Historic case may decide U.S. gun rights

I don't own a gun. Where I live, I feel that I do not need one. Yet, I see no problem with people who wish to own them.

That is a very good point that the gun control advocates like to forget. A well armed citizen insurrection is extremely difficult to control even with the most advanced weaponry. The Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms specifically for the purpose of defending themselves against government tyranny. Any attempt to take away the right to bear arms would be the end of the legitimacy of the US government under the Constitution.

It was in reply to his post, and it's context of soldiers coming into his town and rounding him up.

Two instances where the USA fought an enemy that were inferior in firepower.

3978 Dead in Iraq - as of one hour ago.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fi...rn-797816.html

47,355 Combat Death in Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war

Are you sure you were a Marine?

Some interesting facts for those who want to read:

Background: Before 1987, there were 10 RTC states. Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington had ?shall issue? permit laws. Alabama and Connecticut had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia?s ?shall issue? law was interpreted as discretionary in some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. Other states had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems or prohibited carrying altogether. These laws remain in effect.

In 1987, Florida enacted a ?shall issue? law that has since become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and news media interests predicted vigilante justice and ?Wild West? shootouts on every corner. The predictions proved false. Through 1992, Florida?s murder rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%; thereafter, murder decreased both nationally and in Florida.9 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted that ?Florida?s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.?10 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, ?From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.?

Police aren?t required to protect you: In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, ?official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.? In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, ?[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.?

Citizens can defend themselves: Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, criminologist Gary Kleck found, ?robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.?11 In the 1990s, Kleck and Marc Gertz found that guns were used for self-protection about 2.5 million times annually.12 The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as ?as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country,? who wanted to ?eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police,? said, ?The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. . . . I cannot fault their methodology.?13 A study for the Dept. of Justice found that 34% of felons had been ?scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim,? and 40% of felons have not committed crimes, fearing potential victims were armed.14

The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it ?is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.? In Beard v. U.S. (1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person ?may repel force by force? in self-defense, and concluded that when attacked a person ?was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force? as needed to prevent ?great bodily injury or death.? The laws of all states and the constitutions of 44 states recognize the right to armed self-defense. In the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearms Owners? Protection Act (1986), Congress stated that it did not intend to ?place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to . . . personal protection, or any other lawful activity.?

Yeah, because a handful of people with a handful of guns have over powered US forces in Iraq, right?

We lost four thousand American lives in Iraq in the past four years. We lost twice that in a single battle in the South Pacific during WWII - all Marines, btw.

The US forces have not overpowered them.

Again, lest we forget: South East Asia.

Your point being? Certainly you are not comparing the situation in any way, shape or manner . . . right?

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison

Does that sound like something out of date? Sounds like something out of 1984 to me..

yeah.. you're right. i am digging my bunker right now because i'm totally sane and understand that 300 year old quotes are totally applicable to todays world.

To know whether the quote is applicable are not, you need to be aware of some basic facts...

Heres a start..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

btw..were you aware of half the stuff in this article?

That seals it. I read it, so it must be true.


Oh, for the record, some of those measures I believe were implemented, and deservedly so.

Its not a question of "will it?", but "could it?".... And if you want to fact check certain claims, you can use google...

Your strawman on top of strawman has finally bored me.

yeah, those 300 yr old quotes are worthless nowadays...



burn it.

I also have a right to hunt... You!