Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

Because the framers knew governments can become corrupt.

 

To let us know when the government has gone too far.

 

Here is a good question that, to my knowledge has not been answered for the left. This is indeed a new discussion within this never ending debate.

When our forefathers came to this country the Republic was founded by men with private arms. There were no gun control laws as we have today because the colonists accepted a natural,God given, unalienable Right (whichever term(s) are more palatable to you) to keep and bear Arms.

They repeated over and over their objections to standing armies. So, if you don't have a standing army, how can America defend itself if we were invaded? It would because we have armed civilians.

Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:

“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

The anti-gun factions in this country never seem to realize that , as someone mused about the reason Japan did not invade America: "Of course we would not invade, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." The anti-gunners worry more about disproving who made the quote than they about the truth of the statement.

Pol Pot, a communist Cambodian revolutionary, oversaw the slaughter of millions upon millions of people on the most unbelievable pretexts. Christians, Muslims, and anyone who had been exposed to the ideologies of the West were executed... sometimes buried alive.

We seem to push aside the reality that during WWII, Tojo executed 5 MILLION civilians. But, the liberals want the Japanese to be their role models. Here is a link to the top worst genocides of the 20 and 21st Centuries:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

There's your list and there are the numbers. Note that the United States, a giant superpower, never made that list. Japan made the list; China is on there; Germany is included. And they all had gun control!!!

Millions upon millions of people have been killed by government. Governments cannot be trusted. A cop will handcuff an innocent civilian for the "officer's protection," but society is supposed to blindly trust government with the public liberty????? We have the BLM protesting - and sometimes violently - because cops have mistreated the blacks. Most every day we're being treated to videos on the evening news of cops chasing and shooting unarmed people.

Last week I watched a program on educational tv about a CSI agent that tampered with evidence and got two innocent men convicted in a murder case. The CSI agent got a maximum five year sentence while the people he got convicted got... You check it out:

http://journalstar.com/news/state-a...cle_8cd5cb4c-368c-11df-8531-001cc4c03286.html

I've got a lot more to say, but this is just to whet your appetite. But for you to think that I'd give up my Rights to self defense, knowing the direction this country is going... and the choices we have for politicians... Are you kidding?

 

Gamewell45, here is another case that describes what the Bill of Rights was intended to do:

“The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guarantees and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors. . . .” Robertson v. Baldwin 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897)

Every right listed in the BoR—including the RKBA—was understood to pre-exist the Constitution. Not a single one listed in the BoR required then—or requires today—specific constitutional mention to establish its existence or legitimacy. For example, freedom of speech, religion, and press pre-existed the Constitution just as much as the RKBA did. None of these rights was “created” by the Constitution or the BoR. The BoR merely recognized them.

Now obviously the BoR, once drafted, required the people to ratify it. James Madison, the author of the BoR, campaigned extensively for ratification. He had help. One helper in particular was his friend and fellow Federalist, Tench Coxe. Coxe wrote a pamphlet explaining each article in the BoR. Here is how he described the 2nd. Amendment:

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, discussing the purpose of the Second Amendment in his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," published under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1. (Emphasis added)

Note the language he used. He did not say the people are “hereby granted” a RKBA. He said the people are “confirmed” in their RKBA—clearly expressing the common understanding that the RKBA pre-existed the Constitution and the Amendment merely recognizes this pre-existing right. In addition, Coxe clearly explains this is a recognized individual right unconnected with active militia service.

This is the only known explanation of the 2nd. Amendment to be published during the ratification campaign—and, to my knowledge, the only known explanation of the 2nd. Amendment from any founding father. Coxe forwarded a copy of his Remarks to Madison, who was at the time in New York campaigning for ratification. In his letter, Coxe said this:

"It has appeared to me that a few well tempered observations on these propositions might have good effect. . . .It may perhaps be of use in the present turn of the public opinions in New York State. . . ." Tench Coxe, 12 Madison Papers, pp. 239-240 (Rutland Ed. 1979) [Letter from Coxe to Madison, June 18, 1789].

Madison’s response, by letter to Coxe, notes that Coxe’s Remarks “are already I find in the Gazettes here.” He went on to thank Coxe saying he was “therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen.” James Madison, 12 Madison Papers, p. 257 (Rutland Ed. 1979) [Letter from Madison to Coxe, June 24, 1789].

The significance here is Madison had an opportunity to reject the above explanation if he felt it was an incorrect statement of the purpose and effect of the 2nd. Amendment—and he did not do so.

Now, to specifically address your question of why have an amendment to specifically recognize any right if the right was understood to already exist:

Here is best answer I have ever heard:

“The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Lecture II, 1921.

Simply put, the founders of my nation believed the RKBA was one of these great ideals of individual liberty—one important enough to deserve (like speech, press, and religion in the 1st Amendment) a specific recognition of importance.

There is additional evidence I can list for this if you wish to see it.

Finally, my government is not an omnipotent power that is restrained only by the specific liberties mention in the BoR. The entire concept of pre-existing rights (including the pre-existing RKBA) was further confirmed—and protected against governmental encroachment—by the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Since the RKBA is a clearly recognized “retained” right of the people, removal of its specific protection in the 2nd. Amendment merely transfers its protection to the 9th. Amendment.

---

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."-- Justice Brandeis, explaining why he could not condone the government's use of information in a criminal case that was obtained from the use of a wiretap which violated the Fourth Amendment, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (192.

 

To begin with, legal machine guns are rare in the US, and were rare even before being restricted 80 years ago. I'm sure there have been instances in the past where legal non-cop, non-military civilians have use "Tommie Gun" or a real full-auto weapon to defend themselves for human or animal attack. If some rancher were to have shot an attacking cougar with sub machine gun back in 1930 on his ranch---I doubt that would have been recorded.

As with most human criminal attacks, just showing a gun, full-auto or not is usually enough to end the attack.

Now, you are intolerant of "over-powered" weapons. What IS THAT? How much power is too much power? Is it okay to hunt rabbits with a .22? Is it still okay to hunt a Cape Buffalo or an elk with a .22? So what is the maximum cartridge power that should be allowed in a handgun, sub-gun and rifle?

Now, how many rounds should any gun be limited to? 1, 6, 10, or more?

Moving on, what about people who are better than you; the Clintons, Trump, Obama's family? Do they deserve the high capacity, full auto weapons that protect them used by SS agents?

And finally, what about the police, you must think they have more civil rights than you, and deserve to have "over powered" weapons? Tell me, you are the dangerous thugs they run into any different that the dangerous thugs citizens run into?

 

For the same reason we have the First Amendment and all the rest, the BoR is unique to the U.S. a Declaration, a Definition, Countries without such a declaration have faired poorly and have no declared Rights or means to defend them.
For some reason, there are many that would abolish the Second Amendment, for the same reason story book Vampires would get rid of crucifixes and mirrors.

 

Please define "Rare" because Knob creek looks other than rare to me, legal machine guns are not so rare, just expensive now, many people purchased when they were not so expensive.

 

There were 240,000 registered Machine guns at last count. Of 300,000 people in the the US that is about .0008% machine guns per person---which is pretty rare.

I do NOT support ANY gun control law than was not on the books in 1789. I am all for any legal citizen having any firearm they wish. I support harshly punishing those who commit violent crimes, with or without guns.

 

Thank you for a very well researched, non-partisan response; it certainly answered numerous questions I've had and never had an answer for. It certainly made it easier for me to understand why we have the second amendment.

 

Most informative; thank you for taking the time to respond to my question; it certainly answers a lot of questions I've had, but until today, never received a well thought out answer such as what you and another poster posted here!

 

Are there any "infringements" that anyone here supports?

 

I like those leather jackets that have infringements all along the edges.

 

Yeah, those can be cool.

I suppose the word "controls" would be better. Any controls supported at all?

 

No because there are ways to achieve a reduction in violent gun crime without focusing on guns. The problem is that those that proclaim that reducing gun violence is their goal, want nothing to do with it. If it doesn't restrict guns, then they have no interest.

 

I don't think it's true that people have no interest in reducing violent gun crime in other ways.

But as far as no controls go, anyone should be able to buy or possess a gun at any time with zero restrictions at all ever?

 

Statistically very few criminals who commit firearm-related offenses ever face the risk of prosecution, only about one out of every fifty, and many fewer are successfully prosecuted for their offenses. In almost all cases, firearm-related offenses that could send someone to prison for a minimum of five years are dropped in favor of offering a plea bargain, to expedite a conviction on reduced charges, and reduced sentences, simply so a prosecutor can add another victory to their resume without having to actually do the work necessary to earn it.

http://content.thirdway.org/publica...nforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

In light of such evidence, it must be asked what the justification for the existence of such laws is, when they are simply not used.

 

Not sure that answers my question. The question is, should there or should there not be any controls, yes, or no?

If no, than anyone should be able to buy or possess any sort of gun at any time, no questions asked.

If yes, what controls?

 

Before the question can be answered, it is necessary to gain an accurate understanding of the facts of the matter. What is the point of supporting controls and restrictions, if they will simply go unenforced, and there are no consequences for even blatant examples of noncompliance?

 

It's a simple question. Obviously if any law of any kind goes completely 100% unenforced, and if there are zero consequences for blatant examples of noncompliance in every case, then there would be no point.

So that's your answer then. You feel there should be no controls at all. As it is, any rules or laws that exist now, there is no point to them according to you, so anyone and everyone should be able to buy or possess any sort of gun (and any sort of ammo) with no restrictions of any kind.

 

Such has not been said. Rather it is being asked what is the point of supporting restrictions that will not be used, that will not be enforced, exist without justification, and exist more in theory than actual practice? Is there a point in supporting something that is known full well will simply not work?

 

You're trying to replace my question with yours. I answered your question straight up.

So back to my question which is a simple one. If you can't answer, that's fine. I've had one actual answer so far out of 3 who quoted my question, and their answer was no, there should be no controls and no restrictions, which means they feel anyone and everyone should be allowed to buy or possess any sort of gun with no questions asked.

Maybe others agree with that?

 

The same way madatory background checks ( to be a licensed owner) is used to control the sales of machine guns. Don't ask me how, just check other countries who have a better handle on gun deaths by keeping more guns out of the hands of criminals then the US. More unregulated guns have not made us safe. We lead the industrialized world in firearm death rates. If more unregulated guns worked, we would have fewer. I support more people with background checked gun permits, always have. I support a buyer's permit so you only need one check for the life of the permit to buy and sell guns.....only to other permit holders. This works.....

I support a federal nation wide gun carry permits too. I support mandatory training in firearms for all non felons who wish a permit and increased guard member allocations for each state trained in anti terrorism tactics..... I believe in this form of well regulated state-federal militia and feel all should be required to serve a minimum of two years and longer if desired. It's time to arm and train legal gun owners to help provide for our national defense vs terrorism and provide support for police forces using FBI sanctioned protocols and serve in expanded guard units that train regularly.

You do know what " well regulated" means.

 

I think there should be no additional restrictions. We know how to reduce gun violence without additional restrictions on lawful citizens.

Liberals absolutely have no interest in perusing reducing gun violence via justice system reform. They claim it disproportionately targets minorities. They would much rather focus on guns through legislation that won't make any significant changes in gun violence stats.

 

Obviously these guys cannot answer that question. There are precious few of them who have served in war time or in police forces who know what military type weapons are capable of in the hands of the untrained and unqualified. Not enough of them have served enough to know that weapons need regulation and owners need to be permitted and trained to be effective on a scale large enough to be an effective deterrent and not easily accessible by the criminal element.

 

Wrong......liberals want a well regulated militia with only those permitted and trained carrying firearms and not any one who wants a gun with $500 in his pocket. You guys make inane generalizations and use the word liberal like it was an insult instead of looking at people as individuals. Many, many NRA members, hardly liberal, want universal background checks for all gun sales. In other words, most sane people don't believe that only a good guy with a gun should stop a bad guy with a gun. They aren't that dumb. They want the bad guy, UNARMED and only the qualified, Legal and trained good guy with a gun.

You have no idea what liberals want because you obviously aren't one. Liberals believe in the second amendment.....just not your version that completely eliminates half of it. Liberals know what that comma means....you guys don't seem to.