Second Amendment History

[CarlS]

Panama Red and others interested in the history of the Second Amendment. The following is a short list of legal opinions and legal research into the origins of the 2nd Amendment. From these articles, one can use the bibliographies to dig deeper into the minds of the founding fathers who wrote our constitution and bill of rights. Research into this subject has proliferated in the last 20 years due to the questions of gun control being at the political forefront. I was not able to find my own bibliographical list compiled from 40 plus years of researching this topic (too many moves over the years!), so I started recreating one.

Much insight can found in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers which were sited in the previous thread. As you will discover, opinions on a strong central government vs. a weak one were divided pretty much regionally with the Virginia contingent taking the lead on checks against a strong central government, hence the 2nd Amendment.

Following this list, is a list of opinions concerning 2nd amendment matters. One article is by a feminist (her words).

Much of this is dry, heavy reading. Happy reading!


Second Amendment History

Bordenet, Bernard J., "The Right to Possess Arms: The Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment, University of West Los Angeles Law Review, 21 (1990).

Cramer, Clayton E., For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Wesport, Conn., Praeger Press, 1994.

Halbrook, Stephen P., Freedmen: The 14th Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1776-1866, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing (1998).

_____, "Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and 'The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms': Visions of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment," Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, 5 (1995): 341-434.

_____, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Texas: The Intent of the Framers of the Bill of Rights," Baylor Law Review, 41 (1989): 629-688.

_____, "Encroachment of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment," University of Dayton Law Review, 15 (1989): 91.

_____, "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to 'Bear Arms,'" Law & Contemporary Problems, 49 (1986): 151.

_____, That Every Man Be Armed--The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984.

_____, "To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms: The Adoption of the Second Amendment 1789-1791," Northern Kentucky Law Review, 10 (1982): 13-39.

Hardy, David T., "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment," Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, (1986): 559-638.

_____, Origin and Development of the Second Amendment, Southport, Conn.: Blacksmith Corporation, 1986.

_____, "The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights," Journal of Law & Politics, 4 (1987): 1.

Malcolm, Joyce Lee, "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition," Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 10 (1983): 285-314.

Shalhope, Robert E., "The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment," The Journal of American History, 69 (1982): 559-614.


Young, David E., ed., The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, Ontonagon, Mich.: Golden Oak Books, 1995.


Other 2nd Amendment Reading

Cantrell, Charles L., "The Right of the Individual to Bear Arms," Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, 53 (Oct. 1980): 21.

Caplan, David I., "Handgun Control: Constitutional or Unconstitutional?," North Carolina Central Law Journal, 5 (1976): 53-58.

Comment, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: A Necessary Constitutional Guarantee or an Outmoded Provision of the Bill of Rights?," Albany Law Review, 31 (1967): 74.

Cottrol, Robert J., Raymond T. Diamond, ed., Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment, New York, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1994.

Cramer, Clayton E., "The Racist Roots of Gun Control," Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, Winter 1995: 17-25.

Dowlut, Robert, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: A Right to Self-Defense Against Criminals and Despots," Standford Law & Policy Review, 8 (1997): 25-40.

_____, "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms," University of Baltimore Law Forum , 15 (1984): 29-32.

Funk, T. Markus, "Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-in-Point," Northwestern University Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 85 (1995): 764-806.

Halbrook, Stephen P., _____, "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment," Valparaiso Law Review, 26 (1991): 131-207.

Hardy, David T., "Firearms Ownership and Regulation: Tackling an Old Problem With Renewed Vigor," William and Mary Law Review, 20 (1978): 235-290.

Harmer, David, "Securing a Free State: Why the Second Amendment Matters," Brigham Young University Law Review, 1 (1998): 55-101.

Hayes, Stuart R., "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation," William and Mary Law Review, 2 (1960): 381.

Johnson, Nicholas J., "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed Through the Ninth Amendment," Rutgers Law Journal, 24 (1992): 1-81.

Kates, Don B., Jr., ed., Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.: North River Press, 1979

Kopel, David B., _____, Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control, Cato Institute Policy Report, 1988.

_____,and Joseph E. Olson, "All The Way Down The Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America," Hamline Law Review, 22 (1999): 399-465.

Larish, Inge Anna, "Why Annie Can't Get Her Gun: A Feminist Perspective on the Second Amendment," University of Illinios Law Review, 2 (1996): 467-508.

Morgan, Eric C., "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional," American Journal of Criminal Law, 17 (1990): 143.
Tahmassebi, Stefan B., "Gun Control and Racism," George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal, 2 (1991): 67.

Weiss, Jonathan A., "A Reply to Advocates of Gun Control Law," Journal of Urban Law, 52 (1974): 577-589.

[LawyerRon]

What makes the Second Amendment interesting is that there is so little case law on the subject from the US Supreme Court. If I recall, the last 2nd Am case they took was back in the '50's. In fact, when I was in Law School, I never heard the 2nd Amendment mentioned once.

[mr krinkle]

I own guns but what exactly does the Right to Bear Arms mean? Remember that was written long ago when High powered Rifles and todays Assault Weapons were not even dreamed about.

[mbossman2]

here is the 2nd amendment:

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.

(please not that state in the this case truly means state, as in the state of Virginia or North Carolina, not state as in a country as a whole)

The constitutional framers knew that any large centralized government could quite easily be turned from serving the people, to being tyrannical rulers over the people. So they set up provisions to allow the rights of the people to trump the powers granted in the consitution. (read the constitution, the 1st part, the constitution itself, lists how the government is formed, what it can do, how it can about doing it and the 2nd part, the amendments, in essence say: wait a minute, here are the things the government CAN NOT do).

Now, as was pointed out at the end of the very long "gun Control" thread, rights are just words on a piece of paper and can be tossed just as easily (actually probably a heck of a lot easier) than they were accepted. So the framers built in a defense mechanism to protect the rights of the people from tyrants: the 1st was the right of speech (to decry the abuses of power), the right to assemble (to collect the power of many) and to petition the government for redress over these grievances. If the 1st method failed, because the government refused to listen to their citizens, the 2nd method was still avaiable, that of revolution and for a revolution to be successful (as the framers learned 1st hand), the populace must be armed (as were the militia members who fought at the early battles of the revolutionary war) so they guaranteed that right in perpetuity.

Mr Krinkle,

Take a look at the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers of the time and you will see the struggles our founding fathers went thru as they were debating the role of the central/federal government. They can be dry and heavy, but very enlightening to see that our founding fathers had a lot of vision and were able to see the forest from the trees and framed things generally enough to be applicable no matter how time marched on and things changed. As long as human nature remained the same, the rules they created would be applicable.

Ron,

I agree that it is kind of odd that there is little comment on the 2nd amendment from the high court. I would like to think that the reason for that is they, as an institution, understand that the 2nd amendment is the citizen's "doomsday" weapon to be used in case of absolute dire emergency when the core fundamental rights of these same citizens are threatened by the government and as such should be left alone as much as possible (kind of like: don't kick the box of nitro, it might blow up and not be there when you REALLY need it)

[mr krinkle]

mbossman2 thank you, I know some people who think that the Right to Bear Arms means they should be able to possess any weapon that the Military uses.
How do you feel about that?

[Panama Red]

Thanx for the list, Carl. I've copied it to Word pad so I can refer to it as I look for books on the subject.

Mboss, Read some of the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers last nite. As you suggested, somewhat dry reading, but interesting, nonetheless. While we refer to the writers of these papers as "great Americans" and "wise men", "founding fathers", I came to realize as I read that they were no more nor no less than many of us today as we debate the same subjects. Much of what was written was done so from emotional positions or from what appeared to be logical argument. But few, if any, of the statments of the time drew any reference to factual evidence or historical fact to support their positions. Nearly all of the disputed subjects deal with those promoting a strong central government vs those in favor of individual State's governments. So far, I find little if any mention of individual rights. Sounds more like a power struggle of classes, with the biggest concern being the Federal Congress having the power to tax and take the money "over 100 miles away". Interesting too, is the observation of one writer that the Constitutional Convention was assembled originally to amend the Articles of Confederation that were formed along with the Declaration of Independence. These defined the government in place as the Revolutionary War was fought. Members of the Convention chose instead to write a new Constitution rather than amend the Articles.

[CarlS]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 thank you, I know some people who think that the Right to Bear Arms means they should be able to possess any weapon that the Military uses.
How do you feel about that?

That is a very good question that has yet to answered legally as LawyerRon can attest. I am definitely not a lawyer but here is how I see it. The 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to bear (own) arms. At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states, this was generally understood to mean individual weapons as opposed to crew served weapons. The Colonials kept their individual weapons at home. They owned them; they were not issued by the government. I don't find many instances where they kept cannon, siege mortars, etc at their homes. These were generally kept in a common armory. These are crew served weapons requiring more than one person to operate them.

Today's howitzers, .50 caliber machine guns, vulcan cannon, etc. fall in the category of crew served weapons. Even individual fired surface to air missles such as the Stinger are not issued to soldiers as individual weapons; but are issued as the tactical situation demands. Therefore, I don't have a probem with laws that prohibit private ownership of these weapons. The firearms act of 1932 prohibited the average citizen from owning or possessing a weapon capable of full automatic fire. Thus, the "Tommy gun" of the Roaring '20's" was banned from private ownership. Exceptions to this ban include holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

[mbossman2]

Exactly, when you read the papers you do see that these ordinary men were struggling with very weighty issues (and yes, I am sure that some of them made it up as they went along) but the end result was absolutely amazing: they were able to hammer out a framework which has stood the test of time (200+ years), the test of battle (the Civil War, aka the War Between the States, depending on your location) and numerous other pokings and proddings.



Nearly all of the disputed subjects deal with those promoting a strong central government vs those in favor of individual State's governments

Yes, that was a major bone of contention, especially from the southern states, they absolutely did not want ANYONE telling them what to do inside their own borders. (this culminated in 1864 and is still an issue here in the south).

History is an odd thing, history does not look at the individual, but rather the accomplishments of the individual.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 thank you, I know some people who think that the Right to Bear Arms means they should be able to possess any weapon that the Military uses.
How do you feel about that?

While the government does restricted certain weapons and require "special" licensing (machine guns most notably), the bulk of firearms manufacturered today are available to the average citizen.

Should the average citizen be able to possess and use, say, a 105mm howitzer? good question, some people would say "hell yes" others would say "are you nuts?"

My feeling is that if a weapon has both civilian and military applications, then it should be made available to the citizenry at large (the 2nd amendment right is so important that leeway should be given). If however, the weapon has ONLY a military applications (anti-tank rockets, artillery, flame throwers, grenade launchers etc) AND has no value as a collector's item or historical value (which is why there is a class 3 FFL: curios and relics), then the average citizen really shouldn't have access to or the ability to possess such a weapon.


I am for as wide 2nd amendment rights as is practical and reasonable and that the government should err on the side of the rights of the individual, but also understand that there are situtations (and weapons) where this amendment just does not apply.

[CarlS]

Originally posted by Panama Red
Thanx for the list, Carl. I've copied it to Word pad so I can refer to it as I look for books on the subject.

Mboss, Read some of the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers last nite. As you suggested, somewhat dry reading, but interesting, nonetheless. While we refer to the writers of these papers as "great Americans" and "wise men", "founding fathers", I came to realize as I read that they were no more nor no less than many of us today as we debate the same subjects. Much of what was written was done so from emotional positions or from what appeared to be logical argument. But few, if any, of the statments of the time drew any reference to factual evidence or historical fact to support their positions...

You are most welcome. You are correct; the framers of the constitution were little different from you and I. They had very little history of democracy to refer to. One had to go back to ancient Greece to study democracy. What they did have was a very vivid memory of taxation without represntation, being forced to house and feed British soldiers in their homes without compensation, and the loss of friends and family killed in the revolution. As I said in the other thread, the 2nd Amendment debate is largely emotional.

The Bill of Rights was a compromise by the Constitutional Convention. The attendees agreed to send the basic constitution to the states for ratification with a promise to reconvene and amend it with the Bill of Rights. It is the debates, speeches, letters, etc regarding the Bill of Rights that give so much insight into the intent and meaning. The end resullt of the Constitutional Convention was a great experiment in a republican (representative democracy) form of government previously untried.. The experiment has lasted over 200 years and produced, arguably, the greatest nation in the history of the world. (That statement ought to get some people going!)

[mr krinkle]

mbossman2 So do you think the Assault Weapons Ban that Clinton put into law Could be overturned by the SC? Or should congress not Renew the law when it expires?

[CarlS]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 So do you think the Assault Weapons Ban that Clinton put into law Could be overturned by the SC? Or should congress not Renew the law when it expires?

I hope that it will expire. It is merely an attempt to open the door to gun control. The term "assault weapon" was invented by the mainstream press to mislead the public into thinking that the proposed legislation banned military, automatic firing weapons. These were, in fact, banned in 1932; but the press omitted that little detail. The banned weapons by the Clinton Administration are merely semi automatic rifles that cosmetically resemble a military rifle and are imported. They are most definitely not weaons used by a military force. The AR-15's and the AK-47's for sale in gun shops will not fire fully automatic. They only look like M-16's and the fully automatic AK's.

[morriswindgate]

There are four words in the second that are without any other meaning >SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What has made this country the power that it is, is the fact that up until the last two thirds of the 20th century the Constitution was considered as the test for all laws and was considered a rigid document. Today the courts and lawyers tend to try to put words and thoughts into the authors thought based upon what would they mean today.
No where in the Constitution does it say or imply that the document should change based upon time or inovation.

[mr krinkle]

CarlS I do agree that the ban was a farce, I doubt though that the Congress will refuse to renew it.
Basicly all the law did was to make honest gun owners look like the bad guys .

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by mr krinkle
mbossman2 So do you think the Assault Weapons Ban that Clinton put into law Could be overturned by the SC? Or should congress not Renew the law when it expires?

the assault weapons ban is a farce. it is an attempt by anti-gun political groups to drive a wedge into the 2nd amendment.

Remember, assault weapons as they were sold prior to this ban were nothing more than aggressive looking semiautomatic rifles, they were not "automatic" weapons as some in the media portrayed them (my favorite was talking about the upcoming vote on the ban with a man on a range firing a fully automatic weapon (never mind that you need a federal license to own one...never let the facts get in the way of a good looking news story).

hopefully the Congress will take off their collective dresses and vote pre-emptorily to lift the ban but more than likely, they will let the ban drift off into obscurity.

We must be ever vigilant on the 2nd amendment rights (in reality any right protected under the constitution) as those that seek to marginalize and circumvent our rights are very loud and well funded and are acting with the conviction of their hearts (altho I do wonder, the paranoid in me, whether they have a wider ranging and ulterior motive....unlikely, but it must be considered), they must be met with resistance that is equal to their zeal, volume and funding.

[Blakhart]

As I recall, Mr. Bush said he would sign the renewall. This may or may not hinder his reelection.


And as to the citizenry maintaining their freedoms from a tyranical regime, the weapons available to the regime at present would render most citizen-held weapons mere nuisances. Kinda like lasers vs. flintlocks...
Still, the firearms owning citizens number some 70 million, with 250 plus million firearms in their hands. That, friends, is the largest army I have ever heard of.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by morriswindgate
There are four words in the second that are without any other meaning >SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What has made this country the power that it is, is the fact that up until the last two thirds of the 20th century the Constitution was considered as the test for all laws and was considered a rigid document. Today the courts and lawyers tend to try to put words and thoughts into the authors thought based upon what would they mean today.
No where in the Constitution does it say or imply that the document should change based upon time or inovation.

the words your are looking for are: judicial activism. The courts of this land were meant to apply the existing laws when a dispute occurs and offer an interpretation when there is a gray area. they were never meant to create new laws from the bench. this is a horrible trend that must be stopped as instead of 600+ men and women debating and deciding on a law, you have 1 person (or in the case of the Supreme Court 8) making laws with little or no input from the public at large.

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by Blakhart
As I recall, Mr. Bush said he would sign the renewall. This may or may not hinder his reelection.


And as to the citizenry maintaining their freedoms from a tyranical regime, the weapons available to the regime at present would render most citizen-held weapons mere nuisances. Kinda like lasers vs. flintlocks...
Still, the firearms owning citizens number some 70 million, with 250 plus million firearms in their hands. That, friends, is the largest army I have ever heard of.

ahhh, but don't forget that each state has a militia (remember the 2nd amendment) whose commanders are selected by the state government who are not directly under the command of the federal military...the number of available guardsmen far out numbers the troops available to the federal government, plus the fact that the US military is composed of, entirely volunteers makes the military's siding with the federal government, highly unlikely.

there you go....making me sound like a anti-government paranoid, when I really am not. I beleive that the checks and balances that exist in the current system will prevent any psycho move by any member of the government.

[CarlS]

Originally posted by mbossman2
ahhh, but don't forget that each state has a militia (remember the 2nd amendment) whose commanders are selected by the state government who are not directly under the command of the federal military...the number of available guardsmen far out numbers the troops available to the federal government, plus the fact that the US military is composed of, entirely volunteers makes the military's siding with the federal government, highly unlikely.

It takes just the stroke of a Presidential pen to put the National Guard under federal control. When Arkansas Gov Faubus used National Guard troops to prevent Black students from entering an all white school, President Eisenhower federalized them and used them to escort the students to their classes. The same thing occurred in Mississippi and Alabama. One minute the Guard was under the command of the governor; the next under command of the president.

[Blakhart]

In that case/instance of federalization, it was just and proper. What about in the future?

[CarlS]

Originally posted by Blakhart
In that case/instance of federalization, it was just and proper. What about in the future?

It is entirely legal and proper. There are some technical hoops the President must jump through such as declaring an emergency, then he can call troops into active federal service. I forgotten the acts that created the National Guard and outline the procedures for call ups.

Basically and oversimplified, when one joins (enlists) the National Guard, he or she joins two organizations (1) the militia of that state and (2) the National Guard of the United States which is a reserve component of the Army (Army National Guard) or Air Force (Air National Guard).

In times of peace the National Guard is under Title 32, USC and the governors of the states are the commanders-in-chiefs. When federalized, the Guard falls under Title 10, USC and is part of the Active Army or Air Force with the President being the Commander-in-Chief.

The system is designed this way to provide state militias for the governors and reserve troops for the Army and Air Force. The federal government pays the lions share of training costs, equipment and armories as well as paying the salaries of the troops.

When a governor calls up the Guard for, say, a hurricane, flood, or forest fire, the state pays the troops salaries and reimburses the federal government for equipment used, supplies expended, etc (at least in theory). There are ways around this, the President can delare a disaster area and part of the deal is federal aid to the state to pay for call up of the Guard. This is an over simplification; but it is the gist of how the system works.

[Confused]

Originally posted by mbossman2
If however, the weapon has ONLY a military applications (anti-tank rockets, artillery, flame throwers, grenade launchers etc) AND has no value as a collector's item or historical value (which is why there is a class 3 FFL: curios and relics), then the average citizen really shouldn't have access to or the ability to possess such a weapon.




I've been following your contributions to this topic and value your input. You are very well informed. I'm sure that if you had been around during the founding your name quite possibly would be on the constitution also.

I own and believe in the individual right to own guns. I also have trouble believing the individual needs anything larger than rifles and shotguns, but if it ever comes to that dreadfull time that it becomes neccessary for the overthrow then we have to be on equal footing with the military as they will in all likelihood be under the control of the goverment.

Just food for thought.
Chas

[mbossman2]

Originally posted by Confused
I've been following your contributions to this topic and value your input. You are very well informed. I'm sure that if you had been around during the founding your name quite possibly would be on the constitution also.

I own and believe in the individual right to own guns. I also have trouble believing the individual needs anything larger than rifles and shotguns, but if it ever comes to that dreadfull time that it becomes neccessary for the overthrow then we have to be on equal footing with the military as they will in all likelihood be under the control of the goverment.

Just food for thought.
Chas

thanks for the kind words.

the USA military is substantially less likely to be on the side of the government than the militaries of other countries (read banana republics) for a few reasons:

1) the bulk of the military is volunteer based, they are not conscripts and their training includes individual thoughts and actions - so they are less likely to follow blindly like sheep and obey an order to fire on their fellow citizens.

2) the military is a very small percentage of the population as a whole and there are a whole lot more of us (between 70 and 80 million armed) than there are of them. Couple in the fact that the guards and militias are guys like you and me and the military is very outnumbered. while comparably we are under armed as compared to them, its like the old story: give 200 million people a rock and they will overwhelm a smaller force.

3) the military has very little "power" as all of their highest ranking officers are vetted by Congress and true whackos are less likely to make into true positions of power and the final control is in the hands of civilians.

4) the military has a tradition of being under the "control" of civilian authorities since the beginning of this nation.

[Hey_Mr._Jack]

as you people have said, the second amendment was there for a reason- revolution. JFK said "When peaceful change becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable" this means when the government becomes too intrusive (which is just a matter of time) we will be prepared to employ any means neccesary to bring back the individual rights we as a nation used to have. the only thing seperating us from becoming the next Iraq or Afghanistan is the wrinkled paper with our "inalienable rights" to speak and shoot. if they take that away, god help us.

some misconceptions are floating around that the 2nd amendment is meant for individual weapons, not crew served. this is very wrong, the reason there was no clause differentiating between crew and individual weapons inserted was because the founding fathers wanted us on par with who we're fighting.

mass media has employed its enormous social power to sway the populace to believing guns are evil, and the second amendment is antiquated and not needed in this day and age. this is absolutely wrong, guns are needed more now than ever in the last 200 years; gang violence, racial hatred, complancency are the biggest killers in american history. believing the police will come and help you, it's OK, don't worry, the nice policeman will come and save you- then tuck you in at night. kiss on the cheek, lullabye, don't get up, sweet baby. we've become a nation of adult infants. this sickens me.

if you want to spout about how many people have been killed by guns, think about how many people have been killed by being disarmed, 2,000,000 Jews in Germany, that right there is probably more people killed BY guns for the history of our country. I BELIEVE (don't quote me n this one) it was the Rwandan genocide in Uganda where the people were ordered to relenquish their guns, when they asked "why?" they were shot. name me one genocide in HISTORY perpetrated against an armed populace. just one.

[Werewolfdaddy]

Just a few of my thoughts on the subject and pardon me if I mirror anyone elses or offend:
1. Any law that promotes gun control doesn't take these weapons out of the hands of criminals, it criminalizes normal citizens who should have the right to defend themselves from harm, period. Life is not inherently safe.
2. Gun control isn't for our benefit. I believe we should call gun control what it really is, "Poplulation Control." The first step in subjagating a populace is to disarm it. I read that somewhere, but I can't remember where.
3.Under many of the new anti terrorism laws, the government can effectively throw out the constitution, if they should choose to claim that it's suspected terrorism involved. In at least one state, they can break into your home and arrest you, if they even think you may commit a crime. I read that somewhere. I need to find that article again.
4. Finally, if the average american should not have access to assault weapons or "military grade weaponry', then the most ambitious and corrupt people in our society should not be in charge of our military "force."

[glc]

I'm closing this thread now, it's turned into another gun control thread which I was afraid would happen. Please review the FAQ, folks, and don't start another thread.