The Daily Campus

Lets think about what happens when the Democrats control the whole government. They implement very strict (no more guns) policy's. The NRA would grow so much that they might just replace the Democratic party.

Sounds great to me!!
I hope the Dems win 08. They will have committed political suicide.

Gun Control is hitting your target.

the second admenment is the only granty of the constution.to control gun is to take away from the granty of it.chances are we won`t have to defend yhe constution from another country. think about it

The author of this article wrote;


Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

This is an unfair characterization of citizens who believe in reduced gun control and the second amendment. Public safety, individual rights and gun control are seperate issues. More gun control will weaken the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms. These same controls will have no effect on lawbreakers. A fundamental flaw in the idea that more laws will prevent violence is that criminals do not obey the law.

It is a curious notion that the Supreme Court is vested with the power to find a "middle of the road verdict." It is not their within the scope of their duties (those duties defined by 'the people') to make such value judgements. The Constitution is a legal document, and were it is specific, it will be enforced.

That having been said, many arguments against gun control are based in the (rational) fear of a slippery slope, where controls lead to eventual bans and confiscations. Those in favor of stronger controls should hope that the Supreme Court determines there exists an individual right to own firearms. If they do, and if this removes the fear of confiscation, then gun owners might except some additional regulation of firearm commerce.

The "Lead" in a pencil is graphite not Lead.

Most anti-gun advocates have as little knowledge about guns as you do about pencils and propose equally ineffective laws like Clinton's "scary looking gun" ban. Concentrate on dealing with the criminals, not the guns.

Death of innocents is the human cost of infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

"Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. ... Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety."

Dan, you state that gun-control activists fight for safety. That is not entirely true, and perhaps not even partially true. What is certainly true is that gun control activists fight for gun control, often under the guise of public safety concerns. The shaky assumption upon which you base your article is that gun control = public safety. This assumption is debatable, at best, and there is strong evidence against just that assumption. The window of opportunity to fool and mislead us on these issues is quickly shrinking...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical government. Firearms registration is antithetical to this; the State should not have an inventory of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens.

Get your facts straight. Background checks are still done on all firearms purchases made from licensed dealers and even from private owners at gun shows in some states. Which I disagree with. While the government is required to destroy records from background checks after a certain amount of time, the 4473 that gets filled out for the purchase is kept on file indefinitely. This removes the so called need to report sales.

Those who are not fear-ridden control-freaks often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those who are fear-ridden control-freaks would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

What is the point of gun registration aside from making a potential confiscation list? Even states that do require registration, on average, have much higher crime and murder rates than states that do not. This is due to the fact that gun registration and/or licenses are completely useless to law enforcement and only restrict law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. Criminals are still trading unregistered weapons and stolen registered weapons. A crime can be committed with a registered gun, but criminals do not ditch their guns like in Hollywood films. Americans should wake up and realize that the anti-gun lobby pushes for registration not for public safety, but because it is an important step in complete disarmament of the American people.

Dan, you are indeed very badly informed concerning current firearms law and the effect of the 1986 FOPA.

Study up a bit and try again.

As noted above: The Second Amendment enumerates a pre-existing right of a free people. It is not for the Supreme Court to pass judgement on this right - merely to confirm the meaning of the text.

Historical Facts About Gun Control

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Between 1915 and 1917 approximately 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up by the government and exterminated.

In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 approximately 13 million Jews and other political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The total number of victims slaughtered during the 20th century because of gun control: 52 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program which cost Australian taxpayers an estimated $500 million dollars. The first year results are now available for review:
1. Australia-wide, homicides have increased 3.2%. In the state of Victoria alone homicides with firearms have increased 322%!
2. Australia-wide, assaults have increased 8.6%.
3. Australia-wide, armed robberies have increased 44% (yes, 44%. That's not a typo.).
Statistics for the previous 25 years have shown a steady decrease in armed robberies. This has changed drastically upward in the last 12 months as criminals are now guaranteed that their victims will be unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in the number of assaults against the elderly and burglaries of elderly peoples' homes in the last 12 months. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain why public safety has decreased so much after such a monumental effort was made to rid Australian society of guns.

While they may be ignorant of the facts, the Australian results and other historical facts listed above speak volumes to me.

Obviously these facts will not appear on American television or radio news as these media are controlled by left-wing nuts. The media serving as the lapdog to liberalism is not a new phenomenon. The facts remain immutable, as they have been since our Constitution was adopted:
Guns in the hands of private citizens save lives, property, and safeguard the citizenry from their government.

Gun control laws adversely affect only law abiding citizens.
The next time some idiot wants gun control, kindly remind them of this history lesson.

To understand the second amendment, all one has to do is go right to the source, the Federalist Papers:

Federalist 28 (Alexander Hamilton)

"That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction."

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Federalist 29 (Alexander Hamilton)

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

Federalist 46 (James Madison)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

That is the end of all arguments. The founders were very clear in their reasoning.

I support the 2nd Ammendment.(No ifs ands or buts.) I have every right in this world to defend myself (and every right to express my 2nd Ammendment rights.)