to be "strengthened."

They said they are heartened by this week's gun control votes in the U.S. Senate.

The Washington-based Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of "willfully circumventing federal law" by modifying a new generation of weapons and renaming them 'post-ban' or 'after-ban' assault weapons.

Such weapons are perfectly legal under the so-called "assault weapons" ban. But the Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of evading the intent of Congress by "making minor cosmetic changes and producing 'clones' and 'knock-off' versions to continue to sell for profit at the expense of public safety."

The group singled out six Illinois gunmakers that manufacture "post-ban assault weapons." It said a new study shows that Illinois has more "post-ban" assault weapon manufacturers than any other state.

Even if the U.S. Senate had passed an extension of the semi-automatic weapons ban, "the extension would do nothing to curtail Illinois unique distinction of being number one in manufacturing these deadly assault weapons," said Thom Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says renewing the assault weapons ban will be its highest priority for the coming months.

In a press release, the group praised John Kerry for speaking "loud and clear on what America should be doing to reduce gun violence." On Tuesday, Kerry voted in favor of an amendment that would have extended the Clinton-era ban on "military-style assault weapons."

That amendment contributed to the defeat of a larger bill that would have protected gun makers from politically-motivated lawsuits intended to drive them out of business.

Brady Campaign President Michael Barnes praised "police leaders, crime victims and elected leaders of both parties" for "standing up and rejecting the extremist agenda of the National Rifle Association's leadership."

The fact that the Senate passed an amendment extending the assault weapons ban shows that "common-sense gun safety laws are back on the national agenda," Barnes said.

"As of today, these military-style weapons of destruction are only outlawed in this country for 195 more days," he warned. "Our priority in those 195 days is to work with police, Congress and the American public to make sure this ban remains in effect. To let it expire would be an outrage."

In the weeks ahead, gun violence advocates will be preparing for a second Million Mom March on May 9 in Washington, D.C. They're calling it "the Mother's Day March to Halt the Assault." Activists will call on Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the assault weapons ban, the Brady Campaign said.

'Fraud'

The Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban is a total fraud and should be allowed to lapse, Second Amendment groups say.

"Even before the Clinton ban was enacted, federal surveys showed that violent criminals carried a 'military-type gun' only in about one percent of the crimes nationwide," Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America's director of communications, said in a recent press release.

Gun owners object to the ban because it arbitrarily outlaws a certain group of guns based on how they look -- characteristics that give them a "military-style" appearance.

Equally offensive to some gun owners is the fact that the government is deciding which guns have "legitimate" uses -- the argument that "you don't need an assault weapon to go hunting."

One Second Amendment group recently rejected that "guns-for-hunting" argument.

"The Second Amendment is not, and never has been, about shooting ducks, deer, clay targets or tin cans," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), in a recent press release.

"It's about personal defense, homeland security, and resisting tyranny."

Another argument holds that by rallying Americans against "assault" weapons first -- gun control groups will find it that much easier to achieve their ultimate goal of eventually outlawing all guns.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: awb; bang; banglist; guncontrol

1 posted on 03/05/2004 5:37:41 AM PST by beaureguard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
For your bang list.
2 posted on 03/05/2004 5:38:14 AM PST by beaureguard (Herman Cain for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
The Washington-based Violence Policy Center accuses the gun industry of "willfully circumventing federal law" by modifying a new generation of weapons and renaming them 'post-ban' or 'after-ban' assault weapons.

No. They willfully FOLLOWED the law as written in your haste to get this BS through. That's why in CT. you can't own an AR15, but you can lawfully own a Bushmaster.

3 posted on 03/05/2004 5:43:32 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
""As of today, these military-style weapons of destruction are only outlawed in this country for 195 more days,"

I am confused.

The Supreme Court said in 1939, Miller v U.S., the first federal case for interpreting the first federal law infringing in the right to keep and bear arms, that Congress could outlaw sawed off shotguns because a sawed off shotgun had no military use and thus would not be used by a "militia."

Mr. Miller's conviction was upheld.

The Court said, in order for the right to keep and bear arms to be exerted, the arm had to have sometype of military utility. An arm that a "militia" would use.

So, based on this decision, the assault weapon ban is unconstitutional because such arms are of military utility and 2nd amendment states, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

4 posted on 03/05/2004 5:54:02 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
FYI: "...the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are happy to answer any questions from the accredited press."

The above sentence is directly from the web site of the Brady Center.

There is no link at the web site,vto send the organization an e-mail message.

I guess they are afraid of all of "hateful" e-mail messages they would get from liberty lovers like me.

5 posted on 03/05/2004 6:05:21 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
The argument they present is that"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons; mere civilians do not.
6 posted on 03/05/2004 6:15:49 AM PST by Gunner Mike (Ready on the right? Ready on the left? All ready on the firing line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; blackie; Travis McGee
"I, (name), do swear as I shall answer to God at the great day of judgement, I have not, nor shall have in my possession any gun, sword, pistol or arm whatever, and never use tartan, plaid, or any part of the highland garb; and if I do so, may I be cursed, may I never see my wife and children, father, mother or relations, and lie without a Christian burial in a strange land, far from the graves of my forefathers and my kindred; may all this come across me if I break my oath."
7 posted on 03/05/2004 6:26:20 AM PST by risk (Live free or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard; *bang_list; AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
8 posted on 03/05/2004 6:37:43 AM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
MOLON LABE!
9 posted on 03/05/2004 6:38:32 AM PST by MCRD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
One Second Amendment group recently rejected that "guns-for-hunting" argument.

Recently? Perhaps the CCRKBA only recently rejected it, but all other pro-2A groups have rejected it for decades.

10 posted on 03/05/2004 6:49:20 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Oh, stop it! It is against the rules to use logic and the anit-gunners own words and the Constitution to point out how stupid and wrong they are.
11 posted on 03/05/2004 6:50:58 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
We have got to get more active against this stuff.

ALL evidence indicates that private ownership of firearms is a postive thing, that it deters crime and that it is a healthy hobby for families to engage in. Its clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

There is an extremely large and vocal group of professional religious pacifists, liberal minority groups, entertainment and news media elites, and the leftists in Democratic Party who are pursuing a political agenda for restructuring American society and rewritting history and the war against the gun is an important component of this. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. If they are permitted to succeed here, they will move on to other, equally odious components of that agenda, encouraged by successes with a gun war.

Bush should be bombarded with letters, FAXES, E-mails, opposing ALL of these attempts to incrementally eviscerate the first amendment - gun show checks, the assault rifle ban, ballistic fingerprinting, smart guns, .50 caliber bans, etc.

We should keep our eyes open and send contributions to ANYONE ANYWHERE in the Country who is running for office against the most notorious of these anti-gun people like Schumer, Lautenberg, Corzine, Feinstein, Boxer, Nadler, Kennedy, etc.

We need to get better organized.

Maybe have a websote of our own where we can exchange alerts and information.

This nonesense has GOT to be stopped.
12 posted on 03/05/2004 6:52:29 AM PST by ZULU (God Bless Senator Joe McCarthy!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
P.S. You are correct. On one hand they point to the Miller case for the justification for all their people control laws and outlawing guns not deemed suitable for use in the militia and on the other hand they want to outlaw all guns that ARE suitable for use in the militia.

Who is the militia?

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Next

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(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, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Notes on revisions

13 posted on 03/05/2004 6:57:19 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: risk
"It's about personal defense, homeland security, and resisting tyranny."

The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, gun grabbers, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

14 posted on 03/05/2004 7:00:26 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Bump for the good guys on the bang list!

Be Ever Vigilant!

FMCDH!
15 posted on 03/05/2004 7:02:08 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blackie
See all our nobles begging to be slaves!
See all our fools aspiring to be knaves!
All, all look up with reverential awe
At crimes that 'scape or triumph o'er the law;
--Alexander Pope "Triumph of Corruption"
16 posted on 03/05/2004 7:07:50 AM PST by risk (Live free or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

NRA Anti-AWB Website

SUNSET THE AW BAN

17 posted on 03/05/2004 7:08:01 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: risk
Love that history!

No Guns, No Rights!

18 posted on 03/05/2004 7:12:35 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
In a press release, the group praised John Kerry for speaking "loud and clear on what America should be doing to reduce gun violence." On Tuesday, Kerry voted in favor of an amendment that would have extended the Clinton-era ban on "military-style assault weapons."
All of us need to keep this in mind.
19 posted on 03/05/2004 7:18:30 AM PST by wjcsux (3rd Party Voters; stupid is as stupid does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
We should keep our eyes open and send contributions to ANYONE ANYWHERE in the Country who is running for office against the most notorious of these anti-gun people like Schumer, Lautenberg, Corzine, Feinstein, Boxer, Nadler, Kennedy, etc.

We need to get better organized. Maybe have a websote of our own where we can exchange alerts and information.

This nonesense has GOT to be stopped.

Amen! I totally agree. We have to stop them NOW and get this resolved. If the Supreme Court is going to rule against us, I'd rather have it happen while we've still got our guns. As far as I'm concerned, the anti gunners have declared war against us and since they wanted a war, they've got one. I'm fed up with this crap!

20 posted on 03/05/2004 7:19:56 AM PST by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo; Euro-American Scum
The anti gun nuts are at it again!
21 posted on 03/05/2004 7:21:18 AM PST by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Molon Labe!
22 posted on 03/05/2004 7:25:45 AM PST by kildak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Maybe have a websote of our own where we can exchange alerts and information.

The High Road

SUNSET THE AW BAN

The Bang List

23 posted on 03/05/2004 7:28:13 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
BTTT
24 posted on 03/05/2004 7:29:03 AM PST by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
Gun control groups not only want Congress to pass an extension of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban -- they also want the ban to be "strengthened."

Good luck nannies. It will die in the house, unless Tom DeLay dies first, then Bush would be off the hook anyway, since he promised to sign an extension of the existing law, not a new, all encompassing ban.

25 posted on 03/05/2004 7:47:38 AM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
"I'm fed up with this crap!"

You speak for a lot of us.

The Repubs have got to be made to understand this is CORE issue with many of their constituents. Its what got me involved in politics on the Republican side.

The Dems are lost - forget them. They are all Bolsheviks today (Even John Kennedy belonged to the NRA!)
26 posted on 03/05/2004 8:09:13 AM PST by ZULU (God Bless Senator Joe McCarthy!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
Thanks.

I'll bookmark them.
27 posted on 03/05/2004 8:09:47 AM PST by ZULU (God Bless Senator Joe McCarthy!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
bump
28 posted on 03/05/2004 8:34:47 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
"The Second Amendment is not, and never has been, about shooting ducks, deer, clay targets or tin cans," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), in a recent press release.

"It's about personal defense, homeland security, and resisting tyranny."

Well said.

29 posted on 03/05/2004 8:37:21 AM PST by ForOurFuture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
The anti gun nuts are at it again!

Which anti gun nuts are you referring to?

The radical liberal anti gun nuts in Congress who would abolish the Second Amendment outright?

Or perhaps Dianne ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn then all in") Feinstein, the international socialist senator from California?

Or maybe, just maybe, you're alluding to the anti gun nut in the White House who stated plainly that he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban if it ever got to his desk?

I tend to lose track of them these days, there are so many.

30 posted on 03/05/2004 9:06:48 AM PST by Euro-American Scum (A poverty-stricken middle class must be a disarmed middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
"As of today, these military-style weapons of destruction are only outlawed in this country for 195 more days,"

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. We are in for a rough ride.

31 posted on 03/05/2004 9:42:17 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
Which anti gun nuts are you referring to?

The radical liberal anti gun nuts in Congress who would abolish the Second Amendment outright?

Or perhaps Dianne ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn then all in") Feinstein, the international socialist senator from California?

Or maybe, just maybe, you're alluding to the anti gun nut in the White House who stated plainly that he would sign the Assault Weapons Ban if it ever got to his desk?

I tend to lose track of them these days, there are so many.

I guess I'd be talking about all of the above. Anti gun nuts are our enemies, and I don't care what their party affiliations is.

32 posted on 03/05/2004 9:44:00 AM PST by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
So, based on this decision, the assault weapon ban is unconstitutional because such arms are of military utility,

So are short barrelled shotguns, but since no one, certainly not the NRA, spoke for Miller at the Supreme Court, that fact was never brought out. They are very useful in jungle and urban warfare. Lots of shotguns deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, I've seen the pictures.

33 posted on 03/05/2004 9:44:38 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
tahiti said: "Mr. Miller's conviction was upheld. "

Not quite.

The case was remanded to a lower court because the Supreme Court was not able to take judicial notice of whether or not such a shotgun could be useful to a militia.

I have never figured out which lower court was authorized to act on the Miller decision. Perhaps someone reading this thread knows. Since the ruling involves the introduction of new evidence, I would think that it would be the original trial court. Basically, this would then be an order for a trial with new rules. That lower court, I believe, had dismissed the case on Second Amendment grounds.

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court remand was the last official action on the Miller case.

34 posted on 03/05/2004 11:58:54 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
If the Supreme Court is going to rule against us, I'd rather have it happen while we've still got our guns.

Everything that will ever happen to me in my entire time on this Earth, however long that may be, will happen while I've still got my guns.

35 posted on 03/05/2004 2:35:35 PM PST by Sender ("This is the most important election in the history of the world." -DU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
(Even John Kennedy belonged to the NRA!)
I bought my first centerfire Rifle from the DCM (now CMP) during his adminstration. It was a 03-A3 .30-06 Springfield, Mine was a Remington 4 groove, brand new in a block of cosmoline. I learned to hunt and handload with that rifle. It cost $14.75, paid for with my paper route money. My Old Man ordered it, I was 15 years old. Good Days long gone.
36 posted on 03/05/2004 2:36:00 PM PST by reloader (Shooting- The only sport endorsed by the Founding Fathers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sender
Everything that will ever happen to me in my entire time on this Earth, however long that may be, will happen while I've still got my guns.

That's definitely good to hear. I know I won't because my survival is dependent on my being armed. I guess the thing that concerns me most is that D.C. and CA have been able to ban some weapons and they got away with it, so we know it can be done.

The ones who got rid of those guns were other gun owners that I never thought the government could disarm either. The reason they gave them up is because they're all law abiding citizens and they didn't want to get in trouble with the law.

So, what happens when they ban the 9 mm and other pistols with mags, pistol grip shotguns, etc.? Will the law abiding citizens in America surrender those guns too? I think they will, because they are law abiding citizens and given the successful bans in existence.

37 posted on 03/05/2004 3:45:26 PM PST by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: beaureguard
The AWB is directly about the RKBA.

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily 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."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

38 posted on 03/05/2004 7:40:59 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
P.S. You are correct. On one hand they point to the Miller case for the justification for all their people control laws and outlawing guns not deemed suitable for use in the militia and on the other hand they want to outlaw all guns that ARE suitable for use in the militia.

Interestingly, the only part of the NFA that has been tested at the Supreme Court level is the short barrelled shotgun tax scheme.

It surely would have been sweet if Mille and Layton had a BAR or a Thompson SMG instead of crappy old sawed off Stevens break action shotgun. No judge with even a smidgen of self respect could have argued that those do not have military/militia usefullness. Of course there were fewer such Justices around in 1934 than there are today. Today, my tagline applies in spades!

39 posted on 03/05/2004 10:09:02 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
IMHO, the court screwed the pooch, even then. Shotguns had been used in WWI in the trenches, and continued in use through Vietnam and beyond. An M-79 round was developed for infighting rendering the grenade launcher an oversized shotgun. (with a short barrel, no less!)
40 posted on 03/06/2004 3:13:45 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, the "Militia" were simply: the Army. "Regulated" was defined as controlled. (This from an English Dictionary ca 1814).

Using a little substitution, " A well controlled Army being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The second amendment has always been about giving the people the ability to keep the army from seizing control.

This is further bolstered by the debate in the Federalist Papers over the existence and/or size of any standing federal army.

41 posted on 03/06/2004 3:23:24 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Some will surrender their guns, some will surrender only the ones they don't need, others will just not be able to find them. Darn, now where'd I put those rifles?
42 posted on 03/06/2004 6:58:28 AM PST by Sender ("This is the most important election in the history of the world." -DU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I think you are wrong here. The militia at the time of the Revolution and writing of the Constitution was simply the whole body of the people. In particular, able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.

A more realistic interpretation would read: "A populace well trained in the use of infantry weapons being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shann not be infringed."
43 posted on 03/06/2004 8:47:35 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Read the discussions in the Federalist Papers about a standing army. The gist is this: a small Federal Army, enough to settle disputes between State Militias (armies), but not enough to overwhelm them; the state militias to be kept in check by the populace, who with arms could, by sheer force of numbers, even in the absence of martial training, carry the day.

Initially These United States were not called The United States. Each State Was a soverign entity; each had its own army.

You can quibble about meanings, but the definitions I gave you are from an English Dictionary printed about 1814 (Geo III's son had just taken over as Regent), and not just my opinion. The founders spoke and wrote in English, unchanged from the mother tongue, rather unlike today's American version.

More research leads one to discover that there were many different wordings considered to express this fundamental right, but the understanding that an opressive, largely military government had been so recently thrown off made explanation unnecessary.

Who would have thought that our culture (not human nature, but our culture) might evolve to the point that the right to arms and even self defense would be questioned?

There are still a number of opressive and tyrannical regimes in the world, and the only thing necessary for it to happen here is for people to lay down their arms and say it cannot.

44 posted on 03/07/2004 2:15:09 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
An afterthought:

The infantry firearms of the day were muskets used in volley (area) fire.

One of the prime strengths of the Colonials was that they were not trained in "modern" infantry tactics, nor were all using the same weapons.

Rather, the Colonists used hunting arms, including rifled weapons, capable of more accurate fire, with occasionally devastating results.

Sharpshooters aimed at the enemy's commanding officers, not just the rank and file as was the European custom.

The Iroquois (and others) had taught many (by experience) the advantages of the skulking way of war, using cover and concealment to gain advantage on the enemy.

Had they been trained in infantry tactics of the day with common infantry weapons of the era, they would not have had the advantages provided by unorthodoxy.

45 posted on 03/07/2004 2:23:53 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (As the oldest generation dies, the memory of liberty fades into obscurity, replaced by an impostor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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