GUNS:The Republicans have already given in. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : GUNS:The Republicans have already given in.


HerrGlock
01-02-2013, 19:03
Write your rep.

http://docthompsonshow.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/the-republicans-have-already-given-in/

bikerdog
01-02-2013, 19:07
If this is true it could be a major blow.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

IceAxe
01-02-2013, 19:09
If this is true it could be a major blow.


if it happens it will seal the death of the republican party

geofri
01-02-2013, 19:10
#$%^&*(

norton
01-02-2013, 19:14
Sadly, this is inevitable.
After the JFK, MLK and RFK assasinations in the 60's, we got the 1968 Gun control act. Prior to that, you could actually order rifles through the mail without paperwork. I got my first Marlin 39A delivered to my house (I was 13) by Parcel Post from a catalog business. No FFL, no dealers.
That ended.
This last tragedy has provoked Soccer mom's and Nancy boys from all across the States who generally never even thought about firearms prior to this situation.
they are demanding action. The best we can hope for is a limited further restriction on our 2nd amendment rights.
I hate, it, but it is what it is.

Restless28
01-02-2013, 19:18
I think TSP had it right today. The fear is not in the Feinstein bill, it's what compromises that the democrat lites are going to give Feinstein.

Hi cap mags are gone. Possible registation of existing guns into some new Class 3 type special category, etc, etc.

PAGunner
01-02-2013, 19:28
A meaningless E-mail, I think an executive order is more likely, perhaps there will be a "compromise" bill... If there is, it will mean repubs swept out in 2014 and us as fun owners will assure them their feet will be held to the fire, so I doubt any compromise bill will be passed.

That said anything can happen and we have to keep fighting, don't roll over and play dead, get back in the fight!

Drain You
01-02-2013, 19:44
I'm not giving up a damn thing. You want me to pay taxes? Then leave me the hell alone. If not put me in jail and take care of me, I'll just carry high capacity shanks then.

Reissman
01-02-2013, 19:44
A meaningless E-mail, I think an executive order is more likely, perhaps there will be a "compromise" bill... If there is, it will mean repubs swept out in 2014 and us as fun owners will assure them their feet will be held to the fire, so I doubt any compromise bill will be passed.

That said anything can happen and we have to keep fighting, don't roll over and play dead, get back in the fight!

Thats right, just emailed my reps again.

Glock20 10mm
01-02-2013, 19:46
Hate to say it... well no, I don't. Told you they would cave here to. Listen get it through your heads we are done with all political avenues. They have not existed for the last 12 years or more. What's happened is an acceleration of this reality. We have only two options left and I don't like either of them, but that's what's on the table.

Our "elected" officials are all in the same boat, they all answer to the same master and really, they don't care about we the people. It's about a final power grab and the initiation of 1932 all over. That is the reality and it sucks. I have been saying this for some time, but I either get called a tin foiler or ignored. The bull is most definitely in the China shop and we can't ignore it anymore.

bushhogg
01-02-2013, 20:01
Government gone wild.... get involed, help and support progun groups in your areas and progun politicians....wake up!!!!!

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 20:09
Big shock...:upeyes:

And this is just the beginning. The GOP is in this mode of 'we must broaden our tent to welcome more people'. The reality is the GOP lost because the country went through a transition where the parasites have taken over. Now the GOP is working to give away more rights, forfeit any resemblance to ideals in managing the economy, etc.

Yea, I am writing my reps tonight...but we're done as a country. It's just a matter of time before we all realize it.

Cali-Glock
01-02-2013, 20:23
I have written my representative. I am confident he will vote against ANY anti-civil rights (2nd Amendment) legislation. Congressman McClintock http://www.tommcclintock.com/

Tom is a hard core conservative, voted against the fiscal cliff deal and has a long history (30 + years) of promoting pro-2nd Amendment issues, while fighting anti-civil rights (anti 2nd amendment) nonsense in the public realm

G26S239
01-02-2013, 20:36
I think TSP had it right today. The fear is not in the Feinstein bill, it's what compromises that the democrat lites are going to give Feinstein.

Hi cap mags are gone. Possible registation of existing guns into some new Class 3 type special category, etc, etc.
Damn. We already lost. :crying: Guess I'll just find another hobby.


Everybody listen up! philipk and the other 5th columnists at GT are right. In the face of certain defeat we must surrender. :upeyes:

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 20:39
I just wrote mine this -
I am thoroughly disgusted at the call for further restrictions on our second amendment rights in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooting was a tragedy that was done by a mentally ill individual. Rather than focusing on the individual and how to deal with the mentally ill, our President and the Democrats are using this as an opportunity to politicize the tragedy and further their agenda – gun control.

Immediately after the tragedy, I watched FoxNews Sunday with a panel of ignorant, self-proclaimed experts stating – ‘we need to stop online ammunition purchases’…fact – Adam Lanza did not purchase any ammunition online. He stole it. I heard – ‘there is no sporting use for these assault rifles’. Fact…the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. It has everything to do with preventing a tyrannical government from abusing the citizens. I’ve heard – ‘we must ban these high capacity magazines’. Again, refer to the second amendment and why it was written and enacted.

I can go on & on with the ignorant rhetoric being touted in the media and various representatives. I am a long-time supporter of the GOP. Please represent me (your constituent) by voting against ANY further restrictions on our second amendment rights.

We, as a nation, need to stop targeting the second amendment every time a tragedy strikes our nation. Let’s focus on the root cause(s)…were there any warning signs regarding the mental health of Adam Lanza that could have been addressed and prevented the tragedy? Is the security in our schools adequate? Eliminating the rights of the citizens is not the answer. The worst school tragedy in this country’s history was done without firearms in 1927. We’ve got to stop allowing the Democratic party whittle away at our rights by using the emotions surrounding a tragedy to drive their agenda forward.

Pawcatch@aol.co
01-02-2013, 20:41
This is Washington we're talking about and it often takes them months to do anything.I don't put much stock at all in one email.
How do we know what every Republican in the House is thinking from one dubious email?

Btw,who is Doc Thompson.

OctoberRust
01-02-2013, 20:46
Damn. We already lost. :crying: Guess I'll just find another hobby.


Everybody listen up! philipk and the other 5th columnists at GT are right. In the face of certain defeat we must surrender. :upeyes:


Imagine how WW2 would have turned out, with guys like them.


OH! LET'S QUIT GUYS! JAPAN TOOK OUR HALF OUR NAVY! :rofl:

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 20:47
This is Washington we're talking about and it often takes them months to do anything.I don't put much stock at all in one email.
How do we know what every Republican in the House is thinking from one dubious email?


Because it is consistent with the current GOP strategy that has been reiterated by several...'we must broaden our tent to include more people'.

Ruggles
01-02-2013, 20:47
Uhhh WTH does that blacked out none conclusive alleged email between unknown people prove?

I have said and still think some form of new AWB is gonna happen, if not now then in 2014/15. But this linked "story" shows/proves nothing.

G26S239
01-02-2013, 20:47
Imagine how WW2 would have turned out, with guys like them.


OH! LET'S QUIT GUYS! JAPAN TOOK OUR HALF OUR NAVY! :rofl:
No kidding. :supergrin:

thejellster05
01-02-2013, 20:50
Don't give up guys!
I wrote my reps today.

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 20:51
Imagine how WW2 would have turned out, with guys like them.


OH! LET'S QUIT GUYS! JAPAN TOOK OUR HALF OUR NAVY! :rofl:

You're confusing pessimism with defeatism. As I've posted, I've gotten involved. I posted a copy of my letter to my reps. I also paid for two NRA memberships for family members.

So far, you appear to be the whiny individual that is content at criticizing your fellow gun owners. How about you get off your ass and provide some constructive ideas?

RMTactical
01-02-2013, 20:52
Looks like a forgery.

Pawcatch@aol.co
01-02-2013, 20:53
Because it is consistent with the current GOP strategy that has been reiterated by several...'we must broaden our tent to include more people'.

Yes,but the issue of guns has been considerably different for the last two decades.
Rural voters will forget about what they think are "minor" tax increases,but history has show that they don't forget about gun restrictions.

I've already recieved an email from my Rep. that he will continue to vote against any infringements to the 2nd ammendment.

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 20:54
Yes,but the issue of guns has been considerably different for the last two decades.
Rural voters will forget about what they think are "minor" tax increases,but history has show that they don't forget about gun restrictions.

I've already recieved an email from my Rep. that he will continue to vote against any infringements to the 2nd ammendment.

Just curious - Isakson or Chambliss? I just wrote both.

Pawcatch@aol.co
01-02-2013, 20:56
Just curious - Isakson or Chambliss? I just wrote both.

Havn't written my Senators yet,my Congressman is Phil Gingrey.

PAGunner
01-02-2013, 20:58
Boehner has essentially told D's to stick their anti-constitutional garbage up their arses anytime it's come up. I expect him to do the same this time around. It's executive orders via Obama I worry about, some fear exports or ammo restrictions, I believe he's gonna come down hard with executive orders citing the 1934 or 1968 laws.

PocketProtector
01-02-2013, 20:59
The GOP may be complicit and sellout but the Communist Party is the enemy.
They are in fact, destroying America from within.

Pawcatch@aol.co
01-02-2013, 21:01
Boehner has essentially told D's to stick their anti-constitutional garbage up their arses anytime it's come up. I expect him to do the same this time around. It's executive orders via Obama I worry about, some fear exports or ammo restrictions, I believe he's gonna come down hard with executive orders citing the 1934 or 1968 laws.

I really worry about the sporting clause on shotguns.
Like what happened to the USAS12 and the Street Sweeper.

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 21:04
Havn't written my Senators yet,my Congressman is Phil Gingrey.

I got Woodall. Sent him one as well. Same letter.

bushhogg
01-02-2013, 21:05
both in Ga

NDLAWRENCE
01-02-2013, 21:09
How do I find out who my state rep is?

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 21:09
both in Ga

Sure are a lot of involved GA folks here :supergrin: Okay, I'm originally from FL (see Gator avatar...which is not going well tonight). But I currently reside in GA (and have for a long time).

jdavionic
01-02-2013, 21:14
How do I find out who my state rep is?

You can use this website.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/

Once you find your rep, I would recommend going to their respective website to submit your letter.

NDLAWRENCE
01-02-2013, 21:19
You can use this website.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/

Once you find your rep, I would recommend going to their respective website to submit your letter.

Thanks, Bout to send a email now.

kendric98
01-02-2013, 21:36
Probobly faker than Obummers birth certificate.

2bgop
01-02-2013, 21:41
I am not saying don't worry about possible new laws, but freaking out over a possible e-mail from someone who is friends with someone in someone's DC office is a bit much.

JayAK
01-02-2013, 21:51
I am not saying don't worry about possible new laws, but freaking out over a possible e-mail from someone who is friends with someone in someone's DC office is a bit much.

:agree:

frank4570
01-02-2013, 22:16
I am not saying don't worry about possible new laws, but freaking out over a possible e-mail from someone who is friends with someone in someone's DC office is a bit much.

I very strongly disagree. Freaking out is totally appropriate. If there was ever a time to decide to do something, now is that time.
There is a very strong chance of a magazine ban and AWB.

C6vetter
01-02-2013, 22:16
I just wrote mine this -

Nicely written, JD!

JayAK
01-02-2013, 23:11
I very strongly disagree. Freaking out is totally appropriate. If there was ever a time to decide to do something, now is that time.
There is a very strong chance of a magazine ban and AWB.

This was true without the email though...that was his point.

RMTactical
01-03-2013, 01:30
This was true without the email though...that was his point.

Exactly. I don't buy this email. I do buy that there is a real threat though. We need to be engaged in this fight.

Alchemy
01-03-2013, 02:09
Sadly, this is inevitable.
After the JFK, MLK and RFK assasinations in the 60's, we got the 1968 Gun control act. Prior to that, you could actually order rifles through the mail without paperwork. I got my first Marlin 39A delivered to my house (I was 13) by Parcel Post from a catalog business. No FFL, no dealers.
That ended.
This last tragedy has provoked Soccer mom's and Nancy boys from all across the States who generally never even thought about firearms prior to this situation.
they are demanding action. The best we can hope for is a limited further restriction on our 2nd amendment rights.
I hate, it, but it is what it is.

Hate to say it... well no, I don't. Told you they would cave here to. Listen get it through your heads we are done with all political avenues. They have not existed for the last 12 years or more. What's happened is an acceleration of this reality. We have only two options left and I don't like either of them, but that's what's on the table.

Our "elected" officials are all in the same boat, they all answer to the same master and really, they don't care about we the people. It's about a final power grab and the initiation of 1932 all over. That is the reality and it sucks. I have been saying this for some time, but I either get called a tin foiler or ignored. The bull is most definitely in the China shop and we can't ignore it anymore.



Sadly both of these statements state the facts IMHO.

2bgop
01-03-2013, 02:46
I very strongly disagree. Freaking out is totally appropriate. If there was ever a time to decide to do something, now is that time.
There is a very strong chance of a magazine ban and AWB.

Yes, but the evidence of this isn't some supposed e-mail from someone who knows someone who works with someone someplace.

G36's Rule
01-03-2013, 05:05
An email huh?

:upeyes:

mike g35
01-03-2013, 05:16
That letter looks a bit sketchy to me. However, if it'll get folks off their asses and get them writing their congress people and telling others to do the same then.......


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

jdavionic
01-03-2013, 05:17
You would think the liberal are watching this topic rather closely. If this was some fake email generated to panic the masses, I would expect it to be plastered in the press with skepticism being raised as the source (e.g., insinuating the NRA).

Regardless of the validity, there is certainly justification for being concerned.

jdavionic
01-03-2013, 05:20
Nicely written, JD!

Thanks. I initially included numerous references to statements by our Founding Fathers and more details on the second amendment; but I deleted them since I know the attention span of the audience (our reps) is pretty limited and you've got to keep the email short to have a chance og getting it read. Curious whether I'll get a reply.

johnd
01-03-2013, 05:44
they didnt "give in"...they were NEVER in in the first place.
As soon as something upsets their cozy little arrangements with each other they all fall apart, both "sides"
They talk about fighting but theres no fighting, just more bs.
They talk about legislating but they cant define anything right
They talk about the cost to government but there is never any cost to the government, its not their money, its ours
They talk about the debt but its not their debt, its ours.
Theyu dont care because they dont have to

shotgunred
01-03-2013, 06:05
http://www.speaker.gov/contact

If you want to keep them do something other than complain on gun forums.

Bren
01-03-2013, 06:07
if it happens it will seal the death of the republican party

But if that's all it does, it won't be worth it.

Ruble Noon
01-03-2013, 07:36
Read this and then forward it to your senators and congressmen

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

--------
R E P O R T

OF THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
http://www.guncite.com/icon/senrpt.gif (http://www.guncite.com/icon/senrpt.gif)
FEBRUARY 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
----
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-618 O WASHINGTON : 1982
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402(p.II)
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Vinton De Vane Lide, Chief Counsel
Quentin Crommelin, Jr., Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
Stephen J. Markman, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Randall Rader, General Counsel
Peter E. Ornsby, Counsel
Robert Feidler, Minority Counsel(p.III)
C O N T E N T S
----------


Preface (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1), by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of Utah
Preface (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1-18), by Senator Dennis DeConcini, ranking minority member, U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of
Arizona
History: (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h2) Second amendment right to "keep and bear arms"
Appendix: (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h4) Case law
Enforcement (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h6) of Federal firearms laws from the perspective of the second
amendment
Other Views of the second amendment:

Does the Second Amendment mean what it says? (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt24.html), by David J. Steinberg,
executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy
National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second Amend-
ment (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt27.html), by Michael K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields,
legal affairs coordinator, National Coalition to Ban Handguns
Historical Bases of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html), by David T.
Hardy, partner in the Law Firm Sando & Hardy
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms: The
Intent of the Framers (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhal14.html), by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., attorney and
counselor at law
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an
Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html), by James J. Featherstone,
Esq., General Counsel, Richard E. Gardner, Esq., and Robert Dowlut,
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, National Rifle Association of Amer-
ica
The Right To Bear Arms: The Development of the American Experience (http://www.guncite.com/journals/jldevae.html),
by John Levin, assistant professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illi-
nois Institute of Technology
Standing Armies and Armed Citizens: An Historical Analysis of The
Second Amendment (http://www.guncite.com/journals/rwstand.html), by Roy G. Weatherup, J.D., 1972 Stanford Univer-
sity; member of the California Bar
Gun control legislation (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt171.html), by the Committee on Federal Legislation, the
Association of the Bar of the city of New York (p.V)



PREFACE (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#toc1)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous, Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit.(p.VI)
This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state"--apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia ... to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.
When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "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 this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George (p.VII)Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.
Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research capabilities (p.VIII)of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of constitutional scholars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven Halbrook, and David T. Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to uncover information on the right to keep and bear arms which documents quite clearly its status as a major individual right of American citizens. We did not guess at the purpose of the British 1689 Declaration of Rights; we located the Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of the Declaration's sponsors, now dead for two centuries. We did not make suppositions as to colonial interpretations of that Declaration's right to keep arms; we examined colonial newspapers which discussed it. We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington and wrote while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary of our research and findings forms the first portion of this report.
In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of two associations who replied are reproduced here following the report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited statements by Messrs. Halbrook (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhal14.html) and Hardy (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html), and by the National Rifle Association (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/fgd-guar.html), whose statements likewise follow our report.
When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.
Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.
Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

Bren
01-03-2013, 08:24
Read this and then forward it to your senators and congressmen

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

A point in that that isn't mentioned much - gun conrollers constantly point to other countries, often countries with very little freedom, relative to the U.S., as examples of what we should be like, regarding gun control. Being like countries in Europe is exactly the opposite of what I was always taught about America. My education says that our ideal is to have MORE freedom than those places and to be different than them, from the start - not to try to "be more like England."

Glock20 10mm
01-03-2013, 11:21
But if that's all it does, it won't be ENOUGH.

There... fixed it fer ya.

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 11:23
wheres the revolt?

guns54
01-03-2013, 11:33
I'm not giving up a damn thing. You want me to pay taxes? Then leave me the hell alone. If not put me in jail and take care of me, I'll just carry high capacity shanks then.You got that right,

Bren
01-03-2013, 12:03
There... fixed it fer ya.

That is what I meant to begin with, as in, "if that's all it does...".

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 12:11
sire sire! the peasants are revolting!

yes, and they smell bad too.

samuse
01-03-2013, 14:43
wheres the revolt?

The will never be a revolt. Because.... It's... 'Against the law'.

:rofl:

pizza_pablo
01-03-2013, 15:02
I just wrote mine this -
JD, I hope you don't mind. I copied and tweaked your letter, to use, myself. I had to remove references to the GOP, since none of my reps are. Heck, my actual congressman does not accept email, any longer, because he is quitting.
My version of your letter:

I am thoroughly disgusted at the call for further restrictions on our second amendment rights, in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The shooting was a tragedy carries out by a mentally ill individual. Rather than focusing on the individual and how to deal with the mentally ill, our President, other politicians and the media are using this as an opportunity to politicize the tragedy and further their agenda – gun control.

Immediately after the tragedy, I watched FoxNews Sunday with a panel of ignorant, self-proclaimed experts stating – ‘we need to stop online ammunition purchases’…fact – Adam Lanza did not purchase any ammunition online. He stole it. I heard – ‘there is no sporting use for these assault rifles’. Fact…the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. It has everything to do with preventing a tyrannical government from abusing the citizens. Fact…the “assault weapon” is a fully automatic rifle, on which there are MANY laws and restrictions. The average person cannot easily obtain such a rifle and I believe that these are no longer legal to produce. I’ve heard – ‘we must ban these high capacity magazines’. Again, refer to the second amendment and why it was written and enacted. If the police and military have such equipment isn’t it prudent for citizens to be similarly armed, in case these agencies were to be used against the citizenry, by a rogue government?

I can go on & on with the ignorant rhetoric, touted by the media and various representatives, but I’m sure you know the story. Please represent your state, as part of this great nation, by voting against ANY further restrictions on our second amendment rights.

We, as a nation, need to stop targeting the second amendment every time a tragedy strikes. Let’s focus on the root cause(s). Were there any warning signs regarding the mental health of Adam Lanza that could have been addressed and prevented the tragedy? Is the security in our schools adequate? Eliminating the rights of the citizens is not the answer. The worst school tragedy in this country’s history was done without firearms in 1927. Such tragedies occur, in countries with much stricter gun control that the US. Disarming law abiding citizens allows the criminal element to have a bigger advantage when carrying out their illegal activities. We’ve got to stop allowing gun-control advocates wishing to whittle away at our rights by using emotions surrounding a tragedy, to advance their agenda forward.

pizza_pablo
01-03-2013, 15:07
A point in that that isn't mentioned much - gun conrollers constantly point to other countries, often countries with very little freedom, relative to the U.S., as examples of what we should be like, regarding gun control. Being like countries in Europe is exactly the opposite of what I was always taught about America. My education says that our ideal is to have MORE freedom than those places and to be different than them, from the start - not to try to "be more like England."
Well put, Bren :thumbsup:

dwhite53
01-03-2013, 15:20
We now need to be writing our state legislatures
and our Governors to stand FIRMLY with the 10th
amendment and resist Washington interfering in
our states.

They will probably have to go cold turkey on the
Imperial Federal heroin, oops, I mean MONEY they've
sold their souls for.

All the Best,
D. White

jdavionic
01-03-2013, 15:25
JD, I hope you don't mind. I copied and tweaked your letter, to use, myself. I had to remove references to the GOP, since none of my reps are. Heck, my actual congressman does not accept email, any longer, because he is quitting.
My version of your letter:

Looks good to me. Glad my letter helped.

pizza_pablo
01-03-2013, 15:53
Looks good to me. Glad my letter helped.
Cool.
Hey, sorry about your Gators :crying: Damn Tigers blew it, too.
I am a huge SEC fan, originally from Nawlins.
Love the Tigers, but was a big Gator fan, when I lived in Jacksonville for 11 years. Those folks are some crazy college football fanatics. :supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
01-03-2013, 16:04
Looks like a forgery.

Perhaps put together by the more unscrupulous members of the firearms industry who are enjoing a wonderful payday and want to keep it rolling?

DaleGribble
01-03-2013, 16:21
I'm willing to bet my life that those emails are not from legitimate Congressman, they're from a couple of staffers or either totally bogus.

jdavionic
01-03-2013, 16:48
Cool.
Hey, sorry about your Gators :crying: Damn Tigers blew it, too.
I am a huge SEC fan, originally from Nawlins.
Love the Tigers, but was a big Gator fan, when I lived in Jacksonville for 11 years. Those folks are some crazy college football fanatics. :supergrin:

Yep...not a good night for a Gator fan. Not too surprising for me though.

chief63
01-03-2013, 17:29
Gun control is the last stop for Republicans. They got nothing left. It will be the end of the party. Our only hope is that the Speaker stated he will no longer do one-on-one negotiations with the President and gun control will die in committee or the house. I'm not very optimistic.