Would you obey?

[SkilletsUSMC]

Im having a heated debate on another site (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=633131&page=1) about weather or not Marines would follow an order to confiscate weapons from normal american citizens should a ban on firearms become a reality. Those of you who know me, know where I stand on this, but I want your opinions.

Active and former Marines... Would you comply and use deadly force on American citizens, or disobey?

[Wyoming]

.

Not me!! .. :thumbdown

[SkilletsUSMC]

Thanks for posting BigAl,

To the rest of the Marines, if you would be so kind, could you post a thumbs up or down either way, to show the world how you voted?

[sparkie]

take weapons from law abiding citizens. {They would not take mine, either}

:thumbdown

[ssgtt32]

I am a law abiding person, if someone wants my guns, he can have them, 1 BULLET AT A TIME! Then he can pry my cold dead fingers from around them!
:mad:
Maurice

[gys]

Not me

[GUNNY MAX]

I would only take them from the known sleeze balls. Law abiding citizens need to be trained and issued a weapon!!!!

[Robert Browell]

Confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens!Not in my lifetime!And I will ventilate anyone who tries to take mine!:yes: There is a reason we have the right to bear arms!:thumbdown

[sparkie]

If we could only attach the Federalist Papers to the Constitution, no body would be takin nuthin. ORIGiONAL INTENT!!!!!!!!

Tell That To The Sublime Court.

[exnitro]

:thumbdown No way, nor would I let anyone take mine!

[3077India]

:thumbdown Such an order would be unjust and a violation of our constitutional right to bear arms.

[hrscowboy]

Nope aint gettin mine

[jrhd97]

:thumbdown not a chance, no way no how. i would just have to take the court marshal for willfully disobeying

[Marine84]

:thumbdown Not unless they were pointing one at me

[semperfi170]

:thumbdown

NOT ME

[greensideout]

:thumbdown Such an order would be unjust and a violation of our constitutional right to bear arms.


Therefore--- it would be an unlawful order that we would not be required to follow.

[Achped]

Therefore--- it would be an unlawful order that we would not be required to follow.
Exactly.

Just like I wouldn't bust up an organization who was organizing and petitioning the government to change a law, even if ordered too. (Again, unless their demonstrations were violent and lawbreaking, just as if US citizens with guns were using them against the government)

You'll never see me taking a firearm out of an American citizen's hand. I heard stories about the national guard taking guns away from homeowners who's houses hadn't been destroyed by Katrina, and shortly after their homes being looted to the point that their houses might as well have been destroyed anyways.

Makes me sick.

[bootlace15]

they can bite me,lock,stock and barrel.

bootlace15 out

[Phantom Blooper]

Can't have mine! I'm partial too them!:evilgrin:

[8th&I Marine]

:thumbdown not me, I would like to see some Sum Bum try and take them. They might end up with a severe limp.


Cantrell:flag:

[LeonardLawrence]

I have to clarify though.

If a ban on firearms became a reality...then by assumption, that went through a process...maybe a constitutional ammendment perhaps? Seems like it may be a lawful order....that would have to be worked out.

At this point...I am going to say no way ,but can I still shoot someone??:scared: Please?

[bucksgted]

:flag: Gonna have to kill me first before you or anyone else gets mine. :flag:
:thumbdown

[SkilletsUSMC]

I have to clarify though.

If a ban on firearms became a reality...then by assumption, that went through a process...maybe a constitutional ammendment perhaps? Seems like it may be a lawful order....that would have to be worked out.

At this point...I am going to say no way ,but can I still shoot someone??:scared: Please?

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Any "amendmending" of the amendment is clearly unlawfull.

[jahhead88]

Let's see. Hitler confiscated weapons, he took over the schools, and took over the press. Now there's a debate as to whether or not, our Nation's finest should confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. So, are the Marines going to confiscate the guns from the gang members as well? I sure as heck wouldn't follow that order. Nope.

[jrhd97]

Charelton Heston could not have said it better. " ... from my cold dead hands..". Spoken at a speach he gave as the president of the NRA.

[sgt tony]

:thumbdown Not in my life time. Now help take them from law less an like sure.

[LeonardLawrence]

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Any "amendmending" of the amendment is clearly unlawfull.

Thanks Skillets, I have read that somewhere before.

What I was trying to point out was that your questions bears a bit of thought as you state a ban on weapons becomes a reality. Seems like the only way this would happen is.....legally? Also, the Constitution is a living document that can be ammended....so.... just saying is all...

[Ironrider]

:thumbdown

No way, no how

[SkilletsUSMC]

Thanks Skillets, I have read that somewhere before.

What I was trying to point out was that your questions bears a bit of thought as you state a ban on weapons becomes a reality. Seems like the only way this would happen is.....legally? Also, the Constitution is a living document that can be ammended....so.... just saying is all...

Im not trying to step on your dick, Im just saying, just like an unlawfull order, any changes to the amendment are intrinsicly illegal.

[LeonardLawrence]

Im not trying to step on your dick, Im just saying, just like an unlawfull order, any changes to the amendment are intrinsicly illegal.

I apologise for my rudeness Skillets. I am just saying how can it be a reality if it isn't legal.....I don't think ammendment as much as interpretation of what a well regulated militia is.....is it the National Guard or Joe Schmoe's hunting and fishing troupe.

Either way, I will keep my vote, but think the question is skewed. It is probably the same argument you are having with your friend anyway :D :cool:

[SkilletsUSMC]

I apologise for my rudeness Skillets. I am just saying how can it be a reality if it isn't legal.....I don't think ammendment as much as interpretation of what a well regulated militia is.....is it the National Guard or Joe Schmoe's hunting and fishing troupe.

Either way, I will keep my vote, but think the question is skewed. It is probably the same argument you are having with your friend anyway :D :cool:

No, the other message board believes that the Marines would open up and fire on americans for not complying with a gun ban. I believe that if such an order was issued, it would cause the unit to be combat ineffective.

Actually, the whole thing started because a poll was taken by Marines to see if they would do such a thing. The awnser was 64% said HELL NO.

[SlingerDun]

Im having a heated debate on another site (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=633131&page=1) about weather or not Marines would follow an order to confiscate weapons from normal american citizens should a ban on firearms become a realityI not sure what i would have done when i was 19 and 'owned' but i wouldn't do it nowhttp://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif. I believe this castration of America scenario would have to be thoroughly prepped with or near absolute control of food, water, utilities, fuel, etc. With such authoritative resource control, i believe, most, would surrender their weapons. Others would try to hide them and a relatively few individuals and pockets of 'organized' resistance would surface or be rooted out.

This topic precedes the other threads very important ingredient which inevitably leads to...

"Would Marines fire on U.S. civilians who refused to turn in their guns?"...

The targets would be the U.S. citizens that did not cave in and throw their weapons on the scrap truck and i would say probably not, unless individuals or units organized by former grunts initiated contact and layed down a volume of fire anything more accurate than suppressive. They would have to be rubbed out quickly for re-educational purposes and i hope not to be alive and American if this were to happen.

--->Dave

[LCPLE3]

:thumbup:

Would I shoot a American? Yes. As a active duty Marine you pledge to protect and defend the consitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the consitution is amended to ban guns from citizens and they don't obey the law then as a Marine you must obey a lawful order and take these guns from these domestic enemies (gun owners). But as a private citizen and gun owner I would hate to see that happen but is it worth your life to have a gun? Do you want your wife to be a widow? Your children to grow up without a father? Would you risk their lives so that you could keep your guns?

[SkilletsUSMC]

:thumbup:

Would I shoot a American? Yes. As a active duty Marine you pledge to protect and defend the consitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the consitution is amended to ban guns from citizens and they don't obey the law then as a Marine you must obey a lawful order and take these guns from these domestic enemies (gun owners).

The second amendment states in itself that it is not to be amended. It is #2 for a reason.

[LeonardLawrence]

LCpl,
I would say that there alot of good men and women who have died for both the constitution and your (and my) right to keep our guns.

Without this right, what good are all the rest? They can be taken without a fight in the most common sense of the word.



:thumbup:

Would I shoot a American? Yes. As a active duty Marine you pledge to protect and defend the consitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the consitution is amended to ban guns from citizens and they don't obey the law then as a Marine you must obey a lawful order and take these guns from these domestic enemies (gun owners). But as a private citizen and gun owner I would hate to see that happen but is it worth your life to have a gun? Do you want your wife to be a widow? Your children to grow up without a father? Would you risk their lives so that you could keep your guns?

[Amtracs1962]

Never take guns from law abiding citizens...mine will only betaken from my cold dead hands...

[LCPLE3]

The second amendment states in itself that it is not to be amended. It is #2 for a reason.

I think your wrong.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

[SkilletsUSMC]

I think your wrong.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Ill have to dig up the quote from the federalist papers that clarifies the term "arms"

[LCPLE3]

LCpl,
I would say that there alot of good men and women who have died for both the constitution and your (and my) right to keep our guns.

Without this right, what good are all the rest? They can be taken without a fight in the most common sense of the word.

I will agree that having a gun is important to me but to say that people have died so that you and me can go rabbit hunting is stretching it a bit to far. Most of the people that have fought in wars did so to protect their love ones or to protect others. To be honest can civilians with shotguns defeat the American armed forces?

[LeonardLawrence]

To answer your question....can rabble in arms defeat a bigger, better trained military? Seems like it may have been done in the past....just can't remember where or when. I think I will have to consult one of my fore fathers.....

Also, I didn't mention rabbit hunting, but I was making the point that people have died as a result of taking the oath to defend the Constitution....which includes #2.

What were we arguing about again??? :D




I will agree that having a gun is important to me but to say that people have died so that you and me can go rabbit hunting is stretching it a bit to far. Most of the people that have fought in wars did so to protect their love ones or to protect others. To be honest can civilians with shotguns defeat the American armed forces?

[HardJedi]

:thumbdown no way no how. I don't CARE what any laws says about me having a weapon. I will not live without one within easy reach. everyone in my household ( including my 12 year old daughter) has been taught how to shoot, strip, and clean all of my weapons. they have been taught when it is appropriate to use them and how to handle them safely.

and as far as firing on American citezens? (well, unless it was kansans, i hate those guys ) LMAO!

[LCPLE3]

To answer your question....can rabble in arms defeat a bigger, better trained military? Seems like it may have been done in the past....just can't remember where or when. I think I will have to consult one of my fore fathers.....

Also, I didn't mention rabbit hunting, but I was making the point that people have died as a result of taking the oath to defend the Constitution....which includes #2.

What were we arguing about again??? :D

It's 4:00 AM and I can't remember either! Good night Marine!:D

[gilmore983]

:thumbdown hell no

[LostSheep01]

:thumbdown

[SkilletsUSMC]

I will agree that having a gun is important to me but to say that people have died so that you and me can go rabbit hunting is stretching it a bit to far. Most of the people that have fought in wars did so to protect their love ones or to protect others. To be honest can civilians with shotguns defeat the American armed forces?

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting!!! You have NO right to hunt. It exists so that you have the means to fight a tyranical government.

Read this quote by James Madison:"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"

Shotguns... I dont know, but semi auto (so called) assault rifles YES!!!

[3077India]

:thumbup:

Would I shoot a American? Yes. As a active duty Marine you pledge to protect and defend the consitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If the consitution is amended to ban guns from citizens and they don't obey the law then as a Marine you must obey a lawful order and take these guns from these domestic enemies (gun owners). The subject in question doesn't say anything about the constitution being amended to ban weapons, but rather a direct ban without a constitutional amendment.

For years Gun-Control advocates have been trying to force a re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Without a constitutional amendment a direct ban would be an unconstitutional law. So would you still enforce an unconstitutional law? :sick: :nerd:

[LCPLE3]

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting!!! You have NO right to hunt. It exists so that you have the means to fight a tyranical government.

Read this quote by James Madison:"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"

Shotguns... I dont know, but semi auto (so called) assault rifles YES!!!

Now that I had my coffee...:D


The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society, and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.

Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.

Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).

This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence (http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html), the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article6) specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://www.usconstitution.net/vdeclar.html), though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html) during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal (http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html) for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.

Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting — it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan — it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the second Bush presidency is just such a usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history. My hope is that history can be our guide this time, too.

The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time of the turn of the millennium, in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.


With the historical context set above, a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are appropriate.

These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html#incor) by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.

The Supreme Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that if a weapon does not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and has no use in ensuring the common defense, it can be regulated (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939]). Though the outcome of Miller was never fully resolved (the Court asked that Miller prove the relevence of the sawed-off shotgun to the maintenance of the militia, but Jack Miller died before he could, and the case died with him), the rationale used in Miller has been the basis for all gun control laws since 1939. As the GPO page notes (http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html), "At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer."

Both contemporary interpretations are correct, in a way. As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?

Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution? Of course, prosecution for speech violations only take place after the fact, and regulation of gun ownership is necessarily different — it is a "prior restraint," a condition rarely allowed in speech restrictions, but necessary in gun restrictions.

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.


In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia. In the case, the court ruled that D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns within the District, were unconstitutional. Specifically, the appellants, residents of D.C., were denied their 2nd Amendment rights by laws that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within one's home; and that require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled unless used for "lawful recreational purposes."

The Court found that in spite of the first part of the 2nd Amendment, that referring to the militia, "the Second Amendment's premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting)." The court acknowledged the history the militia played in the creation of the 2nd Amendment, but did not allow the militia to be sole measure to be viewed when looking at these laws restricting gun ownership and reasonable use.
This case only has effect within the District of Columbia and has not been appealed to a higher court.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

[LCPLE3]

The subject in question doesn't say anything about the constitution being amended to ban weapons, but rather a direct ban without a constitutional amendment.

For years Gun-Control advocates have been trying to force a re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Without a constitutional amendment a direct ban would be an unconstitutional law. So would you still enforce an unconstitutional law? :sick: :nerd:

I think your wrong. This is what he said.


Would you obey?

<HR style="COLOR: #ccccff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Im having a heated debate on another site (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=633131&page=1) about weather or not Marines would follow an order to confiscate weapons from normal american citizens should a ban on firearms become a reality. Those of you who know me, know where I stand on this, but I want your opinions.

Active and former Marines... Would you comply and use deadly force on American citizens, or disobey?
------------------------------------------------------
Now to answer your question, no I would not obey a illegal order (unconstitutional).
<!-- / message -->

[SkilletsUSMC]

LCPLE3

Why would the bill of rights allow a STATE to posses weapons, but every other amendment grant rights to the individual?

The argument over states rights is stupid at best

[mystdragon]

No, I couldn't follow that order. The 2nd amendment allows a citizen to keep and bear arms.it's a protected right and to say go take them away just because a few politicians got a bill passed is ludicrsed. Not to mention i think a an action against that law would be forth cooming and it would be premature running out and confiscating the weapons only to have supreme court injunction say nay to that and have to return them.No , I would follow that order.

[3077India]

I think your wrong. This is what he said.


Would you obey?

<hr style="color: rgb(204, 204, 255);" size="1"><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Im having a heated debate on another site (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=633131&page=1) about weather or not Marines would follow an order to confiscate weapons from normal american citizens should a ban on firearms become a reality. Those of you who know me, know where I stand on this, but I want your opinions.

Active and former Marines... Would you comply and use deadly force on American citizens, or disobey?
------------------------------------------------------
Now to answer your question, no I would not obey a illegal order (unconstitutional).
<!-- / message -->No, I'm not. He never said anything about a Constitutional Amendment, nor was anything said about a re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Rather it seemed to be implied that a direct ban, via a Statute, is the issue.

Laws have been passed that violate the constitution (ie The Patriot Act); so a next logical step for gun-control advocates, should failure to convince the Fed. courts to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment continue to fail, would be to ignor the Constitution and get Congress to go ahead and ban private weapons ownership. Such a law would be unconstitutional and, thus, illegal.

So again, would you still enforce an unconstitutional law? Although calling up the military to enforce laws (within the US) would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm).

[LCPLE3]

LCPLE3

Why would the bill of rights allow a STATE to posses weapons, but every other amendment grant rights to the individual?

The argument over states rights is stupid at best

States' Rights "Powers Reserved To The States"


The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments. The Magna Carta, the English bill of rights, Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, and the colonial struggle against tyranny provided inspiration and direction for the Bill of Rights.

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.

The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles. Northern proposals to abolish or restrict slavery- an institution firmly protected by the Constitution- escalated the regional differences in the country and rallied the Southern states firmly behind the doctrine of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created.
Fascinating Fact: Wartime need for a centralized government that could impose conscription, as well as other measures necessary to win its freedom, conflicted sharply with states'-rights doctrine.

[LCPLE3]

No, I'm not. He never said anything about a Constitutional Amendment, nor was anything said about a re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Rather it seemed to be implied that a direct ban, via a Statute, is the issue.

Laws have been passed that violate the constitution (ie The Patriot Act); so a next logical step for gun-control advocates, should failure to convince the Fed. courts to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment continue to fail, would be to ignor the Constitution and get Congress to go ahead and ban private weapons ownership. Such a law would be unconstitutional and, thus, illegal.

So again, would you still enforce an unconstitutional law? Although calling up the military to enforce laws (within the US) would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm).

You say potato, I say potatah....;)

[3077India]

LCPLE3

Why would the bill of rights allow a STATE to posses weapons, but every other amendment grant rights to the individual?

The argument over states rights is stupid at bestSTATES' RIGHTS. Most people misunderstand exactly what States' Rights are. I studied this subject in College and wrote a paper on it. What I learned is that the view most people have about States' Rights is distorted largely by the Civil Rights Movement when some State and corrupt Local Gov'ts used harsh measures to stop the Civil Rights Mov't. There was much talk by die-hard segregationists about the Rights of the States to segregate it's citizens based on race according to Plessy v. Ferguson (1898).

However, States' Rights has nothing to do with a gov't's right to impose unjust laws upon its citizens. The crux (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crux) of this idea of States' Rights is that people are the State (not the Geographic boundaries itself or even its gov't). States' Rights are the people of a State COLLECTIVELY exercising their rights to hold the Federal Gov't in check. This exercise of Collective Rights was to be carried out through their State Gov'ts. At least this was the original intent of the Founding Fathers, but Abraham Lincoln effectively killed this part of the Federal System.

[SkilletsUSMC]

States' Rights "Powers Reserved To The States"




I may have worded my last post poorly, because it prematurely posted and I was working aginst the clock to edit it. I Didnt mean that there are no "states rights", only that the notion of the right to keep and bear arms as a right of a state to form a militia is absurd.

Why would a right granted to the state and not the individual be sandwiched in between the right of the individual to free speech, and the right of the individual to deny quarter to a soldier?

[3077India]

I may have worded my last post poorly, because it prematurely posted and I was working aginst the clock to edit it. I Didnt mean that there are no "states rights", only that the notion of the right to keep and bear arms as a right of a state to form a militia is absurd.

Why would a right granted to the state and not the individual be sandwiched in between the right of the individual to free speech, and the right of the individual to deny quarter to a soldier?NO PROBLEM. YOUR EXPLANATION ACCEPTED. :D

[LCPLE3]

I may have worded my last post poorly, because it prematurely posted and I was working aginst the clock to edit it. I Didnt mean that there are no "states rights", only that the notion of the right to keep and bear arms as a right of a state to form a militia is absurd.

Why would a right granted to the state and not the individual be sandwiched in between the right of the individual to free speech, and the right of the individual to deny quarter to a soldier?


Americans have been concerned with their rights for hundreds of years. The right to practice religion however they wished was one of the primary reasons the first settlers came to America from England. The right of representation and self-determination was one of the primary reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. The right for all persons to be free was one of the reasons the Civil War was fought. American history is replete with bills of rights, from the most famous included in our Constitution, to the Declaration of Rights (http://www.usconstitution.net/stamp.html) prompted by the Stamp Act to the Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://www.usconstitution.net/vdeclar.html) written by George Mason for his state. Even today we speak of the apparently elusive Patient's Bill of Rights.

What is interesting to note is that when the Constitutional Convention (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html) finished its work, it did not find it necessary to include a bill of rights in the final version. Several members, notably George Mason, were very disappointed by this decision and refused to sign the document over the issue. The argument was that the Constitution did not give the new federal government the ability to restrict inherent rights, so no list of those rights was necessary. Others worried that if the rights were listed, they would invariably forget some and the list would ever be incomplete. Finally, the argument was that the states each had their own constitutions, too, and that rights were best protected at a state level.

Of all the issues that the Anti-Federalists (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html) gave for rejecting the new constitution, the lack of a bill of rights was the most compelling for many people. In the ratifying documents of five states, requests or demands for a bill of rights were included in the text, along with suggested lists (see the ratifying documents of Massachusetts (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ma.html), South Carolina (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_sc.html), New Hampshire (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html), Virginia (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html), and New York (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html). Rhode Island (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html) also included a list, but they ratified the Constitution after the first Congress approved the Bill of Rights).
The Federalists were opposed to adding a bill of rights, expounding on the reasons why in Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 84 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed84.htm). Among the reasons listed was a list of the personal protections the new constitution did contain, such as the prohibition of ex post facto laws, the inviolate habeas corpus, and the restrictions on a conviction of treason. Federalist 85 addressed the subject, too, noting that amendment is always a possibility after ratification. It turns out, once the process of ratification was complete, that this was exactly the route taken.

The first Congress under the Constitution had a lot to accomplish. It had many new powers not available to the Congress under the Articles of Confederation (http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html), and every state had interests it wanted to protect. James Madison, seen by many as the father of the Constitution, had won a seat in the House of Representatives, running partly on a platform that included a fight for a bill of rights. This may seem odd since Madison was one of those who advocated the omission of such a list of rights, but he eventually became convinced of the necessity.

Madison tried to get the debate moving, but debate on tariffs and other pressing issues always pushed the debate on a bill of rights to the back burner. Madison finally had enough and on June 8, 1789, he presented his draft of a bill of rights (http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html) to get the discussion moving.

From June to September, both houses of Congress debated Madison's list, along with the lists presented by the states. Rights were enumerated, removed, modified, tweaked. Eventually, both houses agreed on twelve articles of amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html) and sent them to the states. Two years later, in 1791, the last ten of these original twelve were ratified by the states and they became a part of the Constitution. By custom, the amendments were added to the end of the original document, rather than inserted in the text, as Madison had envisioned. All ten of the original amendments are referred to as The Bill of Rights, though only the first nine pertain to the people (Amendment 10 pertains to the states, though it mentions the people in parallel).


The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. This is, however, quite in line with what the Constitution was originally designed to be: a framework for the federal government. In other words, though the federal government was banned from violating the freedom of the press, states were free to regulate the press. For the most part, this was not an issue, because the state constitutions all had bills of rights, and many of the rights protected by the states mirrored those in the federal Bill, and many went further than the federal Bill.

This point is best illustrated by one of the amendments that Madison proposed in his initial speech:

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.This clause, seemingly innocuous to us today, was rejected by the Senate in its final draft of the Bill, and the concept that any part of the Bill of Rights would apply to the states was still 100 years away. Several cases that came before the Supreme Court in the 19th century attempted to have the Court establish that the Bill should apply to the states, to no avail:

In Barron v. Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am5.html) did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

In Pervear v. Massachusetts (72 U.S. 475 [1866]), the Court was asked to rule on fines imposed upon a liquor dealer by the state. Pervear was licensed by the United States under the current internal revenue code to keep and sell liquor. He was fined and sentenced to three months of hard labor for not maintaining a state license for his liquor business. Part to the defense attempted to invoke the 8th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am8.html)'s Excessive Fines and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses. The Court, again quite succinctly, said: "Of this proposition it is enough to say that the article of the Constitution relied upon in support of it does not apply to State but to National legislation."

As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional.


One of the greatest changes in the interpretation of the Constitution came with the passage of the 14th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html) after the conclusion of the Civil War. It was designed to assist newly freed slaves in the transition to freedom and to protect them from acts of the Southern states, and also to overturn the decision in the Dred Scott case that ruled that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States even if they were born in the United States. The amendment was successful in this endeavor, legally, if not in reality.
But this sentence had and continues to have long-lasting implications on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The "Privileges and Immunities Clause" has been interpreted as applying the Bill of Rights, which lists the privileges and immunities of the citizens, to the states. Known as "incorporation," the application of the Bill to the states did not come all at once, nor was it complete. Even today, there are some parts of the Bill which have not been incorporated. The process began unsuccessfully in the late 1800's and continued unsuccessfully right up until the 1930's. In 1947, however, in Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights. Historians both agreed and disagreed with the Court's contention that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended incorporation since its passage ... but historians do not sit on the Court. Their opinions were less important than those of the Justices.

The process of selectively incorporating the clauses of the Bill of Rights probably began in Twining v. New Jersey (268 U.S. 652 [1925]) which contemplated the incorporation of some of the aspects of the 8th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am8.html) - not because they were a part of the Bill of Rights but because they seemed to be fundamental to the concept of due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html). This process of incorporating parts of the Bill of Rights because of their connection to due process began to run in parallel with the selective incorporation doctrine, where parts of the Bill of Rights were ruled to be enforceable on the states by virtue of the 14th Amendments, whether or not due process applied.
Thus in the early 1960's, the Establishment Clause, the right to counsel, the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures were quickly incorporated. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html) and 3rd Amendments (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am3.html), the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am5.html), and the 7th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am7.html)).

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

[Gary Hall]

Up front, I'm just an East Texas goober, but I ask that some of you more intelligent ones look and tell me if the 2 options listed under the Poll Title are germain to the caption. Ever since Bill Clinton I've decided to be more careful with the spoken as well as the printed word. I wanted to take the poll, but upon considering the 2 available replies, decided I need a little enlightenment here, as to me the two replies are totally inappropriate. It appears the two polling possibilities have been erroneously switched from another poll. Please advise. Epilog: Taking the reply options one on one: Yes, I would not hesitate shooting another American, any time, any place, if in my judgment he (she) had it coming, (rightly and/or legally) full well realizing the enormity of the act. And yes, I would certainly be quick enough to judge what legal ground I might or might not be standing upon. And yes, I carry a CHG permit and have read Yale Law Professor John Lott's book ( More Guns, Less Crime ). I recommend the book, it's worth money well spent. The Professor has since written several others.) As to the other option, I vote for the continued right for citizens to legally carry concealed weapons, any where, any time. And don't worry about it folks, experiences have shown that carrying a gun is such strong medicine that only about 2% of the populace can take it, preferring to run and hide and hope somebody else comes along and cleans up the mess. And talk about it and play the game: "Ain't It Just Awful!!" Gary Hall, Tyler, TX.

[SkilletsUSMC]

Up front, I'm just an East Texas goober, but I ask that some of you more intelligent ones look and tell me if the 2 options listed under the Poll Title are germain to the caption. Ever since Bill Clinton I've decided to be more careful with the spoken as well as the printed word. I wanted to take the poll, but upon considering the 2 available replies, decided I need a little enlightenment here, as to me the two replies are totally inappropriate. It appears the two polling possibilities have been erroneously switched from another poll. Please advise. Epilog: Taking the reply options one on one: Yes, I would not hesitate shooting another American, any time, any place, if in my judgment he (she) had it coming, (rightly and/or legally) full well realizing the enormity of the act. And yes, I would certainly be quick enough to judge what legal ground I might or might not be standing upon. And yes, I carry a CHG permit and have read Yale Law Professor John Lott's book ( More Guns, Less Crime ). I recommend the book, it's worth money well spent. The Professor has since written several others.) As to the other option, I vote for the continued right for citizens to legally carry concealed weapons, any where, any time. And don't worry about it folks, experiences have shown that carrying a gun is such strong medicine that only about 2% of the populace can take it, preferring to run and hide and hope somebody else comes along and cleans up the mess. And talk about it and play the game: "Ain't It Just Awful!!" Gary Hall, Tyler, TX.

???

[Scottyva]

Hell No that is despite that legislation

[LCPLE3]

Up front, I'm just an East Texas goober, but I ask that some of you more intelligent ones look and tell me if the 2 options listed under the Poll Title are germain to the caption. Ever since Bill Clinton I've decided to be more careful with the spoken as well as the printed word. I wanted to take the poll, but upon considering the 2 available replies, decided I need a little enlightenment here, as to me the two replies are totally inappropriate. It appears the two polling possibilities have been erroneously switched from another poll. Please advise. Epilog: Taking the reply options one on one: Yes, I would not hesitate shooting another American, any time, any place, if in my judgment he (she) had it coming, (rightly and/or legally) full well realizing the enormity of the act. And yes, I would certainly be quick enough to judge what legal ground I might or might not be standing upon. And yes, I carry a CHG permit and have read Yale Law Professor John Lott's book ( More Guns, Less Crime ). I recommend the book, it's worth money well spent. The Professor has since written several others.) As to the other option, I vote for the continued right for citizens to legally carry concealed weapons, any where, any time. And don't worry about it folks, experiences have shown that carrying a gun is such strong medicine that only about 2% of the populace can take it, preferring to run and hide and hope somebody else comes along and cleans up the mess. And talk about it and play the game: "Ain't It Just Awful!!" Gary Hall, Tyler, TX.


I agree that the poll question is a little hazy. That's why I gave the answer that I did. If the constitution was amended to outlaw guns to private citizens then as a Marine (pledge to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic)you must obey a lawful order or pay the consequences.

[Camper51]

1) hell F*CKING NO I would not

2) 3077India re: Posse Comitatus... any declared national emergency would allow the military to be used to enforce any laws of the land. If you are going to use Posse Comitatus as an argument make sure you know what the f*ck you are talking about...IE: READ THE ACT FIRST!!!

[HardJedi]

yes, but a change in laws does not automaticilly constitute a declared national emergency, now does it?

[Apache]

Very few lawful orders can be questioned.
This is one of those cannot comply with orders sir.
Sleezebals-----------no sweat
Law abiding citizens would'nt even attempt.
Now------how do you know the differance sometimes ?
Take me away,cannot follow orders

[Gary Hall]

". . . Now ----- how do you know the difference . . . ". Gehrij: Well said. With much appreciation, Gary Hall.

[3077India]

...2) 3077India re: Posse Comitatus... any declared national emergency would allow the military to be used to enforce any laws of the land. If you are going to use Posse Comitatus as an argument make sure you know what the f*ck you are talking about...IE: READ THE ACT FIRST!!!I did, and we haven't been talking about "declared national emergencies." In fact the Posse Comitatus Act makes no mention of "declared or perceived national emergencies" In fact clause 'C' of Part 5 of Congress' 2006 reaffirmation of the importance of the Posse Comitatus Act states, "Congress reaffirms the continued importance of section 1385 of title 18, and it is the sense of Congress that nothing in this chapter should be construed to alter the applicability of such section to any use of the Armed Forces as a posse comitatus to execute the laws."

Here is a link to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 after it was amended in 1956 to include the Air Force in the prohibition.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 as amended in 1956 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+706+0++%28Posse% 20Comitatus%20Act%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ% 20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281385% 29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20).

Here is a link to Congress' reaffirming the importance of the Posse Comitatus Act with regards to Homeland Security.

The Importance of the Posse Comitatus Act (2006) (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+1542+0++%28Posse %20Comitatus%20Act%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%2 0).

[3077India]

Oh, btw, the Posse Comitatus Act does exclude the Coast Guard and the National Guard when under the control of State Governors.

[greensideout]

Not to sidetract the thread but was Waco an exception? I remember helos and tanks.

[LCPLE3]

The Myth of Posse Comitatus <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve

[LeonardLawrence]

???

Skillets,
To translate into Yankee,

I think it means....the poll don't make a lick'o' sense.

It desires some clarification on the issue and the response.

Force continum:
Level One; Plead and beg for guns:D
Level Two; Shoot Americans :D


I think it is also dangerous to interpret the meaning of Constitutional law by what one founder father meant....even if he wrote it....it doesn't show what the delegation believed only the opinion of one man.

[Gary Hall]

Let me then make my original post a little clearer. After doing a little more reading, (per my mentor Newt Gingrich) this poll question reads like an apparent attempt at rigging the poll. The rigging is in the wording of the poll option choices which could result in the Yes's & No's being provided as the result of confusing inferences from the incomplete poll question: "Would you shoot an American?" It is currently legal to shoot lots of Americans for a lot of specified reasons, but if the question is about shooting them as a consequence of or in the process of taking their guns, then the legality of this action may not be so certain. Gary Hall

[semperfiman]

no way they would have to shoot me

[exnitro]

YOU GOTTA BE SH++TIG ME!! Well, bring it on! All of mine are loaded and waiting.

[Camper51]

Yes, I would, because its my job to follow orders and firearms amendment to the the constitution, from which the NRA and other gun nuts hide behind, was originally written in context to possible British invasion and everyone knows it. Now it's gotten to the point where Americans use guns to kill OTHER AMERICANS and there needs to be a stronger anti-gun policy in this country. If taking them away by force is the only solution, than take them away we shall - just like what you would do to a child that is misusing a toy, even when you explicitly told him not to.

GreatCountySky
High Speed Internet Satellite Provider (http://www.skywayusa.com/)

Oh yes, just what we need.........another f*cking Hitler, take away their guns so we can subdue them totally...

We should enforce, rather rigorously I might add, our current laws regarding the use of guns in crimes instead of trying to take them all away.

Personally, I think the following should be enacted into law when a gun is used in any crime:

Threatening the use of a gun in a crime---------MANDATORY 2 years in jail.
Show a gun, of any type, even a toy-----------MANDATORY 5 years in jail.
Fire a gun during the commission of a crime-----MANDATORY 20 years in jail.
Actually injure someone with a gun-------------MANDATORY 30 years in jail.
Kill someone during the commission of a crime---MANDATORY life sentence.

These would be MINIMUM sentences for which NO parole could be obtained during that period, only after the minimum sentence had been served could parole be a possibility, no plea bargains allowed.

If criminals knew there was no escape from the law if caught then they might think twice about a crime. as it is now too many of these dirtbags walk free.

Oh yeah, all of you wimpy prisoner reformists/rehabilitationists can blow it out yer anal orifices because you think I am "too hard" in my thinking. I am sure there would be backing for this, just not from the liberal fascists...

[rvillac2]

Who the F is this? and why is it in my squadbay? <br />
<br />
I believe this question points the dilemna faced with those who swore an oath. Do we follow orders or abide by the principles that we embraced...

[mark king]

no way :thumbdown

[DROD]

:thumbdown Not Mine !

[HardJedi]

Yes, I would, because its my job to follow orders and firearms amendment to the the constitution, from which the NRA and other gun nuts hide behind, was originally written in context to possible British invasion and everyone knows it. Now it's gotten to the point where Americans use guns to kill OTHER AMERICANS and there needs to be a stronger anti-gun policy in this country. If taking them away by force is the only solution, than take them away we shall - just like what you would do to a child that is misusing a toy, even when you explicitly told him not to.

GreatCountySky


what an idiot

[3077India]

Yes, I would, because its my job to follow orders and firearms amendment to the the constitution, from which the NRA and other gun nuts hide behind, was originally written in context to possible British invasion and everyone knows it. Now it's gotten to the point where Americans use guns to kill OTHER AMERICANS and there needs to be a stronger anti-gun policy in this country. If taking them away by force is the only solution, than take them away we shall - just like what you would do to a child that is misusing a toy, even when you explicitly told him not to.

GreatCountySkywhat an idiotMy sentiments exactly! Wonder why he hasn't bothered to fill in his profile.

[Gary Hall]

Thank you CAMPER51 for the post. Well Done. I agree. Gary Hall

[HardJedi]

too hard, Camper? I think you are too easy on em. I say Death, fo commision of any crime where there is violence used in the commision of it. plain and simple.:thumbup:

[LCPLE3]

This is what the "father of our country" had to say about this.

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

George Washington

[SkilletsUSMC]

Yes, I would, because its my job to follow orders and firearms amendment to the the constitution, from which the NRA and other gun nuts hide behind, was originally written in context to possible British invasion and everyone knows it. Now it's gotten to the point where Americans use guns to kill OTHER AMERICANS and there needs to be a stronger anti-gun policy in this country. If taking them away by force is the only solution, than take them away we shall - just like what you would do to a child that is misusing a toy, even when you explicitly told him not to.

GreatCountySky

Well Here is the winner for the "ass-hat of the year" award. :thumbdown

[greatcountysky]

Ok, *******s, listen up - just because I have a differing opinion, doesn't mean you dickheads can insult me. Just because you don't use your brains and prefer to think like a bunch of defensive hicks about this issue doesn't mean you're right and I'm stupid. So back the **** off! Oh, and by the way, I didn't bother to fill in my profile, because I don't give a **** - it's just a forum. Chill out.:mad:

[yesyouam]

:thumbdown
If the Government is telling you to take people's guns away, something sketchy is afoot. Forget that!

[LCPLE3]

Supreme Court could take guns case

Justices may weigh in on D.C. ban that was overturned by lower court

Nov. 11, 2007<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true ));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633303982017130000');</SCRIPT> WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.


The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.

Tuesday announcement?

The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.

Four states _ Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York _ are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.

The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.

Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.

Dangerous D.C.

Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.

The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.

"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[Big Jim]

NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO!!!:thumbdown

[clavos]

not me!

[Merc6432]

Before I answer: I am assuming this unclarified post is refering to the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the debate of the right to keep and bear arms. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't see any difference...

[MOUNTAINWILLIAM]

NOPE!!!

[RLeon]

Wow, I hope we nover come to the point where the gov'ment goes after our arms by force.
If it does happen you know the greek saying
"ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!"

[MOUNTAINWILLIAM]

It is OK to confiscate weapons from the ordinary citizen if it is for the protection and safety of the children and grandchildren of the nation.

"Boston Police Launch Program to Search Homes for Guns

Last Edited: Saturday, 17 Nov 2007, 1:22 PM EST
Created: Saturday, 17 Nov 2007, 1:05 PM EST


BOSTON -- The Boston police will ask parents in high-crime areas to allow detectives to search their children's bedrooms for guns without a warrant as part of a new anti-crime program.

During the next two weeks, Boston police officers assigned to schools will go in plainclothes in groups of three to houses where they believe teens have guns, and ask their parents or legal guardians for permission to search. - - - - - - - - -." To read the whole article go to the following link.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=4963783&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

:idea:

[jinelson]

:thumbdown no way

Jim

[ggyoung]

:mad: :thumbdown In Bostom I think it will be done. DAMN demoass's anyway. NRA had best jump on this right now. In my house NOWAY.

[Sgt0811]

:thumbdown

[FistFu68]

:thumbdownCOME TAKE IT OUTTA MY COLD DEAD HAND'S :iwo:

[vmfn513]

Depends,,,,,you need to clarify your question. If me or my family are in a dangerous situation. Then no questions asked, I'd protrect us. If a theat is made, then the individual, American or not, should not be using a weapon to
intimidate! The right own weapons(guns) was for a period in our history when each individual would be needed with arms. Today we have a military to do the required fighting . No reasonable American is going to give just cause for use of force .

[ggyoung]

:mad: :thumbdown There are no "ifs, ands or buts" about it they will not get in my house. Give them demoass's an inch and they will take a mile.

[jstkiknit]

Of course everyone here would comply if given the ORDER that is what makes you a MARINE. and yes i would remove the weapon or will to use one from any mans hand who would threaten me or my families excistence

[mike christy]

:thumbdown A armed citizen is the best crime deterrent that I know of.

[ese4mc]

:thumbdown --not getting mine---Boston cops are right ---These ANIMALS should be in jail for life--they dont care,they just shoot

[Goose]

NO FREAKIN WAY

[HN Mullins]

It is written, 2nd admendment, the right to keep and bare arms and maintain a well regulated militia. Why do you think Hitler never invaded the Swiss, all of them had wepons, they would have made swiss cheese if the germans wold have invaded. So my point is if they (goverment) take the guns of law abbiding citizens, then there is nothing to stop them from taking other rights that we have fought and died for the last 232 years!!!!!!!!

thats all I have to say about that.
DOC out

[Crusader20]

:thumbdown

[ggyoung]

The time the order is givin to take away guns from law bidding people who ever gave that order is nothing but a HITLER and needs to be done away with a bullit right between his or hers running lights. Any Ameriacan troops who do such a thing like that is nothing but a SS jackass.

[sparkie]

Some here believe their country, and their freedoms can exist together, forever. The rest of us are not that ignorant. Recount the 1st law of thermodynamics, and realize an order to confiscate guns from citizens, is a BIG sign of degredation. Amidst all the small signs, realize, it is not meant to last eternally. Some of us WILL draw the line, some will go as sheep. It is the way of things. Ever see a sheep aiming a gun? It's the shepards job,,,,, That Is my job.

[ggyoung]

SPARTIE=============Very good.

[grampsdw251]

Subject: A Little Gun Control History Lesson.

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

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

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

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



----------------------------

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

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

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

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

------------------------------
I vote twice-- NO and HELL NO

[Gary Hall]

Thanks for the support, Gramps. Gary Hall

[SkilletsUSMC]

Bump...

This thread gets me fired up.

[ecfree]

NEGATIVE,NO,NATA.:evilgrin:

[jetdoc]

Not only no but HAIL NO!!! Remember one of the greatest gun control advocates of all time? Hitler.

[Swampyankee]

No.

[yellowwing]

The big test would be how many Company Grade Army Officers would say Yes.

[Jim Oliver]

No way would I take weapons from a law abiding American Citizen.

Nor will I give mine up.

If anyone, government included, wants my weapons They'll have to take them by force.

:thumbdown

[SkilletsUSMC]

The big test would be how many Company Grade Army Officers would say Yes.

You make a good point, but at the same time, SOMEONE is going to have to do the confiscating.

[Jim Oliver]

That's what the British thought during the American Revolution.

How would that have turned out if the Brits had confiscated all of the weapons in the colonies?

[Jim Oliver]

Camper51,

I'm with you. Enforce the laws already on the books and the problem of shmutzes having weapons would decrease.

No parole is the way to go.

I work in orisons and can tell you that these denizens laugh at us and the law. They think we're putzes for being law abiding.

[Jim Oliver]

Hey yellowwing,

Let's not pick on compaany grade officer here. I don't know any who would wimp out and follow such an assinine order.

[SkilletsUSMC]

That's what the British thought during the American Revolution.

How would that have turned out if the Brits had confiscated all of the weapons in the colonies?

Just to clear up any misconceptions, I DO NOT support any type of gun legislation whatsoever.

Shall not be infringed means exactly that.:evilgrin:

[JohnEaceHunt]

Not Hardly. No.!! This thread said I had already voted when I had not, and a error message stated my message was too short when I had only selected to reply to it without typing anything. (strange). As stated, I vote NO.!! (The Ghosts' of the 4-46's I was crewChief on must be at work here).

[Swampyankee]

Here's ome food for thought related to this question. I heard not too long ago that the Pres. went north to Canada to sign a deal with that gov. which basically states each countries militaries would help quell any social unrest in the other.
Just saying is all, I trust politicians not, equally of the three parties, Dem., Rep., and RINO.
Not meaning to detract from the topic, just saying is all.
OK, ready on the right, ready on the left, all ready on the firing line, shooters you may commence flame throwing now that your target has appeared.

[CplKJSpevak]

No..

[fmwright]

Negative....not a chance!

:thumbdown

[Cpl Keller]

No.
:thumbdown

[nightstalker2]

what has happen to polygamists is really an attack on the way control can be
apply to families and if they have no weapons to protect themselves it is easier. But the families did not use force to protect their love ones . They use education, meaning the way they raised their families help them endure this mess. This is a lesson everyone can learn, since oil and gas prices have set in motion the chance for America to become a cripple in this world of ours and regulating America to third world country status.

[bigdog43701]

:thumbdown

[Finger]

I wouldn't either, but check this out that I posted in the Political Forum. Some did.

S/F
Finger

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66208 (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66208)

[fsbrown]

:thumbdown


Not Me

[E5NAMKROW]

:thumbdown