Oh, thanks for telling me "it is finished". I feel so much better now. It's nice to know there are true patriots like you, Liberty Belle, ready and willing to help us all build a bridge back to the 19th century.

Phil, thanks for telling me that "inherent rights" has a statute of limitations. and in your analogy, I'd rather have a bridge to the past than a bridge to Nowhere.

The Founders wanted Americans armed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsuKiUMOwDI

If you don't get it after watching this, then this country is doomed.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Article 1
Declaration of Rights

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

It's estimated that only a third of the population supported the American Revolution. One third supported the government, and the remainder profited from both sides. The descendants of the 2/3's are with us today, part of the 47% and are running the show.

The fact that you worry about civilized talks on gun control leading to gun violence is exactly why we need to be having these conversations.

When the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution, there was no full-time, professional national military force. The 2nd amendment was structured to ensure that civilians would have the right to maintain arms against domestic and foriegn threats. To enable citizens to be brought into a state-led militia. Now, we have a full time Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard to protect us against foriegn threats. We have full time local, state and federal police forces protecting us against domestic threats. There is no need for the common citizen to own military grade weaponry because of this. Taking away military grade weapons in no way infringes on anyones rights. This was a one line amendment to the constitution that is in dire need of updating.

NRA wont back 4th admendment warrentless apartment searches/inspections. Jurys gone. Local regs & zoning trash bill of rights. I went to US Supreme court twice. Zoning Laws preventing UNRELATED PERSONS from living together. Did not hear!! They tried to tell us "life liberty happyness persuit" were to stupid to understand

And don't forget that, when those documents were written, guns were single-shot muskets that took a full minute to reload, if you were good. If you can't see the need to revise the 2nd amendment in light of modern-day capabilities, then you are part of the problem rather than the solution. It is incredibly short-sighted to lean on a supposedly literal reading of a 200+ year old document when the weight of today's realities are so stark and immediate.

Finally, all of this talk of "original intent" regarding the constitution is a load of horse manure. Conservatives are more than willing to push for non-originalist readings of this fine fine documents when it suits them (see the The Defense of Marriage Act). Where were all you patriots when W was in full executive overreach mode? Where were you when the Patriot Act definitively changed the relationship between an individual and the state? Where were you when corporations got their 1st amendment rights?

If you've ever served in the military, you know civilians cannot own weapons approaching what's available to the military. At one time they could, as in 1776, but no longer. Civilians in Washington's day owned firearms often exceeding those issued to government forces, but it's not even close today. Civilian 'military grade' guns, modern sporting rifles, do cosmetically look like military-issue, but so do Airsoft guns. There's no real comparison.

Phil, the reason that it is the most important is because if the citizen is without the ability to replace the government when it becomes tyranical then no other right will be safe from those who wish to do us harm.
After the adoption of our Constitution by Congress in 1787, a woman asked Ben Franklin what they had passed. Franklin is believed to have said that they had passed "A Republic if you can keep it mame". What Ben Franklin and the other Founders knew was that most every form of government will move toward an oligarchy or dictatorship. They also knew that the ultimate check and balance on that government and the movement toward tyranny would be that the citizens were allowed to keep and bear arms. A government that even proposes to take away arms or register them (the first step in confiscation - if you don't believe me ask the British or Aussies) is moving in the direction of tyranny. James Madison even stated that the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms is the paladium of all of our rights.
Sen Feinstien has gone as far as stating that she wants total confiscation of all guns, even though she has a concealled carry permit. How hippocritical does one have to be. And you think it's strange that conservatives are taking this seriously?
Again if you believe that the Second Amendment is flawed, then by all means attempt to change it the way that the Constitution allows. However that's not what our Congressmen and women have been suggesting.

Phil and In the Weeds;
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most goverments it has been the sudy of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever 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 bring of destruction." - Henry St. George Tucker, in Blacksone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right ot bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny wich now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1960

"As the Founding Fathers know well, a government that does not trust it honest, law abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not he servant of the people."
Please tell me that this isn't what is happening now, Phil?

"The rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against usurpsation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

Amazing to me that so many are so willing to relinquish basic natural rights and a system that has worked for over 220 years because of the actions of a few mad individuals and criminals.

in full-on freak out mode? You haven't seen in full freak mode yet....would this full on freak mode be the same type of full on freak mode when the left were freaking out over the birth control issue ? I mean damn, a war on women over a damn packet of pills ? We have a Constitution. Thousands of Patriots gave their lives for this document that promises Americans certain rights and no one is going to cancel it out. NO ONE!

Phil,
The quotes that I provided haven't been "drummed up by neo-con think tanks or right to bear arms groups." I've provided what I believe are the best in context quotes that relate to exactly what the Founders had in mind when they were considering the Bill of Rights. Of course you could just look them up yourself and just because they are on a website that you happen to disagree with doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
It doesn't matter that you don't wish to take away all guns. Any attempt by Congress to limit the citizens right to keep and bear arms is an infringement on a citizens natural born right. Registration also means that Congress and regulatory agencies will place financial contraints on those who own guns that make it financially prohibitive to own them. Watch the video that Chin posted at the beginning of this thread. It's exactly what happened in England. British citizens are now being prosecuted by the government for defending themselves in their own homes against bad guys simply because they were attempting to protect themselves and their families! Registration is always the first step toward confiscation, so no I will not agree with you that guns should be registered. Your arguement that other less deadly items are already regulated isn't valid because no one in America has the right to own or operate a motor vehicle.

Finally you suggest that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of a laws constitutionality and I would agree with you. In fact two recent cases Heller v District of Columbia and McDonald v ? (Chicago) the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was an individuals right, and that a semi-auto firearm was a legitimate weapon to own for self-defense. "Assault weapons" which so many people wish to label semi-automatic rifles, are just that; semi-auto. Now the Senate is considering legislation that Sen. Diane Feinstein proposed that would outlaw all semi-automatic weapons, even the ones that the SCOTUS has said are valid weapons for Americans to own. The NY law recently passed and signed by Gov. Cuomo makes the magazines with the capacity to carry more than seven rounds, illegal thereby making most law enforcement officials criminals. This is what happens when emotions rule instead of logic and science.

The left is using the Newtown and other acts of crime as a means to get more control.

Rendell stated that Sandy Hook was a "good thing". They created the gun free zones that led to the deaths and now they are using those deaths for their anti-gun agenda.

This man gets it, directing the blame where it belongs. Not on guns or the NRA.
Pleas watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xLbhWsUfE

In regards to what the government has done to overstep it's bounds, there are numerous examples of this. However, one of the biggest problems facing Americans is overcriminalization. You need to watch the story of Mr. Schoenwetter, an Alabama businessman who spent more than 8 years in Federal prison, because he allegedly violated a obscure law in Honduras. A law that Honduran officials said didn't apply in the case that the FBI, Customs and other US Federal officials and prosecutors brought against him. His crime...smuggling drugs? NO... Running firearms illegally across the US border? NO. He was using plastic bags to ship seafood instead of cardboard boxes. Yes, you read that right.
http://www.heritage.org/issues/legal/overcriminalization

Focusing our attention on guns and gun control is a mere distraction to the bigger problem we have, the mental health of our society. Unfortunately, if we put major restrictions on guns, criminals will still find ways to get them through the black market. Much like drugs, alcohol (during prohibition), and other things that have been made illegal over the years, criminals can ALWAYS still find ways to have access. On top of that, the lack of guns or ammunition won't solve mass murder sprees. For example, say that, hypothetically, someone planning to commit a mass murder is completely unable to get access to either guns or ammunition. Do you really think they will just be like "oh shoot, I guess my plan is foiled" and give up? No - you're going to start to see an increase in murders involving knives & machetes, homemade weapons, and the one I fear most, bombs. So now, instead of having to shoot at everyone individually we will have killers that can walk into a room, throw a bomb in the middle, and kill handfuls of people at a time... Makes a lot of sense, America.

These "few incidents" you speak of, I don't know where you are from, but in Philadelphia I just have to turn on the nightly news to see another shooting. The fact that these daily occurrences have become white noise in the news is why we need to have a discussion on gun control.

Moe and Liberty Belle your comments are just plain offensive. Tell me that the NRA isn't using this to gain more control as well. Putting guns in schools, yup, that's the answer. While we're at it, let's give out coupons for abortions at the nurses offices in schools. Cause you know, us liberals, that's what we like to do, kill babies.

Paula Goff; I'm sorry but the British Home Office reports that the violent crime rate (VCR) in 2011 in England and Wales was 1,361/100,000 people. Their murder rate was 1.3. The US violent crime rate in 2011 was 386/100,000. The Aussie murder rate with guns were going down before they confiscated firearms. Even the Aussies who spent all that money to confiscate firearms now say that there is no evidence that they are any safer and in fact their VCR is now soaring. Who's safer? I'm sorry but the real facts don't support the argument that less guns means a safer society, or that more guns means a less safe society. I suggest that you read John Lotts More Guns, Less Crime.
When you look at the numbers from the FBI the total murder rate in 1992 was 9.3/100K, in 2011 it was down to almost half at 4.7/100K, nationwide. If you look at the urban figures in the US, the murder rate is 10.1 and the VCR is at 754. The problem is in the inner city were young gangs are killing other young gang members. Take that away and I'll bet that our present murder and VCR would make the US look like Mayberry RFD.
And as far as suicide is concerned, a person intent on killing themselves don't need a firearm to do so. If they really want to do it they will find a way.
Finally, while the idea that one can own a firearm for self defense against a domestic criminal that intends to do me harm is immaterial. The SA is there as the ultimate check and balance against a tyranical state.

Paula Goff; you also are guilty of demonizing those of us who believe in our natural born right to keep and bear arms. This statement; "And it's laughable to think that the U.S., Britain or Australia are in danger of being taken over by tyrants", while you might think is okay, paints all of us who dissagree as something other than people concerned with our freedoms. Why do you have to demonize or degrade us? Why can't you simply justify your positions? As for this comment: "For most of them, living in a safer society no doubt trumps individual gun ownership." I quote Ben Franklin - Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

Drew,
And no one else or any other group with lots of money has any less of an opportunity to do the same? No. Does that elected leader have the right to turn down that money? Of course.
An elected leader should vote on issues in the best interests of the country and which upholds their oath of office, not what a lobbing group tells them. In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that owning and bearing a semi-auto firearms are an American right as a citizen. If legislation is before a body, that would violate that decision they are in effect, violating their oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution. I still don't see where the NRA has any more power than the elected offical gives them.

The thing I find most objectionable about this is the unwillingness of the far right gun zealots to entertain compromise. Basically, these extremists are saying that any gun control is somehow a rights infringement. The vast majority of Americans are not in favor of eliminating a persons right to own a gun. I think a vast middle ground of Americans want more rigorous laws on the types of guns available to citizens. There is no legitimate need for a citizen to have a military grade assault rifle. None. For many early Americans it was a "natural born right" to possess and own slaves. Turned out, that was not a "natural born right" at all, and was eliminated by a constitutional amendment.

Paula; what's a high capacity firearm?
Are you aware of Fast and Furious and what agents and supervisors did in this program? Do you believe that SOS Clinton and President Obama told you the truth about Bengazi? Do you believe that what happened to Joe the Plumber at the hands of the Obama campaign in 2008 was ethical?
The SA is natural law. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most goverments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever 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." - Henry St. George Tucker, in Blacksone's 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England.
These principles are no less important to the citizens of the US as they are and were to the English. These principles are timeless. If we accept your premise that this principle only applied in the time of Ben then the rest of the bill of rights has no application to today either. I'm glad you think I can own a handgun or hunting rifle but it's not up to you to take that right away or give that right to me, since it's God given. If it's God given, like the right to free speech then the government can't take it away.

For a group of people who take the constitution so literally, maybe you should read the section about the Separation of Church and State before you tell me about god's given rights.

Mr. Albert; please show me where in the Constitution or the bill of rights, it says anything about the separation of church and state?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That says I don't have to believe in god, therefore why should anything in our laws have to do with god as I may or may not believe in him.

the second amendment says as follow:
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.

So the first amendment regarding the separation of church and state should be taken verbatim and the second amendment should just be taken as we see fit.......makes sense to me.

I'm never going to win this fight with someone so closed minded so I'll step away now.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

DC vs Heller. Supreme Court interpreted the "militia" clause. Holding and Rule (Scalia) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The D.C. v. Heller decision marked the first time in its history that the Supreme Court had clearly established that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of gun ownership to individual citizens, rather than granting the states a "collective" right to form armed militias. This Supreme Court ruling established an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the sole purpose of self-defense, if for no other.

Quotes of the day:

”A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again.”

"When seconds count, remember 9-1-1 is only minutes away."

A LEGAL immigrant explains it for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU

Intheweeds. So if I don't agree with you I'm a nut? I specifically haven't labeled anyone in this whole conversation but you and several others feel the need to do so?
By acknowledging God Congress hasn't passed any laws establishing a religion. Therefore acknowledging God as the granter of rights to all men regardless of what religion you choose to be isn't a violation of the first amendment. But you and Phil haven't shown me where in the Constitution it says that there should be a separation of church and state? I have been consistent in my arguments and I haven't had the need to label anyone or make any assumptions.

Anti-gun crowd hates stories like this:

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/concealed-carry-holder-shows-why-its-a-bad-idea-to-pull-a-gun-on-a-dad/

Intheweeds,
The basis for the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. The first paragraph of that document...
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The right of the people to be free has to come from somewhere would you agree? If other men, regardless of station, were to grant you these rights, can they also take them away? Of course!
This is and was the most amazing experiment at the time. Power and authority over other people were granted to others simply by the station in life that they found themselves in. The first born son of the King, was eventually given life and death power over his subjects. Some kings used this power in ethical ways. Others did not. Our country was founded on the republican (don't confuse this with the republican party) philosphic traditions stemming from Aristotle's observations that basic to tyrants was a mistrust of the people, and therefore they deprived them of arms. This principle has been borne out of work by others, like James Madison in the Federalist Papers, William Blackstone, Justice Joseph Story, William Rawle, Thomas Cooley, Cicero, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rouseau.
Don't take my word on it, look it up for yourself.
There are two enemies to the peoples freedoms, criminals and government. The purpose of the Constitution is so that we can chain down the government so it does not become a legalized version of criminals.
Understand that the Constitution is not a limit on the people. It spells out limits to our federal government. Those who are elected to public office SERVE the people, not the other way around.

Since Australia's Gun Ban
Armed robberies up 69%
Assault with Guns up 28%
Gun murders up 19%
Home Invasion up 21%
Gun Control in Australia - Watch and Weep
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

From the men who's job it is to overthrow governments.

Read the Letter 1,100 Green Berets Signed for Protection of the 2nd Amendment

"Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes".

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/30/read-the-letter-1100-green-berets-signed-for-protection-of-the-2nd-amendment/

Bill....the facts we know. But, this doesn't do anything for them. This gun grab has zero to do with protecting people and everything to do with power and putting a dent in a Constitution they never upheld. They can claim how they want to save lives. It's bull. Curtail 2nd Amendment rights, easier then to go after the 1st Amendment and eventually we get a new Constitution written by them. Who are they trying to fool ?

If you would like to sign the petition

No more assaults on our gun rights. No more assaults on our civil liberties.

http://www.chooseliberty.org/libertydirective.aspx?pid=0130d

Oh great and wise constitutional scholars....(as there are so many of you here), where in the constitution am I given the right to not be shot?!

It's not in the Constitution but is in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is written to constrain the Government.

So in order to constrain the government, I lose my right to not be shot...in order to protect me from the government that is charged with protecting me?

Why is gov stockpiling guns, ammo? So why does Homeland Security need so many weapons and enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/why-is-government-stockpiling-guns-ammo/

O said, "We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military”

http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/70160/
16:50 mark