Treason Bill

[mox 298]

it seems in the very near future we're going to have a "national gun license and registration" program.

This is the big problem I have with Blair Holt. (the bill, not the person) I'm not opposed per se to state gun registration, but this seems to me to be yet another step towards the Federal government's desire to implement Federal ID cards. It's yet another erosion of state's rights, and as usual it's coming from a state elected Representative. I just find it so ironic and sad that the push to hand more and more control over from the states to the federal government comes from our own representatives.

And of course the kinds of people that shot and killed Blair Holt are going to waste no time getting their hand guns registered.

[slim 1,514]

I'm not opposed per se to state gun registration,

Nor was I until I was educated on the fact that if you're required to be licensed in order to exercise your Right, then it's no longer a right, is it? It's become a privilege. Same goes for registration. If you're required to register something that's Rightfully guaranteed for you to bear, then it's no longer a Right, it's a privilege because you can't possess it without someone first giving you the "approval" to do so.

Rights aren't something that needs a thumbs up or down from someone in the government.... they're already GUARANTEED! by those who established our government.

If you can't do something or own something without government "approval" then it's no longer your Right to do so.... you're doing it with the government's permission and that makes it no longer your Right to do so, that makes it your privilege only after gaining government approval.

and as usual it's coming from a state elected Representative.

Let's not forget these are the same Reps who've passed a whole mess of gun control regulations in Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois. (Check out the FOID program if you aren't aware of it.) If Chicago alone is used as proof of the effectiveness of this bill then it should be booed all the way out of Congress before it's even finished being read.

And of course the kinds of people that shot and killed Blair Holt are going to waste no time getting their hand guns registered.

Yep. I'm sure all 15 and 16 year old gangbangers are going to comply with this legislation as soon as it's passed. YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

"Well Slim, it's not them, it's the parents that should be held accountable. If teenagers are able to get their hands on guns in their homes then we should take all the guns out of the homes and that way they'd never be able to get them and use them in commiting a crime."

Do you really think the parents of a teenager who's willing to shoot and kill someone on a bus are active enough in their children's lives to prevent them from gaining access to firearms? Do you really think banning everyone's right to have a firearm at home is going to stop teen criminals from commiting crimes? Are the parents of teens willing to murder each other really that much of an influence in their lives that they'd be remotely able to stop them from commiting crime simply because now it's even "more illegal" than it was before?

If murder is already illegal and that's not stopping teens from illegally obtaining guns and killing each other then how is making another law, any law, going to prevent them from doing something that is already outlawed yet they continue to do it?

Change for the future!

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

Nor was I until I was educated on the fact that if you're required to be licensed in order to exercise your Right, then it's no longer a right, is it? It's become a privilege. Same goes for registration. If you're required to register something that's Rightfully guaranteed for you to bear, then it's no longer a Right, it's a privilege because you can't possess it without someone first giving you the "approval" to do so.

Rights aren't something that needs a thumbs up or down from someone in the government.... they're already GUARANTEED! by those who established our government.

If you can't do something or own something without government "approval" then it's no longer your Right to do so.... you're doing it with the government's permission and that makes it no longer your Right to do so, that makes it your privilege only after gaining government approval.

that's pretty much my complaint about concealed carry - that i have to pay for it, and pay dearly. it's quite a bit like the licensing of a vehicle, you have to pass a written and "driving" test and pay for the course along with the license. total cost was about $400 for a 4 year license.

[mox 298]

Nor was I until I was educated on the fact that if you're required to be licensed in order to exercise your Right, then it's no longer a right, is it? It's become a privilege. Same goes for registration. If you're required to register something that's Rightfully guaranteed for you to bear, then it's no longer a Right, it's a privilege because you can't possess it without someone first giving you the "approval" to do so.

I understand what you're saying, mostly agree in spirit, but not 100%. For example, most states (is it all states now?) require voters to register, even though voting is a right. And granted we don't have to register to exercise our right to free speech, but it is regulated in cases such as requiring permits for rallies in some places, etc. And we actually deny felons the right to vote and the right to carry a firearm, but I don't think either of those prohibitions were in the Bill of Rights. (I might be wrong, I should know that actually.)

I mean, let's face it. The price of living in a free society is limits on freedom itself. I think the framers had it right when they left most of the power with the states. We've since handed over too much power to the federal government, and it's really high time our representatives started taking it back instead of continuing the fire sale.

[slim 1,514]

that's pretty much my complaint about concealed carry - that i have to pay for it, and pay dearly. it's quite a bit like the licensing of a vehicle, you have to pass a written and "driving" test and pay for the course along with the license. total cost was about $400 for a 4 year license.

Well, some argue that concealed carry is a privilege and not a right because while you're not getting your right to bear arms taken away you're not "openly" bearing your arms and thus you must be "certified" to do so. I never saw in 2A where it said Open/Concealed carry of arms but I do know while working for the military when we were "under arms" (or bearing arms) we had to have them "in the open" and "never concealed on our person." Even in the military there was a special requirement for carrying concealed.

I'm almost against concealed carry too but it became for me almost like one of those things where I wanted to "stand and be recognized." When so many folks in my state fought hard to get the "privilege" of concealed carry I figured I should honor their hard work by getting my license too. Way I see it, if more people get licenses than not, then the law will go away because there will be more concealed carry holders than non-concealed carry holders and then we won't need a law because it'll be societally acceptable.

I understand what you're saying, mostly agree in spirit, but not 100%. For example, most states (is it all states now?) require voters to register, even though voting is a right.

I'm glad you brough that up (and thought that way myself for a while) because the fact is you do register to vote. But, you don't register to vote in order to be restricted on exercising your right, you register to vote so you're guaranteed to be included in the voting process and NOT restricted by anyone while exercising your right.

Gun control laws are exactly opposite of that. In voting, you register in order to be counted. In gun control, you register to be limited.

And granted we don't have to register to exercise our right to free speech, but it is regulated in cases such as requiring permits for rallies in some places, etc. And we actually deny felons the right to vote and the right to carry a firearm, but I don't think either of those prohibitions were in the Bill of Rights. (I might be wrong, I should know that actually.)

There are no Rights guaranteed that could be dangerous or hurtful to others who are also exercising their rights in accordance with the law. (For instance, if you want to have a rally on a public square then you need to get a permit because the large number of people participating in your rally could possibly endanger others wishing to exercise their Right to pursue happiness in that place.) "But slim, guns are dangerous to others." No, they're not. Guns are inanimate objects. People with guns are potentially dangerous and that's why things like discharging a firearm in an urban area are already illegal. That's why felons aren't permitted to own guns. They've already proven that they can't exercise their Rights without endangering others. Restricting when and where guns can be shot makes perfect sense. Restricting possesion of them by law-abiding citizens makes no sense at all.

I mean, let's face it. The price of living in a free society is limits on freedom itself. I think the framers had it right when they left most of the power with the states. We've since handed over too much power to the federal government, and it's really high time our representatives started taking it back instead of continuing the fire sale.

Well, that's why I'm not a politician. The problem with doing something like that is it's no longer possible. The fire sale will continue until it's time to fire on the sellers. The only thing about that is by the time the shooting starts, most law-abiding citizens will have already been legally disarmed.

[mox 298]

I understand what you're saying, mostly agree in spirit, but not 100%. For example, most states (is it all states now?) require voters to register, even though voting is a right.

I'm glad you brough that up (and thought that way myself for a while) because the fact is you do register to vote. But, you don't register to vote in order to be restricted on exercising your right, you register to vote so you're guaranteed to be included in the voting process and NOT restricted by anyone while exercising your right.

Gun control laws are exactly opposite of that. In voting, you register in order to be counted. In gun control, you register to be limited.

I see what you're saying. But really, we could just vote the way the Iraqi's voted, and put purple dye on our thumbs and then there would be no need to register. No, I think registering to vote is more than just being guaranteed to be included. We register to make sure those who are voting are eligible to vote. I see gun registration that way too. You register so that your eligibility to carry can be determined.

Ever seen one of those maps on the internet that plot where child molesters live? Ever check your neighborhood and see how many of the dots are near you? I for one am thankful that the right to carry a firearm is limited.

There are no Rights guaranteed that could be dangerous or hurtful to others who are also exercising their rights in accordance with the law. (For instance, if you want to have a rally on a public square then you need to get a permit because the large number of people participating in your rally could possibly endanger others wishing to exercise their Right to pursue happiness in that place.) "But slim, guns are dangerous to others." No, they're not. Guns are inanimate objects. People with guns are potentially dangerous and that's why things like discharging a firearm in an urban area are already illegal. That's why felons aren't permitted to own guns. They've already proven that they can't exercise their Rights without endangering others. Restricting when and where guns can be shot makes perfect sense. Restricting possesion of them by law-abiding citizens makes no sense at all.

Okay, you know I'm a gun owner, and that I support the 2nd amendment, so I think I've got some street cred to spend. And while I agree that, yes, people, not guns, kill people, I also think that, as Eddie Izzard says, the gun sure helps. For too many, the gun is the first answer to their problem, not the last as it should be. Our government is guilty of this as well. We don't talk to our enemies first, we shoot them first and then blame it all on faulty intelligence. (This approach changes next week I hope, but it's an approach that's unfortunately been added to the American psyche.)

So I agree...restricting firearms to law-abiding citizens doesn't make sense. (qualifier: sorry, but I don't think the average citizen needs access to assault rifles or armor piercing ammunition which is yet another reason I truly wish the NRA would go #### themselves.) But I'm all for state regulation and educational requirements as long as we do it for the right reasons.

As far as the criminals not having to worry about registering their firearms, I'll tell you what I'd support: any felony committed with a firearm carrying a mandatory life sentence. I've got a feeling that this would stop a lot of young men from embarking on a life of crime.

[Brad and Vika 129]

As far as the criminals not having to worry about registering their firearms, I'll tell you what I'd support: any felony committed with a firearm carrying a mandatory life sentence. I've got a feeling that this would stop a lot of young men from embarking on a life of crime.

Since this thread has already taken quite a turn, I want to chime in on this bit. I think the idea of a uniform mandatory minimum sentence of life for a felony committed while carrying is one more example of a way to take away power from the States. Federal mandates like that open a dangerous door because conflicting Federal Law controls. I'm not saying that harsh sentences for armed bad guys are a bad idea (far from), but uniform Federal sentencing guidelines where current state guidelines already exist (assuming you need the felony firearm enhancements to be Federal to make them uniform in each state) just further assert federal law into state adjudication. Not at all what the framers had in mind.

And lets not forget that any enhancement defined as you did mox, would allow all sorts of police interpretation and abuse. Language defining specific use or threat of use of a gun is also a tough nut to crack.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Brad and Vika

[K1researcher 0]

I will add my thoughts here as well. As a gun owner I have no issue with clearance to buy a gun. i dont really like the registration deal. I think that it is awesome that felons, dishonorable dischargies, etc are not allowed to have a gun. They lost this right. I also have no problem with mandatory death penalty for crimes committed with a firearm.

The assault weapon ban that Obama and biden favor is utter nonsense. Most crimes are NOT committed with expensive firearms. I own several assault weapons. But even my AK was expensive as I purchased a quality arm. Bottom line is crooks are crooks and will commit crimes with or without guns. But I should have the right to defend myself with a howitzer as a law abiding tax paying citizen.

[slim 1,514]

I see what you're saying. But really, we could just vote the way the Iraqi's voted, and put purple dye on our thumbs and then there would be no need to register. No, I think registering to vote is more than just being guaranteed to be included. We register to make sure those who are voting are eligible to vote. I see gun registration that way too. You register so that your eligibility to carry can be determined.

I would love to have an unregistered vote. I would've voted in the last election if it would've been that way. In Ohio, you can only vote at the place you're registered to vote. Seems kind of like limiting my Right to participate, doesn't it? If I have to jump through a hoop to exercise my Right, then it's being infringed. And this is a case of local government administering a Federal Right. If you ask me, they've got it all botched up.

If they were to have local govt. administer a Federal gun control license I'm sure they'd botch that up as well. Especially here in my city where the city ordnances are already more strict than the national laws.

Ever seen one of those maps on the internet that plot where child molesters live? Ever check your neighborhood and see how many of the dots are near you? I for one am thankful that the right to carry a firearm is limited.

Even in that case, what's molesting a child have to do with owning a gun? Most child molesters are already physically capable of "man-handling" (absolutely no pun intended) a child and wouldn't need something like a gun to commit their crime.

Felons and certain other criminals aren't allowed to touch firearms. However, those who commit crimes are breaking the law already. When someone chooses to break the law and uses a firearm to accomplish that crime, what they're doing is already illegal. Is it now "more illegal" because they used a firearm?

Okay, you know I'm a gun owner, and that I support the 2nd amendment, so I think I've got some street cred to spend. And while I agree that, yes, people, not guns, kill people, I also think that, as Eddie Izzard says, the gun sure helps. For too many, the gun is the first answer to their problem, not the last as it should be. Our government is guilty of this as well. We don't talk to our enemies first, we shoot them first and then blame it all on faulty intelligence. (This approach changes next week I hope, but it's an approach that's unfortunately been added to the American psyche.)

So I agree...restricting firearms to law-abiding citizens doesn't make sense. (qualifier: sorry, but I don't think the average citizen needs access to assault rifles or armor piercing ammunition which is yet another reason I truly wish the NRA would go #### themselves.) But I'm all for state regulation and educational requirements as long as we do it for the right reasons.

As far as the criminals not having to worry about registering their firearms, I'll tell you what I'd support: any felony committed with a firearm carrying a mandatory life sentence. I've got a feeling that this would stop a lot of young men from embarking on a life of crime.

OK. Now we're on to something.

First off, I'll address once again the issues of criminals using guns in commission of their crimes. Number one, what they're doing is already illegal. Is it "more illegal" now that they're breaking two laws? Are they going to not rape the neighbor lady because it's illegal for them to use their gun while they're raping her? Sure, it may make it easier to rape her if they're holding a gun to her head but to say there would be less rapists if there were less guns is completely false. "Oh man. I've wanted to rape that lady for so long but since I'd get caught if I used my knife I'll just go ahead and pass."

For those of you saying, "well, maybe he could use a knife, but at least with a knife she'd have a chance." I offer this, "what if she used her gun?" Or, "what if the other neighbor heard the commotion or cries for help and then used his gun?"

I'm with you that mandatory sentencing would curtail the problem slightly. (That's actually one thing NRA is working toward. Youre not going to find too many gun owners who are opposed to stiff sentences for folks using guns to break the law. Quite the opposite.)

Next point - dispute resolution. Too often we address the means and not the underlying causes. Like you said, on the the international stage this is common practice. However, here at home it would be a lot easier to address but we're not willing, as a society, to defeat the causes that lead to gun violence. Frankly, we don't really care if young poor people shoot each other. Only when a child or someone who "shouldn't have been shot" ends up getting caught in the cross fire do we start to take action. The problem with that is the "common sense" action taken to prevent that from happening again doesn't address the reasons it happened in the first place and only limits those who are already following the law, already refraining from shooting each other.

Too often you see on the news a mother crying because "her baby" got shot. Her "baby" was mid-twenties, already a felon, no job, either carrying a firearm or drugs illegally at the time of his death, or participating in other illegal activity at the time. People with jobs, things to do, etc. don't often shoot each other because they're too busy doing legal activities. Felons without jobs, who carry firearms or drugs, people who are already breaking the law, don't care about the legality of shooting one another. They already know it's illegal yet they continue to do it. How is any other law going to stop them from doing so?

Addressing the causes may.... but I doubt that too because we're not ready to do that. Better to pass yet another law and make it even "more illegal" than to actually do something that will curtail the violence.

Lastly, 2A and being pro-2A simply because you own a handgun.

While owning a handgun is going to lop you into the same group as everyone else who owns a gun, I'll agree that it doesn't place you into the same group as those who own "assault rifles and/or armor piercing rounds." However, I think if you read through the 2A you'll see that the very purpose of the 2A was for folks to own "assault rifles and armor piercing rounds."

Militia.

That's the word that keeps the debate going. Pro-2A purists would argue that a militia should have tanks and bombs, aircraft, etc., anything the military would have. That's where the "well-regulated" argument comes in. Quite frankly, we could argue all day long over what type of guns we should have, how they should be possessed or carried, licensed, registered, etc., but, the bottom line is the 2A was put into place in order for the "average" citizen (and especially all able-bodied males ages 16-60) to own and know how to use firearms so that they could stand together with the rest of their community and repel any government assault on their Rights.

Pretty scary, huh? Standing shoulder to shoulder with your family, friends and neighbors to stop the government from coming into your town?

The whole reason to own arms, arms capable of stopping the government from coming to your town is so you never have to use them. So you avoid going to war over your principles and beliefs and you use the political process to sort out your differences.

But, if you don't own arms, and aren't able to stand together with your family, friends and neighbors, does the governement really have to listen to you?

And lets not forget that any enhancement defined as you did mox, would allow all sorts of police interpretation and abuse. Language defining specific use or threat of use of a gun is also a tough nut to crack.

It is, but I'll be on mox's side here and say if there was mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and it was more severe than it is now, criminals might think twice before using a gun. Is there going to be less crime? I doubt it. But, will they stop trying to ban guns? Maybe!

[mox 298]

Since this thread has already taken quite a turn, I want to chime in on this bit. I think the idea of a uniform mandatory minimum sentence of life for a felony committed while carrying is one more example of a way to take away power from the States. Federal mandates like that open a dangerous door because conflicting Federal Law controls. I'm not saying that harsh sentences for armed bad guys are a bad idea (far from), but uniform Federal sentencing guidelines where current state guidelines already exist (assuming you need the felony firearm enhancements to be Federal to make them uniform in each state) just further assert federal law into state adjudication. Not at all what the framers had in mind.

And lets not forget that any enhancement defined as you did mox, would allow all sorts of police interpretation and abuse. Language defining specific use or threat of use of a gun is also a tough nut to crack.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing a Federal mandatory sentence, unless it's a federal crime. But I think it would be a fantastic thing for individual states to implement. Some have, but I'm not sure how ubiquitous it is.

If they were to have local govt. administer a Federal gun control license I'm sure they'd botch that up as well. Especially here in my city where the city ordnances are already more strict than the national laws.

Which is why I would much rather see state gun control registration instead of federal gun control registration.

Ever seen one of those maps on the internet that plot where child molesters live? Ever check your neighborhood and see how many of the dots are near you? I for one am thankful that the right to carry a firearm is limited.

Even in that case, what's molesting a child have to do with owning a gun? Most child molesters are already physically capable of "man-handling" (absolutely no pun intended) a child and wouldn't need something like a gun to commit their crime.

I should have made this clearer. My point was more that if you're surrounded by sex predators, think of how many just normal run of the mill criminals you're also surrounded by. But registration (and denial of registration to criminals) serves another purpose, which is that all you need to do to throw the ####### back behind bars is to catch them packing.

Felons and certain other criminals aren't allowed to touch firearms. However, those who commit crimes are breaking the law already. When someone chooses to break the law and uses a firearm to accomplish that crime, what they're doing is already illegal. Is it now "more illegal" because they used a firearm?

I think it should be "more illegal," yes. Because here's the thing: it's EASY to kill someone with a gun. You pull the trigger and it's done. It's so goddamned easy that a 4 year-old can kill an adult in half a second with a gun. For the average person, it's hard to kill someone with a knife or anything else where you have to close quarters. So there needs to be some kind of preventative mechanism put in place to balance this kind of power out. To be raped is a horrible, horrible thing. To be raped and killed is so much worse that it's off the chart. You're not likely to stop a rapist from raping by implementing a mandatory life sentence if he's caught, but you are more likely to ensure he'll think twice about what kind of weapon to use. (rape might be a bad example. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling the majority of rapes aren't committed with the help of a gun.)

I'm with you that mandatory sentencing would curtail the problem slightly. (That's actually one thing NRA is working toward. Youre not going to find too many gun owners who are opposed to stiff sentences for folks using guns to break the law. Quite the opposite.)

Well, I agreed with (still President for one more day) Bush on some issues, but I still thought he was bad for the country. The NRA has some stands I support, but overall I think they're detrimental to what should really matter to gun owners and the rest of society.

Addressing the causes may.... but I doubt that too because we're not ready to do that. Better to pass yet another law and make it even "more illegal" than to actually do something that will curtail the violence.

I cut this quote short for brevity, but basically...amen brother Slim, AMEN. Gun violence is a symptom of much larger problems, and those problems need to be addressed at the root if we are ever going to see senseless gun violence curtailed.

Lastly, 2A and being pro-2A simply because you own a handgun.

While owning a handgun is going to lop you into the same group as everyone else who owns a gun, I'll agree that it doesn't place you into the same group as those who own "assault rifles and/or armor piercing rounds." However, I think if you read through the 2A you'll see that the very purpose of the 2A was for folks to own "assault rifles and armor piercing rounds."

Militia.

.

.

.

But, if you don't own arms, and aren't able to stand together with your family, friends and neighbors, does the governement really have to listen to you?

It's really debatable on what was meant by "well regulated militia." I tend to think that the 2A wording means "well regulated militia" in the sense to defend ourselves from outside invaders, which makes a lot of sense when you consider the period the bill of rights was written. And at the time the 2A was written, they really were talking about muskets, because there was no such thing as tanks or missiles. Even the notion of some dude exercising his 2A rights with a cannon would probably have been absurd. In any case, I think even the framers would want to put limits on the 2A if they had foreseen the types of technology we wield today. I simply cannot believe Thomas Jefferson intended for me to be able to own my very own stinger missile.

And lets not forget that any enhancement defined as you did mox, would allow all sorts of police interpretation and abuse. Language defining specific use or threat of use of a gun is also a tough nut to crack.

It is, but I'll be on mox's side here and say if there was mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and it was more severe than it is now, criminals might think twice before using a gun. Is there going to be less crime? I doubt it. But, will they stop trying to ban guns? Maybe!

That's an interesting take. I see mandatory sentencing as more of a deterrence factor (again, not necessarily deterring the criminal, but possibly saving lives), but as a way to stop the assault on the 2A? Interesting.

[slim 1,514]

As always, mox, we're not that far away. You're saying Toe may toe... I'm saying toe may toe also, but I'm saying it with a MidWest accent. For brevity's sake, I'll also lop off most of your post (agreeing mostly because we're using hypothetical individual cases and we all know you can't use a "what if?" to determine a good general policy) but I'll counter these two with this -

I should have made this clearer. My point was more that if you're surrounded by sex predators, think of how many just normal run of the mill criminals you're also surrounded by. But registration (and denial of registration to criminals) serves another purpose, which is that all you need to do to throw the ####### back behind bars is to catch them packing.

I got that point and I'm actually glad that's what you meant. But, your support of registration is unnecessary becuase if someone is a felon or sex predator (or convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence) there's already legislation enacted to throw them back behind bars if they're caught packing. "Possession of a firearm under disability" is what it's called. Up to $250,000 fine and/or 10 years FED time.

There's absolutely no need to have law-abiding citizens register their guns just to make sure the guns the bad guys have are "illegal." They're not allowed to possess a gun, period. Simple possession by any means is already a felony. It doesn't get any more illegal than that.

It's really debatable on what was meant by "well regulated militia." I tend to think that the 2A wording means "well regulated militia" in the sense to defend ourselves from outside invaders, which makes a lot of sense when you consider the period the bill of rights was written. And at the time the 2A was written, they really were talking about muskets, because there was no such thing as tanks or missiles. Even the notion of some dude exercising his 2A rights with a cannon would probably have been absurd. In any case, I think even the framers would want to put limits on the 2A if they had foreseen the types of technology we wield today. I simply cannot believe Thomas Jefferson intended for me to be able to own my very own stinger missile.

Outside invaders? The Colonists were British citizens! They were fighting their own government's troops! They hadn't been attacked by some "foreign power," they were attacked by their own king's forces!

What most folks don't realize, (and what's been conveniently lost to history) is the American Revolution was actually started over gun control. It wasn't started because the Declaration of Independence was sent to King George III or the meetings of the Continental Congress or the Stamp Act or the Boston Tea Party..... no! It started because British troops were dispatched throughout the countryside to seize stores of powder and munitions.

And they weren't after just muskets.

"Some dude exercising his 2A rights with a cannon" is nowhere near absurd! It is what actually happened!

In late 1774 the British Army, on a secret mission under Gen. Thomas Gage, seized 250 barrels of powder from the storehouse in Charlestown, Massachusettes. This was the largest store of powder in Massachusettes at the time. Gage, being pressured by King George and his cronies back in England, attempted to take charge of all powder and anything of "military value" in the colonies in order to ensure there would be no uprising or that any uprising could be easily beaten back by the troops under his command. (Keep in mind the city of Boston, Gage's headquarters, had already been disarmed.)

In response to this raid, the colonists also started hoarding powder and arms and "FIELD PIECES" positioned throughout the countryside that were used by the militia and the King's troops, and established a communications network to safeguard their arms from any further attempts by the King's forces to capture them.

There were a few skirmishes and attempts by the British to leave Boston and capture arms and equipment but all were "too late" because the colonists had moved them by the time the Red Coats arrived.

In April of 1775 Gage planned a huge mission and kept it very secret. However, word has it someone close to him, (possibly his American-born wife) leaked the information to the Patriots, and word spread like wild fire that "the Regulars were coming" and good ol' Paul "One if by land, two if by sea" Revere headed off on his midnight ride to warn the town of Concord that a raid was imminent. It was also said that John Hancock and Sam Adams, who were staying at the home of Rev. Clarke in Lexington, were to be arrested so he set off to warn them as well. William Dawes and another man also set off from Boston riding in different directions from Revere in order to alert the whole countryside.

And alert them they did!

I'll save the rest of the story for another day, but basically, over 700 British Regulars and Marines marched on the town of Lexington early that morning and there was some shooting. They didn't find Hancock and Adams and the only arms they found were those carried by the men they'd just shot. They moved on to Concord where a militia force of several hundred waited for them. Part of the force was dispatched to Col. Barret's farm, where it was rumored there were large stores of powder, ball, food, and other military items. The main body of the force remained in the town where they searched for two cannons rumored to be hidden amongst the homes, shops and taverns. Throughout the morning the militia force grew stronger and stronger as more men began to pore in from all over the countryside. By noon, there were almost 6,000 men surrounding Concord.

All were armed, all were ready.

Before the day was over the Red Coats were to be saved by a force of around 1200 Regulars, with artillery pieces to escort them, dispatched as aid from Boston. By nightfall, around 14,000 militia men surrounded Boston.

After the fight, Lord Hugh Earl Percy who was a professional soldier and in command of the reserve force that day wrote his newly reformed opinion of the Colonials in his journal "Whoever should look upon them as an irregular mob will find himself much mistaken for they have men amongst them who know very well what they're about."

And here's where the 2A really hits home for me. Today, we no longer have many men "who know well what they're about." We'd be hard pressed to find 14 men to stand up for their Rights, let alone 14,000. The fact of the matter is, when you have average, everyday citizens who are cognizant of their Rights and their Heritage, and they're willing to do what's right for the cause of Liberty and Freedom, to stand up for their Rights, then you don't need cannons, tanks, or even Stinger missiles.

All you need is to stand together.

If we continue to allow our Rights to be eroded through "common sense" legislation, we will one day find ourselves necessitated to utilize our arms in order to ensure our government acts in accordance with our wishes. I truly hope that day never comes. But, that day is hastened by limiting the Rights of law-abiding citizens.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Since this thread has already taken quite a turn, I want to chime in on this bit. I think the idea of a uniform mandatory minimum sentence of life for a felony committed while carrying is one more example of a way to take away power from the States. Federal mandates like that open a dangerous door because conflicting Federal Law controls. I'm not saying that harsh sentences for armed bad guys are a bad idea (far from), but uniform Federal sentencing guidelines where current state guidelines already exist (assuming you need the felony firearm enhancements to be Federal to make them uniform in each state) just further assert federal law into state adjudication. Not at all what the framers had in mind.

And lets not forget that any enhancement defined as you did mox, would allow all sorts of police interpretation and abuse. Language defining specific use or threat of use of a gun is also a tough nut to crack.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing a Federal mandatory sentence, unless it's a federal crime. But I think it would be a fantastic thing for individual states to implement. Some have, but I'm not sure how ubiquitous it is.

And lets not forget that any enhancement defined as you did mox, would allow all sorts of police interpretation and abuse. Language defining specific use or threat of use of a gun is also a tough nut to crack.

It is, but I'll be on mox's side here and say if there was mandatory sentencing for gun crimes and it was more severe than it is now, criminals might think twice before using a gun. Is there going to be less crime? I doubt it. But, will they stop trying to ban guns? Maybe!

That's an interesting take. I see mandatory sentencing as more of a deterrence factor (again, not necessarily deterring the criminal, but possibly saving lives), but as a way to stop the assault on the 2A? Interesting.

I think I wasn't clear enough here. Any sloppy (or broad/comprehensive for you politicians) language in a mandatory gun enhancement law could possibly deter the average gun owner/permit holder from carrying or keeping a gun. For (a stupid) example, A&B drive up to a liquor store. A is armed, and cannot enter the property - and he smokes a ciggy in the next parking lot. B commits a strong arm robbery in the store, leaves with A (A is unaware of the robbery - I told you this was stupid up front remember). Police pull vehicle over and arrest A and B. You can see the mess, assuming they are both convicted of some felony. It happens, and the effect of nonspecific language is to encourage the A's out there potentially to not carry.

And on the subject of Federal Law, without a uniform firearm enhancement act, what would the states adopt? About 35 different enhancement statutes is what. Not a bad thing necessarily - but you indicated that there should be one penalty everywhere if I understood. We all know better than to depend on any legislature to apply common sense, let alone crisp, understandable language to a new piece of law, unless they have an idiot-proof model to work with. And even then...

[slim 1,514]

For (a stupid) example, A&B drive up to a liquor store. A is armed, and cannot enter the property - and he smokes a ciggy in the next parking lot. B commits a strong arm robbery in the store, leaves with A (A is unaware of the robbery - I told you this was stupid up front remember). Police pull vehicle over and arrest A and B. You can see the mess, assuming they are both convicted of some felony. It happens, and

Dave Chappelle does a nice skit dealing with this very topic. "Before you allow someone to ride with you, make sure you ask them 'do you have any drugs on you? Do you have any guns? Do you have any warrants?' If they answer no to all three of these questions, give them a ride."

[Brad and Vika 129]

For (a stupid) example, A&B drive up to a liquor store. A is armed, and cannot enter the property - and he smokes a ciggy in the next parking lot. B commits a strong arm robbery in the store, leaves with A (A is unaware of the robbery - I told you this was stupid up front remember). Police pull vehicle over and arrest A and B. You can see the mess, assuming they are both convicted of some felony. It happens, and

Dave Chappelle does a nice skit dealing with this very topic. "Before you allow someone to ride with you, make sure you ask them 'do you have any drugs on you? Do you have any guns? Do you have any warrants?' If they answer no to all three of these questions, give them a ride."

Right, and I am thinking that both A adn B have lots to fear from sloppy application of the law, or poorly written and interpreted law. The less government involvment the better.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

For (a stupid) example, A&B drive up to a liquor store. A is armed, and cannot enter the property - and he smokes a ciggy in the next parking lot. B commits a strong arm robbery in the store, leaves with A (A is unaware of the robbery - I told you this was stupid up front remember). Police pull vehicle over and arrest A and B. You can see the mess, assuming they are both convicted of some felony. It happens, and

Dave Chappelle does a nice skit dealing with this very topic. "Before you allow someone to ride with you, make sure you ask them 'do you have any drugs on you? Do you have any guns? Do you have any warrants?' If they answer no to all three of these questions, give them a ride."

i thought it was chris rock?

Edited January 22, 2009 by charles!