Has Anyone Watched "Michael and Me?" (Rebuttal to Bowling for Columbine)

I wonder why this hasn't gotten much press? I only heard of

this through word of mouth.

Quote:

---

Michael and Me features best-selling author (The 10 Things You Can't

Say in America), talk radio and TV host Larry Elder as he challenges Michael Moore's 2002 hit documentary "Bowling

for Columbine," concluding that NRA member Michael Moore's message was that America has "too many guns." Elder

opposes that premise in his own attempt to unravel the growing problem of gun violence in America's

schools.

---

thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3403024

Direct torrent file

download:

http://static.thepiratebay.org/downl...24.TPB.torrent

It's interesting that people

make the claim that there are too many guns in the United States when countries with higher gun ownership have lower

crime rates as a general rule.Switzerland for example has a very high number of firearms owners.Over half of the

homes in Switzerland have selective fire assault weapons in them.This comes as a result of a citizen army where your

weapons are kept at home as opposed to a millitary armory.Israel is another classic example.The crime rate among

citizens is remarkably low and yet it is uncommon for the average person NOT to own and in many cases carry a

firearm.

Firearms related violence in the United States is almost exclusively a product of culture,not a result

of firearms themselves.Germany has fairly leanient laws regarding firearms,and Canada used to have very leanient

laws regarding firearms.These countries began draconian restrictions regarding personal firearms as a knee jerk

reaction to individual crimes that,in spite of thier shocking nature,did absolutly nothing to effect the over all

homicide rates.Australia did much the same thing a few years back,insisting that guns were bad,in spite of not

having a problem but in reaction to a single crime.

In the United States,we see the highest crime rates in

juridictions with the toughest regulations regarding firearms,while the lowest crime rates tend to be in cities with

the most relaxed regulations.new York city comes to mind.It is for all intents and purposes illeagal to own a

handgun within the city limits without very difficult to obtain licensing.Washington D.C. is another classic

example.Firearms of any type with rare exceptions are illeagal.Chicago,Boston...the list goes on.In Miami durring

the early 1980's,there was a rash of sexual assaults on women.The situation had grown so dire that the Miami police

chief ran a series of public service anouncements that any woman wishing to obtain a firearm for personal protection

should contact the Miami Dade police department for free training.In the following months,not only did the number of

sexual assaults within the city plumet,but the crime rate over all reached an all time

low!Burglary,assault,robery...all plumeted.Why? Because the thought was out there that the person you mess with may

be armed to the teeth.

The single most difficult issue with firearms in the United States today is responsable

ownership.It is encumbent uppon the individual not only to handle a firearm responsably,but to store said firearm in

a manner that precludes it being used by someone who is not qualified to handle it.In 1988,the number of firearms

recovered from crimes or as a result of searches that were stolen was just a hair over ninety percent! The vast

majority of those firearms were taken from legitimate owners who had not taken the time to properly secure them.The

result was an ever increasing number of stolen weapons on the street.This problem still exists today.Many people who

have never purchased a firearm have no idea what it takes to obtain a weapon from a licensed dealer.And those

dealers have a vested interest in making sure that the weapons they sell are not purchased by people who should not

have a firearm.

Another fantastic aspect of America is our ability to prosecute minor offenses to the fullest

extent of the law,while having a revolving door policy toward people who commit violent crimes.An example comes to

mind of a young man who was caught and convicted in a drive by shooting in Tacoma Washington in which several people

were wounded...the sentence? SIX MONTHS!!! Only in America can you commit a violent felony and virtualy walk

away,but if you get caught with pot in your pocket your going to do hard time.

Firearms are not the real

problem.A steep decline in simple values,economic distress,the desolving of the family,stronger and more available

drugs...the list goes on and on and I have bored you,the poor reader of my nonsense enough.

It's not as much a case of too

much hardware as it is one of too much hardware for morons to handle.

It ain't the fast cars, but the slow

minds...

Guns don't kill people...

Get Rich Or Die Tryin'...

Etc. etc.

I am going to plead ignorance

on this one. I only saw the last part of Bowling for Columbine, with my ex-housemates. But I was drinking PBR's,

and was a bit turned off that Michael Moore was so relentless with a senile, yet honest Charlton Heston. It was kind

of like fishing from a barrel. Of course, I was always a big fan of Planet of the Apes.

People have a right to

own guns, and should have that right. I am in favor of regulating who gets weapons (not wanted, violent felons, for

example), what kind of weapons are legal to a certain extent; and giving ordinary citizens a say about these

regulations. People need to learn to properly use weapons, like driving a car, so they don't accidently kill

themselves or their kids. Kids should be kept from weapons without adult supervision and training. People can and

should debate about what this all means.

Where I'm from (midwest), everybody hunts, and it's not a problem. No

one ever mentioned anything about gun control when I was growing up. I'm not aware of anyone not being able to get

a gun that wanted one. I probably have a lot to learn about the politics of gun control. Kids that were friends of

mine shot guns at rifle ranges. There was a rifle range across the street from my house, and I heard shooting 7 days

a week. I don't really understand all the debates on this topic. I can't make myself get excited about it, or have

a strong opinion. I have no idea whether I'm liberal, conservative, or neither. Is there something wrong with me

here?:think: :blink:

Tim,

That was a well

reasoned and thought out post. Everything you said, was to the best of my knowledge absolutely correct and I

appreciate you posting it. One thing you missed mentioning is something I'd very much like to see: training and

testing to handle firearms.

In mentioning countries where citizens carry automatic weapons, every one of them

were required to train, test and qualify to use that weapon. As a result, most of them are safe weapons handlers. I

see people at the range almost every time I go who haven't the first clue about how to handle their firearms and

generally scare the crap out of me. That's because any damned fool can buy any firearm they want, tuck it into the

glove compartment of their pick up and go play with it. Add a few beers and you've got a walking, talking,

accidental suicide/manslaughter case on your hands.

In this country you have to be tested and licensed to ride a

motorcycle or drive a car. You have to have a doctor's permission to possess a syringe. Yet an adult can walk into

Walmart and buy a 44 Magnum and a case of ammunition so long as he/she haven't yet committed a felony despite your

never having handled a firearm in their life.

I am in no way opposed to firearms ownership and own several

myself. I also practice with them and keep them clean. Sure would hate to miss or have it jam if I really needed it

:) Everybody in my household also knows how to use a firearm, even my 14 year old daughter who is actually a rather

good shot. My problem is the number of untrained lunatics who have no clue about guns other than what they've seen

on TV.

I learned to handle firearms from

my grandfather,who spent several years as a millitary firearms instructor.Training is EVERYTHING!!And you are

absolutly right.Some states at least require some level of qualification befor handing out concealed weapons

permits,but the requirements as a whole are patheticly inadaquate.Many of the deaths that occur surrounding firearms

are accidental and avoidable and should be prosecuted more severly simply for the fact that incompetence and

stupidity are no excuse for poor handling of a weapon.Another unfortunate occurance are the incompetent seeing

firearms as a "macho" expression of thier manhood.Firearms dont make a man,and this issue is not stressed

enough.Learning safe handling of firearms from television and movies is pure folly but unfortunatly common.

As

for your daughter being a good shot,this may interest you.Girls make better students than boys do! Girls,because

they have little if any ego tied up with thier marksmanship and a higher level of hand-eye coordination and better

fine motor control than men tend to be excelent shots and very easy to train to a very high degree of

proficency.With less ego involved,they listen better to instruction,apply learned technique better and arent prone

to a competitive adreniline rush when they step to the firing line.As a result,girls can realy shoot! I know a

couple of sisters who grew up hunting and shooting that used to frustrate thier dad with superior marksmanship both

on the range and in the field,and he was a damn fine shot!My mom was the same way.She could shoot circles around me

any day of the week and only rarely picked up a rifle.But she had learned from my grandfather when she was just a

pup.

Encourage your daughter to take up the sport seriously and you could very easily have an Olympic shooter or

Camp Perry competitor on your hands.

Haven't seen "Michael & Me", but

the main thrust of "Bowling for Columbine" was culture. The film didn't come out with a simple, single cause

determinant for gun violence in the US. It talked a lot about the climate of fear, anxiety and mistrust that is

generated by media and government. And it even contrasted Canada (which has more guns and a more laid-back culture)

with the US.
Moore made a strong point about how easy it is to get assault weapons in the US, but that's

as close as he got to the "too many guns" argument.

Moores work is repeatedly touted

by the hand wringing liberal types as a reason that we need to ban all firearms in the U.S. As for so-called

"assault weapons," the number of these weapons actualy used in crimes is a drop in the bucket.And the term "assault

weapon" or "assault rifle" is a real misnomer.In 1776,a muzzel loaded "Brown Bess" .75 caliber musket was an

"assault weapon!" In 1885,a lever action Henry or Winchester was an "assault weapon!" In 1915,a bolt action K98

Mauser or Lee Enfield or Sprigfield was and "assault weapon!" The high capacity,millitary rifle is only the latest

design in modern millitary weapons.And the funny thing is...they arent designed to be efficent killing machines!



The genesis of the modern assault rifle begins in the early 1940's with the introduction of Germanys "MP 43,"

later designated the "StG.44" for political reasons.It was a light weight,medium powered rifle with a high capacity

magazine and capable of firing in semi-automatic or fully-automatic modes.The prime advantage of this rifle became

very clear on the eastern front.It gave the average German soldier the capacity to "dominate" his imediate front

with a high volume of fire,thus,keeping the Russians heads down so that other troops could move around without

getting shot at.The same purpose that the machine gun accomplished but more portable,and with a longer range than

the sub-machinegun.The Russians HATED these little rifles with a passion and would use captured weapons as often as

they could because of thier ability to pour out a high volume of fire in a short period of time.

But the actual

number of casualties inflicted by these fast firing little rifles was rather low.As anyone who has ever used an

automatic weapon can varify,actualy hitting anything is alittle bit tricky.Sure,you will score a hit now and

then,but for the volume of fire you are producing the results are less than pleasing.The real danger that the

Russians faced on the eastern front was the men armed with...you guessed it,bolt action rifles.These weapons could

easily produce hits at very long range and because of the lack of a high rate of fire,most troops chose to take the

time to aim the weapon befor squeezing off a shot.As a result,they and the crew served machineguns were responsable

for the majority of the inflicted casualties.
But the rifle made such and impression on the Russian troops,that in

1947,the Soviet Union unvieled thier latest rifle,the AK 47.The rifle was a very near copy internaly to the German

StG 44.

Something that has to be considered is that the real clamor to ban assault rifles in the US began with a

shooting in California in which a deranged nit wit opened fire on a school yard packed with children.In all,the

shooter fired two hundred and fifty rounds...and hit with seven of them.With a bolt action rifle,that same shooter

would likely have only fired ten rounds...and hit with nine.Assault weapons look mean and scary and nasty and very

deadly...but in point of fact,they leave alot to be desired in terms of actualy being deadly.A man with a shotgun

loaded with buckshot can produce better results,even though he has to get closer to do it.So what do we do? Ban duck

hunting?I have seen competitions where shotguns outperformed sub-machineguns at close range.And these are TRAINED

and SKILLED shooters on both sides!!

To give an example of the knee jerk reaction that people have about assault

weapons,when GHW Bush passed the assault weapons ban,one of the features that would classify a weapon as an assault

rifle was if it had a bayonet lug. I ask the question...did we have fewer drive by bayonettings as a result?

Inclusion of a "pistol grip." Pray tell...what does the grip have to do with the terminal ballistics of a

bullet?Flash hider...again...we are talking about a device that even the millitary admits doesnt realy do anything

useful,but it allows the use of certain types of rifle grenades(available at Wal-Mart for $29.95 a dozen.) Folding

stock...a feature that when the stock is folded,the rifle becomes less controlable and thus harder to hit anything

with,and doesnt make the weapon any more concealable.It just doesnt hang up as easily on the door of the transport

plane that your making a combat jump from.

There are a whole bunch of issues that should be addressed about the

way our country functions and the way our children are raised.Guns are an important part of that upbringing.Teaching

people the difference between right and wrong.Giving our children a sense of duty and decency.Producing an economic

climate where people of little means have hope of a future.Producing children that are stable and decent enough to

stay away from drugs and to value thier families with thier life...and on and on and on....there are alot of

problems that need to be addressed...lets not run off on a witch hunt.

Tim,

I have three daughters

and no sons so my daughters got to do a lot of the things a dad would normaly do with a son. All three can shoot a

pistol or a rifle competently, among a number of other skills not normally associated with girls. They are all fine

shots with either and were very easy to train. All of them are invited to the range whenever I go and often go with

me. I've been handling firearms since I was a young child and remember clearly the lessons taught me about gun

safety. My family didn't tolerate stupid actions around guns. The lessons may have been abrupt but weren't often

forgotten.

Texas concealed carry requires 10-15 hours classroom time plus range qualifying. The primary focus of

the classroom time is on non-violent conflict resolution, your responsibility and the law rather than on combat

skills. Then every year continuing ed and re-qualifying. I was seriously surprised to discover that they won't even

send you the application until they've done a premilinary background check. In the end, there are a lot of

concealed carry licenses issued in this state but, to date, there have been very few crimes commited with a legally

carried concealed weapon.

A.K.A.

I think the whole assault weapons issue, along with the number of other

weapons is blown all out of proportion. It doesn't really matter what weapon a person has so much as why they want

to kill people. In reality, you can kill more people faster with car than you can with an assualt weapon. The

culture, the fear you mentioned is more likely the major cause of the problem. Taking guns away from people will not

stop the killing. Rather, I think it will be worse for law abiding citizens. The criminals will certainly have an

easier time of it when their victims are less likely to be able to fight back. I posted an article in Open

Discussion about San Francisco outlawing hand gun ownership recently. People have until April to turn them in. I

wonder just how many of the criminals will be turning in their guns. Any bets? I feel comfortable in estimating that

it will be well under 1%. Any bets on the increase in violent crimes? Does anybody believe the police will do a

better job of preventing violent criminals from having guns?

The real solutions, as implied in your post, is to

get to the root source of the fear and violence and work on fixing those problems. Taking the ability to defend

themselves away from law abiding citizens is only going to make things worse.

Anywhere a "shall issue" for

concealed carry permits has gone into ,effect, violent crime has decreased. The exception was Florida, where the

criminals targeted visitors, who would be unlikely to be carrying.

I am now proud to read a political topic thread at Love-Scent. Of course I am an armed response citizen who

carries every day. It is good to see some people here who I have disagreed with on other political topics are

absolutely in line with me on this topic. If any one desires, I have the actual mortality tables showing the truth

about how people die in America. Guns are the least cause of death, with pharmaceuticals and automobiles being at

the top and medical mistakes by doctors following right behind.

I would love to see those

statistics.I was aware that doctors,pharmacuticals and motor vehichles were way ahead of firearms but I am not aware

of the actual stats.Most of us here have at least a reasonably decent grip on whats going on in this world.People

who actualy take the time to get involved with pheromones to the extent that we have dont usualy jump to

unreasonable conclusions.Even if you disagree,it would be hard to consider them poorly thought out.

Something

that has always bothered me about politics and the people who preach them is the bumper sticker mentality that

people adopt.If the slogan fits on a bumper sticker it must be a fact.The sad reality is that if you ask a dozen

college students who oppose the war in Iraq for a reason why,all they will give you is a handfull of mindless

platitudes that they read off a bumper sticker.Many of the nice,well meaning folks who support the war are in

exactly the same position.No knowledge but lots of attitude.I have a great many things that I either support or

oppose.And while many may have a hard time accepting them,they are at the very least well thought out,even if my

oppinions are wrong.And I am always open to correction.

Firearm Safety In

America 2005

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, and rises by

about 4.5 million per year.1 Meanwhile, the nation's violent crime rate has decreased every year since 1991 and is

now at a 27-year low.2 Below, statistics from 1981 forward are from the National Center for Health Statistics,3

while those prior to 1981 are from the National Safety Council.4 The NCHS' annual numbers, rates, and trends of

common accidents and selected other causes of death, for the U.S., each state, and the District of Columbia, are

available on the NRA-ILA website in spreadsheet format.5

• Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing
  
  for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 76%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and
  
  the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975.
• Firearm
  
  accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, nationally and among children, while the U.S. population is at an
  
  all-time high. In 2002, there were 762 such deaths nationally, including 60 among children. Today, the odds are more
  
  than a million to one against a child in the U.S. dying from a firearm accident.
• The firearm accident death rate
  
  is at an all-time annual low, 0.26 per 100,000 population, down 92% since the all-time high in 1904.
• Firearms
  
  are involved in 1% of all deaths, and 1% of all deaths among children. Deaths involving firearms have decreased 19%
  
  since 1993.
• Firearms are involved in 0.7% of accidental deaths nationally, and in 1% among children. Most
  
  accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (41%), poisoning (16%), falls (15%), suffocation (5%),
  
  drowning (3%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (2%), environmental factors (1%), and bicycles (1%). Among children:
  
  motor vehicles (44%), suffocation (16%), drowning (16%), fires (9%), bicycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (2%),
  
  environmental factors (1%), and medical mistakes (1%).

Education decreases accidents. Voluntary firearms

safety training, not government intrusion, has decreased firearms accidents. NRA firearm safety programs are

conducted by 62,000 NRA Certified Instructors and Coaches nationwide. Youngsters learn firearm safety in NRA

programs offered through civic groups such as the Boy Scouts, Jaycees, the American Legion, and schools.6 NRA's

Eddie Eagle GunSafe(r) program teaches children pre-K through 6th grade that if they see a firearm without

supervision, they should "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave The Area. Tell An Adult." Since 1988, the program has been used

by more than 22,000 schools, civic groups, and law enforcement agencies to reach 18 million children.7

The "cars

and guns" myth. "Gun control" supporters advocate government intrusion, rather than education, to reduce accidents.

They claim that driver licensing and auto registration caused motor vehicle accident deaths to decline between

1968-1991, and that gun registration and gun owner licensing would reduce gun accidents. They ask, "We register

drivers and license cars, so why not guns and gun owners?"

Actually, vehicle registration and driver licensing

laws were not imposed to reduce accidents, nor did the increased regulation reduce accidents. Most vehicle

registration and driver licensing laws were imposed between the world wars, but motor vehicle accident deaths

increased sharply after 1930 and didn't begin declining until 1970. And despite more regulation of vehicles and

drivers over the years, vehicle accident deaths have increased during the last decade.

Between 1968-1991, the

years cited by the anti-gunners, the motor vehicle accident death rate dropped only 37% with vehicle registration

and driver licensing, while the firearm accident death rate dropped 50% without gun registration and gun owner

licensing. The truth is, the anti-gunners want registration and licensing not for safety, but to erect the

record-keeping apparatus necessary to make confiscation of privately owned firearms achievable in the future. The

first leader of Handgun Control, Inc. (since renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) said that

registration was the second step in the group's three-step plan to confiscate all handguns.8

Another difference

between guns and cars is that the purchase and ownership of arms is a right expressly protected by the constitution,

whereas operating a vehicle on public roads is a privilege. A license and registration are not required to merely

own a vehicle or operate it on private property, only to do so on public roads. Similarly, a license and permit are

not typically required to buy or own a gun, or to keep a gun at home, but are usually required when hunting or

carrying a gun for protection in public places.

Anti-gunners' lies about children and guns. Brady Campaign

president, Michael Barnes, and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) claimed that 12 children die from gun accidents every

day. President Bill Clinton campaigned for so called "triggerlock" and "smart" gun laws, claiming that 13 children

are killed with guns every day. Possible 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed, "Every day in America

we lose 13 precious children to gun-related violence." The HELP Network put the figure at "an average of 9 children"

daily. Other "gun control" advocates have varyingly claimed 14 per day (or 5,000 yearly or one every 90 seconds).

Some count anyone under the age of 24 as a "child," to get even higher numbers.9 In fact, on average there is one

firearm-related death among children per day, including one accidental death every six days. Anti-gunners add the

relatively small number of firearm related deaths among children to the much larger number of deaths among juveniles

and young adults, and dishonestly call the total "children."

"Gun control" supporters point to a study claiming

that so-called "Child Access Prevention" (CAP) laws (which make it a crime, under some circumstances, to leave a gun

accessible to a child who obtains and misuses it), imposed in 12 states between 1989-1993, decreased fatal firearm

accidents among children.10 The study was produced by people from the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research

Center, a group active in the HELP (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan) Network, which is dedicated to "changing

society's attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns." The

study's flaws: Firearm accident deaths among children began declining in the mid-1970s, not in 1989, when "CAP"

laws were first imposed. Also, such accidents have decreased nationwide, not only in "CAP" states. And, also in

1989, NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program(r) was introduced nationwide.

1. See BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the

United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).

2. FBI, Crime in the United States 2003

(www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius), BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/), and FBI

(http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel...srel121304.htm and

www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf).

3. See www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars or

wonder.cdc.gov.

4. Available at www.nsc.org/.

5. See

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=127.

6. For more on NRA training programs, visit

www.nrahq.org (click "Education and Training") or call 703-267-1500.

7. For more on the Eddie Eagle

program, visit www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ or call 703-267-1573.

8. Pete Shields, quoted in The New

Yorker, "A Reporter At Large: Handguns," July 26, 1976.

9. NRA-ILA "Not 12 Per Day" fact sheet,

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=21

10. Journal of the American Medical

Association, Oct. 1, 1997.



Posted: 1/21/2005

2005 Firearms

Fact Card

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.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The right to keep and

bear arms is derived from and inseparably linked to the right of self-defense. Thus, by nature it is an individually

possessed right, as are all rights protected in our Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, the Framers of the

Constitution and Bill of Rights, and those whom the Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller, 1939) referred to as "approved

commentators" could not have been more clear about the nature of the right and the purpose of the Second

Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great

object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole

body of people always possess arms." Thomas Paine noted, "[A]rms . . . discourage and keep the invader and the

plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property."

Prominent Federalist Tench Coxe asked,

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?. . . Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and

every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. . . . [T]he unlimited power of

the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever

remain, in the hands of the people."

In introducing the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, James

Madison noted that the amendments "relate first to private rights." Sen. William Grayson observed that they

"altogether respected personal liberty." Tench Coxe wrote, "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article [of

amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Constitutional scholars have noted that there is

no historical basis for the claim that the Second Amendment protects a so-called "collective right" of the states.

Stephen P. Halbrook writes, "If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill

of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century,

for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." (That Every Man Be

Armed, Univ. of N.M. Press, 1984)

Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm, testifying before Congress in 1995, told Rep. John

Conyers, "It is very hard, sir, to find a historian who now believes it is only a `collective right.` . . [T]here is

a general consensus that in fact it is an individual right."

The Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms

is an individual right in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v.

Miller (1939) and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Court also recognized that the right

preexisted the Constitution.

In U.S. v. Emerson, on Oct. 16, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that this right is

subject only to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions" that "are not inconsistent with the right of

Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country. . .

. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and

protects individual Americans." Other federal court decisions have been divided on the nature of the

right.

During the Bush Administration, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice have recognized that

the right to keep and bear arms is an individually-held right. (See

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm).

The National Guard, established in 1903, is not the

militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term "well regulated militia" has meant

the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militia

"are in fact the effective part of the people at large." Richard Henry Lee said that the militia "are in fact the

people themselves." George Mason said that the militia consist "of the whole people."

The Guard is subject to

absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the "well regulated militia" referred

to in the Second Amendment. "The Militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include all

able-bodied males of age and some other males and females (10 U.S.C., Sec. 311; 32 U.S.C., sec. ;313), with the

Guard established as only its "organized" element.

CURRENT ISSUES

• Reckless lawsuits attempting to
  
  hold gun manufacturers financially responsible for the acts of criminals run counter to long-standing principles of
  
  tort law, have been prohibited by 33 states and nearly universally dismissed by the courts, and may soon be
  
  prohibited nationally by Congress.
• The federal "assault weapon" law, imposed on Sept. 13, 1994, expired on Sept.
  
  13, 2004. Essentially, it prohibited installing two or more attachments (e.g., a sharply angled grip, adjustable
  
  stock, or threaded muzzle) on certain kinds of semi-automatics, and limited new ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
  
  capacity. Foreign-made firearms later defined as "assault weapons" were prohibited from importation by regulation in
  
  1989 (rifles) and 1993 (pistols) and revolving cylinder shotguns were restricted under the National Firearms Act in
  
  February 1994.
  The BATFE has rejected the Brady Campaign`s claim that the ban reduced crime. Studies for the
  
  National Academy of Sciences (2005), National Institute of Justice (2004), and the Congressional Research Service
  
  (2004) noted that reports from state and local law enforcement agencies show that guns defined as "assault weapons"
  
  are used in only about 1% of violent crimes. The CRS report also rejected the anti-gun Violence Policy Center`s
  
  claim about the use of the guns against police officers. The congressionally-mandated study of the ban (1997) found,
  
  "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders." A follow-up study
  
  (2003) found that criminals rarely fire more than 10 rounds, that wounds involving pistols are less likely to be
  
  fatal than those involving revolvers, and that the average number of wounds in pistol crimes is lower than with
  
  revolvers. Many more people are murdered with knives, or clubs, or bare hands, than with "assault weapons."
  The
  
  number of so-called "assault weapons" and magazines of over 10 rounds capacity is greater today than ever, and they
  
  are still rarely used in crime.
  Legislation has been introduced in Congress and some state legislatures to ban
  
  millions more guns as "assault weapons," including all semi-automatic shotguns, detachable-magazine semi-automatic
  
  rifles, and even pump-action guns.
• "Gun show" legislation would not only impose background checks on private gun
  
  sales at shows. It would register anyone attending a show and affect many sales of guns that do not occur at shows.
  
  Dealer sales of guns, whether at stores or shows, are already subject to the federal background check. Federal
  
  studies find that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns at shows. The goal of such legislation is to move toward
  
  prohibiting private gun sales altogether, as has occurred in California.
• Registration and licensing led to
  
  confiscation in Germany, England, Australia, Mexico, California, New Jersey, and New York City. Library of Congress
  
  and Centers for Disease Control reports state that there is no evidence that registration and licensing reduce
  
  crime. To pave the way for registration in the U.S., anti-gun groups call for a ballistic "fingerprinting" law to
  
  require every new handgun to be test fired, and the markings left on bullets and/or cartridge cases entered into a
  
  database.
  Such a system was put in place in Maryland at the cost of millions of dollars, but, after its
  
  ineffectiveness was proven, the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division called for scrapping
  
  it.
• "Smart" gun legislation is intended to reduce handgun purchases by increasing handgun prices, by requiring
  
  that handguns be made with "personalized" locking mechanisms that are not necessarily reliable or desired by gun
  
  owners.
• "Mandatory storage" laws, requiring gun owners to install gun locks on all guns, have prevented guns
  
  from being used for self-defense. Gun accidents are down, but because of training, not gadgetry or
  
  regulation.

SELF-DEFENSE AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY

Anti-gun groups openly oppose the use of firearms for

protection and claim that self-defense is not a right under the Constitution. The federal and 44 state

constitutions, and the laws of every state, recognize the right to arms for defensive purposes.

Survey research

during the early 1990s by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of

guns each year in the U.S. "(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as

often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes," Kleck concluded. Analyzing National Crime Victimization

Survey data, he found, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to

suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all."



In most defensive gun uses, the gun is not fired. In only 1% of instances are criminals wounded, and in only

0.1% are criminals killed.

A Dept. of Justice survey (1986) found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at

least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed

victims. Thirty-eight states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry guns for

protection. Twenty-eight states have adopted RTC laws since 1987: Two-thirds of Americans live in RTC

states.

Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws,

concluded, "When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell

by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent." (1998)

RTC states have lower violent crime rates on

average: 27% lower total violent crime, 32% lower murder, 45% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. (FBI)

People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public.

GUNS DON`T CAUSE CRIME

There

are more guns, gun owners, RTC states and carry permit holders than ever before. And the nation`s violent crime rate

has decreased every year since 1991, to a 27-year low. Most criminologists, sociologists and law enforcement

professionals, including the FBI, attribute the decrease to factors unrelated to "gun control," such as increased

imprisonment rates, mandatory sentencing requirements, the hiring of additional police officers, improved policing

methods and equipment, the aging of gang populations, the decline in the crack cocaine trade, and the improved

economy during the 1990s. Notably, only about one-fourth of violent crimes are committed with guns. (FBI)

"GUN

CONTROL" DOESN`T REDUCE CRIME

Studies for Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Congressional Research

Service, the Library of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.

A 1983 study for the DOJ concluded,

"there are about 20,000 firearms laws of one sort or another already on the books." However, the NAS study in 2005,

conducted by a panel of academics organized during the anti-gun Clinton administration and including prominent

anti-gunners, could not identify a single "gun control" scheme that reduced crime, suicides, or accidents.

For

the CDC (2003), an independent Task Force studied a wide variety of gun control laws, but "found insufficient

evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." A Library of

Congress study (1998) concluded, "it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms

regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes."

The federal Gun Control Act was imposed in 1968, yet

violent crime increased until 1991. Washington, D.C., banned handguns in 1976 and by 1991 its homicide rate tripled,

while the U.S. rate rose only 12%. Despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, Maryland`s

robbery rate remains the highest among the states, and Baltimore`s murder rate is similar to D.C.`s.

States that

delay gun sales with waiting periods, licensing and purchase permits have historically had higher crime rates. For

many years after California imposed a 15-day waiting period in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1997), its violent crime

rate was 50% higher each year, on average, compared to the rest of the country. States that prohibit or severely

restrict carrying guns have higher crime rates, on average.

Now "gun control" advocates claim that the federal

Brady Act and "assault weapon" law reduced crime. However, both laws were imposed in 1994, three years after violent

crime began declining, and studies noted above have found no evidence that either affects crime levels. Also, a

study by anti-gun researchers, published in the anti-gun Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 found

the Brady Act to be ineffective.

ENFORCE THE LAWS AGAINST CRIMINALS

Violent crime began decreasing in the

1990s, as states increased prison sentences for violent criminals.

Soon after taking office, President George W.

Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft created the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) program. PSN targeted criminals

who use firearms, by allocating federal law-enforcement resources to enforce federal gun laws.

It resulted in a

68% increase in federal gun crime prosecutions, a 62% increase in the number of defendants charged with federal gun

crimes, and increases in sentences for federal gun crimes. In 2003, 93% of defendants were sentenced to some prison

time, and 72% were sentenced to more than three years.

Between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002, the violent crime rate

dropped 21%, equating to 130,000 fewer Americans falling victim to crimes involving firearms than in the previous

two years. (DOJ)

GUN SAFETY

Because focus group research showed that the public reacts unfavorably to the term

"gun control," the anti-gun lobby now refers to gun bans, registration, waiting periods, and other restrictions as

"gun safety."

True gun safety depends on education and personal responsibility, not government regulation. NRA`s

62,000 Certified Instructors and Law Enforcement Instructors reach 800,000 Americans each year. NRA`s award-winning

Eddie Eagle GunSafe(r) Program has been used by more than 24,000 schools, law enforcement agencies and civic groups

to reach more than 18 million children since 1988. Accidental deaths with guns have been decreasing for

decades.

Since 1930, the annual number of such accidents has decreased 76%, while the U.S. population has more

than doubled and the number of privately owned guns has quintupled. Among children, fatal gun accidents have

decreased 89% since 1975. (National Center for Health Statistics and National Safety Council)

The per capita rate

of accidental deaths with guns is at an all-time low, having decreased 91% since the all-time high in 1904. Gun

accidents account for only 0.7% of accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths involve motor vehicles or are due to

drowning, falls, fires, poisoning, medical mistakes, choking on ingested objects and environmental factors.

ASK

THE PEOPLE

Eighty-five percent of Americans believe people have the right to use guns to defend themselves in

their homes, 64% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns for protection outside their homes, and 72%

prefer stiffer sentences for criminals who use guns in crime, rather than more gun laws. (Lawrence Research,

National Survey of Registered Voters, 1998)

Awesome post! Altho its sure to

raise some hackles here and there,the facts and truths so eloquently stated cannot be refuted or denied.Now all we

have to do is create a culture and a scociety that encourages families to spend more time together and sends people

home with a living wage in a reasonable number of hours so that fathers and mothers dont orphan thier children for

the sake of making the next house payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a.k.a.

Haven't seen

"Michael & Me", but the main thrust of "Bowling for Columbine" was culture. The film didn't come out with a simple,

single cause determinant for gun violence in the US. It talked a lot about the climate of fear, anxiety and mistrust

that is generated by media and government. And it even contrasted Canada (which has more guns and a more laid-back

culture) with the US.
Moore made a strong point about how easy it is to get assault weapons in the US, but

that's as close as he got to the "too many guns" argument.

---

Yes, there are many motifs in

Bowling.

But Moore's personal opinion is that guns are too readliy available and that directly contributes

to gun deaths/injuries. Watch the opening segment of Michael and Me. Larry elder actually tracked Moore down for

like a 20 second response before his publicist yanked him away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belgareth

Tim,



In this country you have to be tested and licensed to ride a motorcycle or drive a car. You have to have a doctor's

permission to possess a syringe. Yet an adult can walk into Walmart and buy a 44 Magnum and a case of ammunition so

long as he/she haven't yet committed a felony despite your never having handled a firearm in their life.

I

am in no way opposed to firearms ownership and own several myself. I also practice with them and keep them clean.

Sure would hate to miss or have it jam if I really needed it :) Everybody in my household also knows how to use a

firearm, even my 14 year old daughter who is actually a rather good shot. My problem is the number of untrained

lunatics who have no clue about guns other than what they've seen on TV.

---

Playing devil's advocate

here. Does one need a license to practice their First Amendment right? So why the Second? Or any other right

declared in the Bill of Rights?

The problem with the testing requirement is that it means the government

sets the standards for passing (and can arbitrarily make them so stringent as to eliminate certain demographics such

as the old or handicapped). And we'd also have to pay additional fees to keep this sector of the government in

existence, just like our local motor vehicle departments. We all know you're a "small government" person, so is

this an apparent contradiction? ;) When I got my concealed carry permit, I had to demonstrate I can shoot my

pistol with the right or left hand only and I had to hit the target X number of times in order to pass. Shooting

with my left hand only was wierd, since I'm right eye dominant. I had to estimate where my sights were lined up.

What if every person had to do that simply to purchase a pistol? Would Granny Smith be able to pass? I don't like

the idea in general.

This bothers me, sorry if it

is a hijack.

IGNORING THE LAW

On Wednesday, October 26, 2005 President George W. Bush

signed into law the NRA-backed "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397)--legislation to end politically

motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 passed

both chambers of Congress with broad bipartisan support; in recent years, 33 states have passed similar legislation.



Having lost this extremely significant battle in Congress, the anti-gunners have again taken their show to the

courts--and activist judges--in an attempt to circumvent and challenge the new law.

On December 2, anti-gun New

York Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein ruled that New York City's lawsuit against law-abiding firearm manufacturers

and retailers could move forward.

"Judge Weinstein's decision was not only predictable, but intellectually

dishonest and blatantly biased, given his decade-long track record of aiming to derail the firearms industry," said

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the

trade organization for the firearm industry. "New York City's lawsuit is precisely the type of suit the

'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' was designed to prevent. During debate in each chamber of Congress,

Senator Larry Craig and Representative Cliff Stearns--the sponsors of the bill--both referenced the city's case as

a quintessential example of a lawsuit the act would prevent."

Firearm manufacturers named in the suit include:

Beretta U.S.A. Corporation, the Browning Arms Company, Colt Manufacturing Company, Inc., Glock, Inc., and the Smith

& Wesson Corporation.

These industry defendants plan to immediately appeal the decision to the Second Circuit

Court of Appeals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biohazard

Playing

devil's advocate here. Does one need a license to practice their First Amendment right? So why the Second? Or any

other right declared in the Bill of Rights?

The problem with the testing requirement is that it means the

government sets the standards for passing (and can arbitrarily make them so stringent as to eliminate certain

demographics such as the old or handicapped). And we'd also have to pay additional fees to keep this sector of the

government in existence, just like our local motor vehicle departments. We all know you're a "small government"

person, so is this an apparent contradiction? ;) When I got my concealed carry permit, I had to demonstrate I can

shoot my pistol with the right or left hand only and I had to hit the target X number of times in order to pass.

Shooting with my left hand only was wierd, since I'm right eye dominant. I had to estimate where my sights were

lined up. What if every person had to do that simply to purchase a pistol? Would Granny Smith be able to pass? I

don't like the idea in general.

---

I understand your point and agree for the most part. I'm not sure what

the right answer is and probably stated it too strongly. I am a huge supporter of education and personal

responsibility as the answers to most issues of this sort. Perhaps, as HK45 states above, th best answer is

education provided by private groups. I certainly do not support the ability to carry a firearm without knowledge on

how to use it and proper safety.

A point about your license, I see no reason to require a person to be able to

shoot with either hand. I can, barely. But it was not a requirement for a concealed carry in Texas so never felt it

was worth the bother. I never learned to drive on the left side of the road or learned to write left handed either.

It seems a silly waste of time. On the other hand, 10-15 hours of gun safety and non-violent conflict resolution

plus demonstrated firearms proficiency all seem reasonable. A person who cannot properly aim and fire a handgun is

dangerous, not only to themselves but, and more importantly, to others around them. In other words, shouldn't

Granny Smith be competent enough to avoid accidently shooting Grampa Smith or one of the neighbors?

Should the

government be involved? Probably not as the government has a proven ability to screw everything up. Should knowledge

and personal responsibility be requirements? Absolutely, Yes. I'm not trying to get into the argument about

personal responsibility here but it is seriously lacking in this country. That lack, combined with alcohol and

firearms is deadly to innocent bystanders. I'm not overly concerned about the gun user themselves. If they shoot

themselves it isn't really my concern.

Hk45's posts above were very helpful and informative. I've never had

much nice to say about the anti-gun lobby and his information just helps me believe I am on the right track.



One thing I found absolutely appalling in his posts is the contention by the anti-gun lobby that the ability to

defend yourself is not a right. Uh? Excuse me? Pass that one by me again? I don't know of any way to express my

absolute amazement that anyone would even utter such an absurdity. What in the devil do they expect people to do?

Lay down and play dead if attacked? There is demonstrated somebody with an absolute lack of any grasp of reality.

Biohazard::

I'm sorry but

I should have addressed this in the previous post. You mention first and second ammendments. Under the fiirst

ammendment you have the right to assmbly, speech etc. Under the second you have the right to bear arms. If we look

at the first amendment, it does not give you the right to intrude upon a person's private property to practice that

right, does it. If you exercise freedom of speech and slander a person, there is legal recourse. There are legal

protections that come with those rights.

Is the public entitled to legal protection from lead objects being

carelessly fired in their general direction? Are they entitled to a reasonable expectation of freedom from personal

injury or damage to property by a person exercising their second ammnedment rights? Certainly, a gun owner can be

arrested and jailed for misuse of a firearm. That does not undo the serious personal harm or death that was done to

an innocent person? In my personal opinion, the primary first function of any government is to protect the citizens

from harm by others. Failure to create some means of assuring legal gun owners are safe to use those guns is a

failure to protect the citizens.

Interestingly,we have the right

of free travel in this country too...but still require training to opperate a motor vehichle or fly an aircraft.When

an issue requires the use of a piece of equipment,and that equipment when misused constitutes a danger to the

general public...establishing reasonable minimum requirements for the use of said equipment makes sense.It is a

logical and reasonable method of providing for general public safety.Notice the words "general public." A synonym

for "public" or "public safety." Police agencies are NOT required by law to even give you the time of day when you

call 911 and report a burgler with a weapon in your home!They literaly "voulunteer" to help you.Because you and your

home do not consitute "the public" and your individual safety does not constitute "public safety," there is a very

resonable argument to allow individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

Many lawsuits have been filed all over

the country for a police agencies lack of response to a deadly threat against an individual.And the plaintifs ALWAYS

loose.The police are NOT required to help YOU.If the standards of use and marksmanship used in testing for the carry

of a firearm are too high,we inadvertently end up slashing nine out of ten police officers from the force.Most cops

are at best poor marksmen(I have been on the range with these men and women many times and can attest to the fact

that thier weapons skills are not all that and a bag of chips.)

As for grandma and her .38 snub nosed

revolver...thats a tough one.What are the odds of her getting shot with her own handgun after she has it ripped from

her grasp?Quite high in fact,as that sort of thing happens.It happens not only to the weak,infirm and elderly,but

here in Seattle a young man was just convicted in the shooting death of a police officer in which he disarmed the

officer and shot him with his own sidearm.A veteran police officer with both size and training on his side.And he

had the suspect on the ground and was cuffing him when the situation turned,so the officer had all the advantages

and was killed with his own weapon anyway.

None of these things come with easy answers.But I would rather err on

the side of allowing people the opportunity to at least try to have a fighting chnace that to run off willy nilly

screaming about the dangers of firearms.

Oh...BTW...My grandmother was an excelent shot.She grew up in a logging

camp and married a firearms trainer and national marksmanship competitor.Frankly,she was a better and quicker shot

than most of the police officers I have met.And she was also the sweetest,most humble and unassuming woman of God

you could have ever met.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belgareth

Biohazard::

I'm sorry but I should have addressed this in the previous post. You mention

first and second ammendments. Under the fiirst ammendment you have the right to assmbly, speech etc. Under the

second you have the right to bear arms. If we look at the first amendment, it does not give you the right to intrude

upon a person's private property to practice that right, does it. If you exercise freedom of speech and slander a

person, there is legal recourse. There are legal protections that come with those rights.

Is the public

entitled to legal protection from lead objects being carelessly fired in their general direction? Are they entitled

to a reasonable expectation of freedom from personal injury or damage to property by a person exercising their

second ammnedment rights? Certainly, a gun owner can be arrested and jailed for misuse of a firearm. That does not

undo the serious personal harm or death that was done to an innocent person? In my personal opinion, the primary

first function of any government is to protect the citizens from harm by others. Failure to create some means of

assuring legal gun owners are safe to use those guns is a failure to protect the citizens.

---

I agree.

Sticks and stones can break bones, but words often do worse. There are legal guidelines that specify what you can

or cannot do with your first amendment right. Such is the same with your second amendment right. Still, there is

no licensing or training procedure for individual speech/expression. In some cases you need a permit to assemble in

public, but I think that's more of an issue of interfering in public commerce such as blocking a sidewalk, road,

etc, than it is about expression. For the most part, you're allowed to express yourself with no formal training or

licensing, and are punished only when you have done something harmful.

Requiring a class

in firearms safety might be a good idea, but not testing procedures.

A word thrown at you may hurt

your feelings but rarely draws blood and even more rarely can kill an innocent bystander. A requirement to show

competence to use a device that could very easily result in serious injury, disfigurement or even death to an

innocent bystander is not unreasonable. Tim makes a good point in his comparison of freedom to travel but competency

testing is required to use a motor vehicle.