Phreddy - the main point is that those of us whom abhor the fanatical now need to stand up and influence the decisions.  We are the ones who think and allowing the loudest voice/largest checkbook to think for us is completely irresponsible.  This isn't a political question or an issue of rights - this is about putting our thinking caps on and finding a responsible solution to a defined risk.

We just had 20 babies double-tapped and our answer is going to be more guns? 

This is America, I think we can do better than that.

phreddy wrote:

I do not disagree.  I believe most gun rights advocates would be more open to reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership if the other side would simply admit the people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.  But, we are not in a compromising mood when the anti-gun wackos are out in force attempting to infringe on those rights in every conceivable way.  Before we agree to restrictions, let's all agree on the basic tenets of gun ownership.

Phred - that battle has been fought and we the gun owners won, it's over; now we must find a way to converse and keep it from running out of control or it might shift back the other direction.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Phreddy - the main point is that those of us whom abhor the fanatical now need to stand up and influence the decisions.  We are the ones who think and allowing the loudest voice/largest checkbook to think for us is completely irresponsible.  This isn't a political question or an issue of rights - this is about putting our thinking caps on and finding a responsible solution to a defined risk.

We just had 20 babies double-tapped and our answer is going to be more guns? 

This is America, I think we can do better than that.

I do not disagree.  I believe most gun rights advocates would be more open to reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership if the other side would simply admit the people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.  But, we are not in a compromising mood when the anti-gun wackos are out in force attempting to infringe on those rights in every conceivable way.  Before we agree to restrictions, let's all agree on the basic tenets of gun ownership.

Thanks for the sensible statement, Phred. Now, can you please explain why you think the right to bear arms is absolute? The right of free speech is certainly regulated and it isn't even written as a conditional sentence. Even though I don't want to outlaw all guns, I'd feel better about gun-nut talking points gun rights advocates' arguments if just one could recite the entire Amendment. I'd be even happier if just one more would admit that the purpose of the well-regulated militia was to put down insurrections, not to start them.

Em wrote:

I'd be even happier if just one more would admit that the purpose of the well-regulated militia was to put down insurrections, not to start them.

Since the constitution itself does not address your assertion, we must look to the intent on the framers, just as the courts do when the language of the article is unclear.  Here are a few quotes from those framers arguing for passing of the 2nd amendment.  Their message is very clear.  You should research this a little Em.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
         ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

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, and by which the militia officers are appointed, 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.
         ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
         ---George Mason arguing for the 2nd amendment

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
             ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
             ---Alexander Hamilton

You also forgot:

Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

It is important that we shake off the desires of Corporate revenue interests and think for our selves

You mean like these guys maybe?

Top donors threaten Dems: Do the right thing on guns, or no more money

Exactly - I believe we should do exactly what the founding fathers intended and allow each and every American to own as many muzzle-loading muskets as they like.  Swords, axes and bows are fine also.

Interesting but not really comparable.  Again my argument remains that we pay these fuckers to debate the topic with good faith and common sense - not just to listen to their lobbyists masters.  This is a complex issue which requires thought and thorough discussion for again we are drawing a line and the reasons for that line should be well defined.  If not then I want my knee-mortar!

(on a separate note I ordered a new barrel, stock and forend for my Winchester 1300, should be here next week - all walnut of course)

Emmeran wrote:

Exactly - I believe we should do exactly what the founding fathers intended and allow each and every American to own as many muzzle-loading muskets as they like.  Swords, axes and bows are fine also.

Which is not what the founders intended.  They were referencing the latest arms available in modern warfare, which holds true today.  I know you're messing with me Em because we have been through this before.  I say let's call a truce on this subject so RT will come and post again.  Happy Easter (if you actually believe that story).