The American Legion position on the Second Amendment

 
« Previous story
Next story »
 
The American Legion position on the Second Amendment

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I am getting a lot of calls and emails about our position on the various gun control measures Congress is looking at, and the Executive Orders that the President has issued in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.  Rest assured we look at each of them, but I haven't seen us make any specific comments on any of them yet.  Largely this is because there are so many it will take some time.

However, I did want you to see what our official position is overall.  All of our positions on issues come from the resolution process.  This is the resolution that deals with our support of the Second Amendment...

Resolution No. 68: Second Amendment

Origin: Maryland

Submitted by: Convention Committee on National Security

WHEREAS, The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees each law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms of his or her choice; and

WHEREAS, It is estimated that over 60 million individuals, representing over half of the households in America, have chosen to exercise that right by owning one or more firearms; and

WHEREAS, Gun bans, registration, and licensing of firearms and their owners of has had little or no effect in such urban areas such as New York City, California and Washington D.C. and has not prevented violent criminals from obtaining firearms illegally and committing crimes; and

WHEREAS, The restriction of firearms purchases by law-abiding citizens will create a black market in illegal firearms and incur further governmental costs to enforce such restriction; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28, 29, 30, 2012, That The American Legion reaffirms its recognition that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees each law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms; and, be it finally

RESOLVED, That the membership of The American Legion urges our nation's lawmakers to recognize, as part of their oaths of office, that the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear the arms of their choice, as do the millions of American veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to preserve those rights, hereby advise the Congress of the United States and the Executive Department to cease and desist any and all efforts to restrict these rights by any legislation or order.

That's the resolution.  Now, how that applies to each of the initiatives is something I don't know.  I assure you that people much smarter than myself are currently looking at it, and as soon as I hear more, I will share it here. 

Posted in the burner | 105 comments
 
« Previous story
Next story »

 

* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.

Comments

Yep. All we need is more morons like you on the streets.
There are a lot like you in detroit. You got a war going on. They all think like you. And guess what. Those households are getting gunned down. So much for your feable theory. And please don't compare a car accident to a guns. Unless you think a car accident goes after you to blow your head away. What a moron.
The sooner this country takes your toys away the safer it will be.

Retired USN. Member of AL, VFW, & DAV. I do believe that if one were to read some of the letters from the Founding Fathers, you would discover that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or competition shooting. (I have participated in both activities). It was written by folks that had recently spent several years defeating an oppressive government using using personal firearms that were state-of-the-art and equal in all ways to what the government forces had. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting yourself, family and community from an oppressive government and other sorts of criminals.
Why high capacity magazines? Because that is what the 'other side' has. I would note that for all practical purposes, civilians are limited to semi-automatic firearms. (yes, there are a few automatic weapons in private hands - but not many). Hunting with an AR? Only one shot at a time. I have found that a hicap mag does a nice job of holding my weapon at a convenient height above the ground when in the prone position.
Regarding the 2nd A. as a 'States Rights' issue? The Constitution previously addresses the authority & responsibility of the Federal and State governments. Nobody has ever been able to explain why a 'states right' amendment (if needed) would be included in a bunch of amendments recognizing the natural rights of the population as individuals.
To sum up: an open and just government need never fear an armed populace.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant the "right to bear arms of their choice" When the Amendment was ratified in 1791 there was no such thing as semi-automatic assault type weapons. Am I to understand that the American Legion is supporting ownership of such weapons in anyones hands?

another fine, upstanding, freedom loving Vet? i think probably not!
so Charles, where does it deny the right to own whatever weapon i choose? by your own standards, the radio,tv, and web wouldn't be covered by the first Amendment because none of those were around then either

The Second Amendment:
What We Americans Prefer not to Remember

I’m a U. S. Army veteran. I served honorably during the Korean War. Even have a medal and some papers to prove it.
Like a good American, I spent a lot of years in the pursuit of happiness, and to a great extent, I achieved my goals. But that and my work left little time for anything else. Now that I’m retired, though, I’ve got plenty of time to do things I couldn’t do before. For example, I started looking into my past.
From my lessons in school, I had a vague recollection of the Pilgrims, Puritans, and Quakers who came to our shores in the 17th century hoping to escape the oppressive reality they had experienced in England—a life characterized by religious intolerance, limitation of expression, constraints on assembly, subjection to the search and seizure of private property, and restrictions on the possession of arms.
The newcomers all looked to the future. Unfortunately, they soon discovered that in America, as in the homeland they left behind, they remained under the strong arm of the King, his agents, and British law.
In the latter regard, I remembered the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts, I recalled discussions about the Boston Tea Party, and I called to mind images of the battles against the British that were waged by the Minutemen of the Massachusetts militia.
The word militia got my attention. So I did a little research and discovered what militia meant. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this word has a long history. Since the mid-17th century, it’s meant "a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers." In the 13 Colonies, militias consisted of physically capable male citizens who served in a voluntary capacity when needed by their community.
The course of Independence fascinated me, but even more absorbing was all the discussion behind it. Instead of having a standing army to preserve order and protect them, many colonists preferred to have a militia do those things. Their position was based on the idea that, since militias were made up of neighbors who volunteered when a need arose, and standing armies were composed of regimented troops who had no close ties to the community, under orders from despotic commanders, standing armies could turn into heartless oppressors just like the troops sent by Great Britain.
As the Revolution progressed, there was a lot of pro-ing and con-ing about which was better to have, a local militia in each State or a standing army for the Nation. In 1777, the advocates of militias enjoyed a victory when the Second Continental Congress adopted Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. This declared that while the 13 States, acting together, would not create a standing army: "every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison made the following proposal: "The right of the people to keep and bear . . . arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country . . . .”
When the House of Representatives met to consider the issue, the proposal was modified to read as follows: "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person."
When the Senate reviewed the proposal, it omitted Madison’s words "composed of the body of the people" and deleted the clause that exempted conscientious objectors from service.
As finally ratified by the States, the Second Amendment read: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In a letter dated 12 June 1823, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of our nation, made the following judicious comment about interpretation of the Constitution: "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
In 2008, Jefferson’s sagacious words went unheeded by five members of the Supreme Court who ruled that, despite the fact that all the draft versions quoted above refer to a militia when the keeping and bearing of arms was mentioned, the first thirteen-words of the Amendment are merely a “prologue” and its “drafting history” is “of dubious interpretive worth.”
No. The Amendment’s drafting history and the position which its initial words occupy in the final version show that the “prologue” was intended as a main element in the Amendment—one designed to limit the right to keep and bear arms.
Without the presence of an active militia that is “necessary to the security of a free state,” why would the people need to keep and bear arms? Justifying such an element by suggesting that arms are essential for self-protection is not a concept stated in the Amendment. If the authors of the Bill of Rights wanted to give the people the right to keep and bear arms, why didn’t they just say that and nothing more? The reason seems clear: the aim of the Amendment was not to guarantee self-protection of the individual, but to insure the security of the states through the formation of militias.
Although our world is not the world of our 18th century ancestors, through the decades we’ve clung to many of the values of our Nation’s founders. We cherish our freedom of religion, expression, and assembly. We reject intrusion into our homes by government. We resist its imposition of unwanted taxes. Nevertheless, we rush toward the future bound to the past—trapped in the grip of a warped interpretation of history. While many of our legacies have positive value, others endanger our lives. The desire to personally possess firearms is one of the latter. It’s a useless relic that has turned into an addiction. For our safety, this addiction must be purged from our national character.
So I ask you supporters of the Second Amendment, what well regulated State militia do you belong to?

you couldn't be more wrong Bob, the second Amendment does not deny the right of the individual to bear arms, the N.H. Constitution written in the same decade specifically reinforces that individual right without any reference to a militia.
that being said, let's give your flailing argument a moment of reason and logic; the tenth Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the u.s. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
and the ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." you know these ones? they're the same ones cited in the 'right to an abortion' which takes away the baby's right to life, the most important right in our society. what's that? it's not a baby,it's a fetus? well if it was allowed to go full term and be born, would it be a human being or a duck-billed platypus?!

John. It is you that is wrong. I also served proudly in the Marine corps during Viet Nam. I agree with Bob. It is written in black and white. What part of that english don't you understand?

Val, where does the Constitution give the govt the right to deny me which ever weapon i see fit to own? c'mon i can't wait to see it! i saw another of your posts where you say you will personally take someone's weapons, no one in the U.S. or the world has any right to infringe on another's rights; not you, not Diane Feinstein, NO ONE! STOP HATING ON FREEDOM!!

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "militia" actually defined. Yet, when the Framers of the Constitution referred to the militia in the text of the document and the ratification debates, they had very definite ideas of what they meant. Their concept of the militia as a legal and political institution was a product of English heritage, as it was modified by the uniqueness of the American experience. It differed radically from our own concept. Specifically, what we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution- June 16, 1788

The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the connotation of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic"
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn
If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
— Mao Zedong, Nov. 6, 1938

Your question "So I ask you supporters of the Second Amendment, what well regulated State militia do you belong to?" shows what happens when 200 years of statist treason revises our history.

Extremely well said. You have an excellent understanding of our history. You clearly show the origin, the original intent, and the real meaning of the Second Amendment. If we could get away from the revisionist interpretation by the NRA of the Second Amendment and get a better grasp of our history and our heritage, we could have an honest and rational discussion of the firearms problem in our society and maybe even stop the slaughter of Americans which is occurring in numbers that even Al Qaeda could not hope to inflict.

No more Gun Control In March & April Homeland Security Order 1.2 Billion bullets what is More bullets than the army used in 1 year in Iraqi

Thank God for giving those who make the decisions at The American Legion. They have stood up with wisdom and courage for the last bulwark of freedom, our right to keep and bear arms. Not to hunt, not to deter robbers but to deter tyranny. Thank you too.

MSGT USAR Retired- RM2 USN Retired

First and foremost, thank you Legion for your stance. For those of you who argue against the 2nd Amendment, and still mistakenly think it deals specifically and only with a well regulated militia or hunting, I suggest you read or go back and reread the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. If you eliminate the 2nd Amendment, what stops you from eliminating the other nine? My family deals with the ramifications of living without the ability to defend themselves, in a country where crime has skyrocketed when all firearms were banned. Now, the mere possesion of a pocket knife will land you in prison for carrying a concealed weapon. National Health Service doctors are calling for an outright ban on the import, manufacture,and sales of steak knives, butcher knives, and cleavers. Think it won't happen here? Guess you've not visited NYC lately. Simply put, where do you draw the line? When does it stop? Betcha the Chinese are tickled pink whatching what's happening here. As a retired SNCO, and an active LEO, I am steadfast against anyone law abiding citizen from losing the right to keep and bear arms. Be it a 30 round, 20 round, or 5 round magazine, criminals will always find a way to slaughter the innocent. Ask the Chinese how well the weapons ban is working for them, or the 20 plus children that were injured or killed the day prior to Newtown by a crazed fanatic with a knife. Ask the survivors of the Bath, Michigan, slaughter of the 1930's about the weapons ban. By the way, not a single person was killed in that incident with a firearm. Not one. Yet over 30 children and adults died. You want the firearms banned, go to China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, or Russia. They'd love to have you. Me, I'll continue the fight, against all enemies, foreign, AND domestic.

-Evil men follow no laws, good people can do nothing besides having means of protecting themselves.
-A weapon is anything used in such manner.
-To become lackadaisical about danger is to become prey
-To destroy your means of protection is to be ruled by those who don't.
-To count on others for your own well being is strictly a falsehood.
-Time passes and things change but the survival Game stays the same.
These are facts of our world no one can change they are inherent with life.

For all those that support castration of our firearms, just look and see what kind of knifes you can legally carry these days(This game has happened before), And for all those who disagree with any weapons in the hands of American citizens I am absolutely ashamed that you can look at the same country and flag I served under and say the efforts of our nations history are outdated and barbaric. We have the ability to protect our own in this county unlike so many other countries.

So many are quick to jump on the gun scheme, its just what is in the spot light at the moment. Let me ask how many of you have seen something wrong and done nothing to stop it? or has tried and legally been unable to do anything till after the fact? Take a long hard look at the laws out there already. They prevent American Citizens from taking care of themselves, protecting criminals and thugs! The major shooting have happen everywhere where there are "Gun Free" zones, (Malls, Hospitals, schools, colleges, Military bases, government buildings, movie theaters) a gun grabber political movement in itself. I'm sure those lowlifes read the signs and decided not to commit a crime.
BOTTOM LINE
******If you want to see a turn around in crime and tragedies like we've seen then allow neighbors and countrymen to take care of neighbors and countrymen*****. This is OUR country, stop looking for TOP down support/programs/ and leadership and step up to the plate and do your part, thats how a strong military is built; from the bottom up. And legionaries threatening to pull their membership obviously didn't know what they were signing up for, let alone when they were born into the safety of the United States of America.

Why are they picking on Assault Weapons when at the Sandy Hook shootings only hand guns were used. For all that, why pick on any guns. Lets try to fix the mentally disturbed bozos first.
For all of you smart fellas, last time i have used a "clip" in a weapon was an M1 Garand. Correctly, most modern weapons use box magazines, commonly called "mags".

This socialist administation is using this, and other mass shootings as an excuss to disarm the american people. More people get killed with hammer's yearly, than with so called assult rifles. Most people don't even know what an assult rifle is. Assult rifle is a buzz word the liberal progressives like to use to demonize any type of firearm to their dislike. If guns kill people then spoons make you fat. Why dont you progressive polititions enforce the gun laws we already have and leave us law abiding citizen alone. We will never give up our God given right TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

No Denny. You are mistaken. They just want to put some sanity in this.They surely don't want to take you pea shooter away from you. What would you do without your toys? But if you are crazy, and you could be, or if you like to hunt down poor squirrels with an AR15, I will take your toys away personally.

Our Founding Fathers had the correct perspective: "An armed population are citizens ... a disarmed population are subjects" - whatever needs to be done to rid our nation of these morons needs to be done!

Bob Glickman –Bravo; a voice of reason in this complicated world.

I have owned guns, and have been a sportsman for 45 years. Sorry to say for you bleeding heart right wingers, none are assault weapons. I am a Veteran and a Patriot and a member of the Legion for 25 years. My father left his right leg in France in 1944 to protect your right to bear arms. I don't remember any moment in my 45 years that I have owned guns where any President has proposed making gun ownership illegal.

But this is America; you can go on protecting the right to keep weapons that were designed for one purpose; to kill in high volume. Or, you can begin acting like caring human beings and help control weapons of mass destruction and prevent disasters such as Newtown. Your choice, but I question your capacity to think before you make that choice.

But maybe "Human" is too much of an expectation for the likes of you who stand with the NRA and now the Legion. (Bad decision Commander)

Too bad the right political machine is swayed from doing the right thing just because a “Big Mouth” minority expresses their opinion. If you folks who are so interested in protecting you gun rights would focus even 10% of your energy on returning prayer to schools, maybe we could raise a generation that did not take pride in killing innocent people. If you have a brain; think about it.

good responce when the second amendment was passed there where no assaut wepons nobody wants to your guns from you sawed off shotguns are baned why? its time to put a amendment on the guns you can have theres no need to have assult weapons. there is no reason for lawobiden citisens to have those weapons thats why we have police for. i'm sorry to hear the legion backing those morons that want assult rifles those nra idiots saying the goverment want to take there guns off them no just those weapons of war if you cant understand that your just stupid

rodney, you're right, when our Constitution was written, "assault weapons" didn't exist. private citizens had the same weapons as regular armies, some even had canons. by your standards radio,tv,and the web wouldn't be covered under the first Amendment. no need huh? who are you or anyone in government to tell me what i can and cannot have? the Constitution does not limit me in any way, but it does reinforce my rights under the first,ninth, and tenth Amendments, we're all EQUAL Citizens under the U.S. and respective State Constitutions, no one has a special or higher level of citizenship based on office. the police rarely are at the scene until after the crime has been committed, it's our responsibility to be our own first line of defense not someone else. nobody wants to take our weapons? Diane Feinstein said in 1995 in reference to 'assault weapons' "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" what's her plan after confiscation of those? these people will never stop trying to take away our rights, just like those in other governments that took away guns and then murdered millions, never be foolish enough to believe it can't happen here. are you even a Vet? i don't think you are, you must not think much of freedom either, if you want to be a serf go ahead, as for me, leave me and my rights the hell alone! i will never comply or become a serf!

Although it is clear of the Legion's position, I believe that simply having Resolution 68 by itself does little to use our considerable clout to help defend the 2nd amendment at this time. I have yet to see any mention in any discussion, debate, or media coverage of the veteran community's position (AL or VFW) against any further gun control, or more importantly the benefits of of modern sporting rifles to us. Our silence is essentially an affirmation of their removing our rights as well as making us as a nation less safe. The Legion's leadership needs to take an active role in aggressively publish our position nation-wide, not only to our government officials but to the general public as well. The Legion should immediately work with the NRA in coordinating our support.

It's strange how many Americans misinterpret, get so upset and confused, and so sensitive and fussy about the 2nd Amend Rights to bare arms. Back in Colonial days, when these White old gray-headed men, our Forefathers, who established our Gov’t, whom the Republicans want to destroy, and when our Forefathers made the U.S. Constitution, the meaning of bare arms just meant a hand gun, long shot gun, and rifle, for home protection and hunting season. I guess nowadays, a Musket has been upgraded to a Bush-Massacre AR 47 or 48 etc., assault rifle, that holds 50, 100, or 200 or more rounds per clip, to be used only to massacre little kids, or used on any one innocent, because you’re insane or sane stupid dizzy who has a problem, but such weapon has nothing to do with Hunting season, to hunt Deer, Ducks, or what? Not to be rude, brag, or rant, or sound like a high profile trial lawyer who research details to get the facts, who most-of-the-time wins cases, regardless, but did the 2nd Amend Rights really specifically state to bare any arms of your choice? I have the proofs and will challenge anyone who differ. I’m sick of hearing, many times, on News Media, whether Radio or TV, and wherever else, that many Americans say that Obama and the Gov’t is trying to take your guns away from you. That’s stupidity and cowardly. Remember Republicans, your Forefathers established your Gov’t and the Constitution. Republicans always blame Obama and the Gov’t for everything. If it weren’t for the Democrats and the Gov‘t, you wouldn’t have the Gov’t of City, County, State, and Federal; Union Rights; Social Security; Welfare; FDIC; the Securities and Exchange commission to regulate Wall St.; the Military; Military integration; women in the Military; the Marshall Plan; NATO; the UN; NASA; the Peace Corps; CFC charity Combined Federal Campaign; Civil Rights; Voting Rights; Head Start; Work Study; Job Corps; Food Stamps; Elementary Education Act; Medicare; Medicaid; Higher Education Act; PBS; Gun Control Act; Late Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall; current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Dr. Ms. Condoleezza Rice; Retired General Colin Powell; Black Senators and Reps in both State and U.S. Congress; Department of Education; Department of Energy; Family and Medical Leave Act; Brady Bill; Earned Income Tax Credit; Community Reinvestment Act; Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act; Balanced the Budget; Children’s Health Insurance Program; Adoption and Safe Families Act; Foster Care Independence Act; Health Reform; and Financial Reform. So what have Republican’s done except say no and look stupid? Common sense will tell you that an AK military style high power rifle has no place in your home or hunting. It’s only used by the Military in combat, and for Police swat teams. For Americans who disagree, you need your head examine by a doctor. You’re probably insane. Plus, Republicans complain about the Gov’t being wrong, bad, and corrupted, but look at Private Industries with Corporate Greed, White Collar Crime, Ponzi Schemes, and Fruad. Now you tell me?

you really think the second Amendment has to do with hunting? that's just plain stupid! the Constitution does not deny me from having what i feel is right, but reinforces my rights under the second, ninth, and tenth amendments. the democrats were the ones that fought against Clarence Thomas etc... ; just like they fought against the abolition of slavery and civil rights. what will you tell us next, that the earth is flat and the center of our universe? man, you are either extremely stupid or a compulsive liar, probably both. what are you even doing on a Veteran's site? you're surely not smart enough to be a Vet, or a freedom loving American!

I'm not sure where the figure of 270-300,000 firearms comes from. Likely the registered plus an estimate of unregistered. With that many and likely more firearms in the country any move to have them turned in would cause a lot to "disappear". I own 11 firearms of which only one is registered. One I bought from an individual 45+ years ago and the others were inhereited from my dad and grand parents. 6 are antiques and I wouldn't try to shoot if ammunition were available which it isn't.

While incidents like Sandy Hook are horrific those are a small portion of all firearm homicides. Most are domestic or criminal acts and usually involve handguns. So the question seems to to be how to discern those who might be a danger and otherwise how to slow down things until the police can arrive. I grew up hunting and never have needed 35 round clips or semi-auto rifles - game shot up that badly would imply incompetince on the part of the hunter. I did 2 tours with the Cav in 69-71 which fullfilled my need for automatic wepons.

I would support a license program for gun owners. I have to pass a proficiency test and periodically renew my license to drive a car. I had to be trained, pass several tests and be licensed to fly. Weapons presently can be purchased by anyone whether they know one end from the other or not. This could help in some cases prevent accidents.

I can support limiting the size of magazines. I can also support the use of trigger locks. I would support resource officers in the schools. In my community we have the DARE officers that are active in the highschools and middle schools on drug prevention.
How we locate and help the folks who might be contemplating mass muder I'm not sure. The psycology industry isn't sure either. But many of these folks seem to be ones who feel not part of regular society. Hopefully progress can be made in that area.

In contrast to some I'm personally not worried about anyone coming by to pick up my guns but I also don't think some of the proposals going around are really going to be effective, just look good to the general public. While Sandy Hooks 26 dead is terrible they were a small fraction of the 11,000 mentioned earlier in this commentary. There is not a one size solution to this.

I recently purchased a 9mm for home protection. Like the lady in the news who put 5 rounds into a would be attacker, an ex con, I prefer to defend my home and my family. The mentally ill should be treated, but getting the criminals to obey the law is like asking a rattlesnake not to bite. I now own 2 ten clip mags and can choose between hollow points, and target rounds. I suppose the criminal may bring his friends. Thank you American Legion for protecting my right to own a fire arm.

AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS. ANYONE WHO DISPUTES THIS STATEMENT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,INCLUDING UR LEGISLATORS,WHO ARE SWORN TO PROTECT AN DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!

thank you Roderick!

To bad the 2nd Amendment was ever included in the Bill of Rights. The English would have won the second time around. Maybe the Mexicans would have won. Maybe the Indians would have won. Maybe the South would have won. Maybe the Germans and Japanese would have won. And all this would be moot. If I have to explain you would not understand anyway. Perhaps we should eliminate ALL the Bill of Rights and see how happy all the anti's would be then. No Amendment is less important than any other.

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live as slaves." --John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775

"The people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams

The Second Amendment reads plainly: "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." And yet certain executive, legislative and judicial principals are unceasing in their efforts to enfeeble this essential right.

In the 1788 Massachusetts Convention debates to ratify the U.S. Constitution, Founder Samuel Adams stated: "The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46

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

"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." -- Noah Webster

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." -- James Madison

Today, more than two-thirds of the federal budget is spent on "objects of benevolence," for which there is no constitutional authority. Put another way, much of your income is being confiscated and redistributed unconstitutionally.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." -- George Washington

Come And Take It

In the south Texas town of Gonzales, in 1835, they had a six-pound cannon. The Mexican military dictator, General Santa Anna, wanted it. He had decreed that Texans should be disarmed, their weapons confiscated. He should have known better.

As historian H. Yoakum later pointed out, “Every one who knows the Texans, or who has heard of them, would naturally conclude that they never would submit to be disarmed. Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is despotic; and any people that would submit to it deserves to be slaves!”

To help frame the Texas response to Santa Anna’s gun confiscation order, Sara Seely DeWitt and her daughter Evaline sewed a flag. It was the first Texas battle flag, the first lone star flag, and the first anti-gun-control flag. They called it the Old Cannon Flag and it pictured the Texas cannon, a lone star above it on a white background, with the simple words, “Come and take it.”

Santa Anna sent an army to do just that. In the meantime, the Texans loaded up their old cannon with black powder behind rusty chains and chunks of iron. At daybreak on October 2, 1835, with the “Come and take it” flag flying in a gathering breeze, 167 men of the Texas Militia under the command of Col. Moore opened fire in a preemptive attack on the Mexican Army under the command of Captain Castaneda. It was the first shot in the Texas Revolution. The Gonzales cannon the Mexican Army had come to take was given to them muzzle-first belching hot iron, and they quickly abandoned the field and rode away never to return.

A year later, the “Come and take it” flag flew over the Alamo, and it flew over the independent nation of Texas. It was carried alongside the Confederate battle flag in Trans-Mississippi regiments during the War For Southern Independence. The first Texas battle flag, the first lone star flag, the first anti-gun-control flag has flown in every war Texans have ever fought, and they’ve fought them all.

Now there’s a new version of the “Come and take it” flag. The white background, the single star and the simple phrase, “Come and take it” are still there. In place of the Gonzales cannon is a .50 BMG. Both old and new versions of the “Come and take it” flag are available from Battle Flags, Inc. in Fredericksburg, Texas.

Battle Flags owner David Treibs says, “In looking back at the American and Texas revolutions, several common themes emerge. At first, the majority of the populations favored peacefully settling the differences, but as their petitions fell on deaf ears, and the oppression worsened, the majority gradually began to consider armed resistance as the only recourse. The oppressors responded, not with an olive branch, but with a mailed fist, further pushing many of the populations to extreme measures. As relations crumbled, the oppressors resorted to disarming the opposition, which finally ignited the revolutions.

“All this discussion of armed resistance may beg the question: What’s the big deal about gun control? Why should we hazard our lives to stop it? And, where is this tyranny? To answer briefly: the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the rest of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Therefore, an attack on the Second Amendment is an attack on the entire Constitution. Without the Second Amendment, we have no means to physically retain our other rights; they become dusty words on an old piece of paper that can be ignored. If we lose the Second Amendment, we lose all the other rights at the same time.”

Treibs acknowledges that many people, out of fear, will not fight to protect their rights. To these people, he quotes Samuel Adams, from a speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

The Enemies of Freedom are Back

Traitors in our own government, far more treacherous and dangerous than the totalitarian British or Mexican armies ever were, are seeking to outlaw and confiscate .50 BMG rifles from American citizens. They want to make sure that the next time they are able to turn military and police snipers against their own people, as they did at Ruby Ridge and in Waco, the victims will not be equipped to defend themselves.

Some among us are so evil-minded they would lobotomize the rest of us in order to make us political slaves.

Others are so cowardly they would dry up the very seas to save themselves from the possibility of drowning.

Still more are so weak in mind and character they allow the first two groups to exist and to prosper.

Taken together, these three groups have been the enemies of freedom since the beginning of time.

Since its invention, the instrument that most deters totalitarians, alarms cowards and unnerves weaklings is the firearm. It is the most effective tool to secure personal freedom and national sovereignty ever developed.

In their attempts to disarm the civilian populations of the world - out of sheer ambition for political power and oppression, a psychotic distrust of themselves and their fellow beings, or a perverted desire for “peace” at any price - these dysfunctionals attack the owners of all firearms, starting with what they see as the most vulnerable firearms first. The smallest and cheapest, such as the mythical “Saturday night special.” The one with the most threatening name, such as the “assault rifle.” Or the biggest - the .50 BMG.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) says in the self-righteous manner of a reformed drug addict, “If someone is so fearful that they’re going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!”

Rep. Conyers (D-MI), in a demonstration of the stunning ignorance suffered by people who get their gun knowledge from Hollywood, says the .50 BMG needs to be banned because, unlike hunting rifles, “they are designed to strike a target from a distance.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) replays the deceitful Clinton duck-hunting argument when she laments, “I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun.”
These degenerate politicians - power-starved buffoons, puffed-up parasites, spiteful socialists, programmed leftists, brain-dead Democrats and fainthearted Republicans, and there are many of them in the House and Senate - in attempting to undermine the United States Constitution, are guilty of high treason. There is no doubt that, in Texas in 1835, they would all have been hung by the neck from the nearest stout tree limb until their mindless convulsions ceased for good.

“I appeared before the California Congressman Waxman in D.C.,” says Jim Schmidt of Arizona Ammunition. “He has an agenda, I have an agenda, when he tells the truth I have no issue. It’s when they start lying that I have an issue.

“After the Marines made their presentation in the hearing, one sergeant came over to me afterward and thanked me for being there because he said they were not allowed to tell the truth. The film that was shown where the Marines are shooting a manhole cover - in that film they’re talking about the long-range capability of the rifle - the Marines said that shot was made at a hundred yards and the film, the way they said it, makes you think it was at a thousand yards. It was a complete deception, orchestrated by Mr. Waxman. He would not let the Marines talk.

“Waxman never chose to deal with me again after I appeared. I told them straight out, You need to ban Louisville Sluggers because they kill more people than Fifties. Plastic buckets, bathtubs, they kill more people than Fifties, we need to ban all of those.

“Through that whole hearing I sat right next to the guy from that Violence Policy Center or whatever it is, and he twisted every fact. I sat right next to him, shoulder to shoulder, and throughout the hearing he lied and lied and lied. He’s being paid to lie, I guess.”

“We’re under attack,” says Rock McMillan of McMillan Rifles. “We have a fight. So far we’ve been able to win. We’re getting support from non-Fifty shooters.

“It’s a calculated attack. It’s not a public safety issue. As far as we can determine, no one’s ever been killed with a 50-caliber rifle used in a crime. So it isn’t a public safety issue. There are many other areas that deserve a lot more attention than this thing that’s not a threat. It’s the old story of the camel’s nose under the tent. They figured they could attack this very small group of shooters who wouldn’t have enough people stand up and fight for them.

“Once they’ve established that they can outlaw a cartridge based on its power, then who’s to say you really need that 454 Casull? Who’s to say you need a 460 Weatherby? It’s just too powerful, you don’t really need it. Once they’ve established a precedent that says we can outlaw a cartridge based on how powerful it is, that just opens the doors for everything.

“I think it’s a very calculated step to attack somebody they didn’t think was going to be able to put up a big fight. There’s only a couple thousand of us in the whole country. They figured we would be the sacrificial lamb, that the NRA would be glad to give us up if they thought it was going to buy them something down the road. The NRA started off a little slow, but once we got their attention they’ve been supportive.

“Again, it’s not a public safety issue, because 50-cals are not the weapon of choice by criminals. And I don’t care what they tell you, they’re not the weapon of choice by terrorists. Even if someone were to choose one to use in a terrorist act, the fact that they’re illegal for private citizens to buy isn’t going to keep the terrorists from getting one.”

Robbie Barrkman, president of Robar, sums up the feeling of every shooter worthy of the name when he states, “Fifties are under political attack now by people like that Waxman. He’s a little maggot.”

Once the gun-banners have outlawed and confiscated one class of firearm they move on to the next. And the next. If they can’t yet procure an outright ban, they tax them to death, as they have already done with the automatic rifle, the short-barreled shotgun and suppressed firearms of every kind. They are now attempting the same bureaucratic scheme to pry the .50 BMG out of the hands of American marksmen.

Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY) and Kennedy (D-MA) (NOT anymore, he's DEAD) introduced a bill that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include .50 BMG rifles among those firearms burdened with a $200 federal extortion tax enforced by the very real threat of a 10-year prison term.

The purpose of all taxation is social engineering, but when the penalty for non-payment of a $200 tax bill is 10 years in federal prison, you know there’s some seriously queer social engineering going on.

If Santa Anna had succeeded in confiscating that old fire-breathing six-pound cannon from the Texans, do you think he might have taken all the shotguns and rifles and pistols next? And then the knives, box-cutters, scissors and nail-files? And then what do you imagine he might have done to the impotent, helpless, disarmed subjects quivering and sniveling before his absolute power?

To the totalitarians, cowards and weaklings of today - Obamadama Ding Ding, Waxman, Conyers, Feinstein, Schumer, the Clinton crew, the Brady bunch and all the other political criminals who seek to steal our freedom - we must again stand up and say, “Come and take it.”

Go ahead. Make my day.

Hey Sarge. Ever try your voting power? It works. Thanks to the ones that wrote the consitution.
All of the other confetti that you used to support guns is nothing but your personal bull.

God Bless you Texans. I may not be a Texan by birth but I am Texan by spirit. I too, like our founding fathers, am willing to give up my wealth and my life just as I pledged by a military oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United states. I too say come and take it.

To correct Mr. John Burge and a few others stupidity when he replied to my earlier remarks, and he said that I should not be on this Veteran's page since he claimed that I'm not a Veteran. To answer him, I'm a proud U.S. Army Vietnam Era Veteran, and a retired Federal Government person of many years with the U.S. Government, and long time member of the American Legion. John Burge is just teed off because I put him in his place. He and a few others are just some radical Republicans, perhaps some mad Tea Party people, who hate the Government, because they can't have their way in our free society to do whatever they wish and please, and get away with it, without any laws. Remember, our Forefathers established our Government and the Constitution, whom some radical Republicans want to destroy it. As I said before, the 2nd Amendment Rights don't specificlly state bare arms of your choice. I've researched it. Many people misinterpret it, and twist it to their need. A year 1776 Musket is not a Military style AK assault rifle that holds 100 or 200 or so ammo per clip to target and slaughter innocent kids or any one innocent. Plus the 2nd amendment rights didn't specify bare arms for hunting or tarket shooting. Plus I'm sick of hearing from Radio and TV from some experts, that everybody who does these horrible things are only sick and insane. And shortly later everything is forgoten. That's and excuse. Let's get this straight. Some people are mad, expecially some radical Republicans, because they think Uncle Sam wants all their guns, want to control everything, and they feel the Government is all bad and corrupted. Like I said before, Private Industries is not always great either. Some have Corporate Greed, White Collar Crime, Ponzi Schemes, and Fruad. Radical Republicans want no Government. They worship Private Industry and Coporate America, because that's their God. All they see is having more Money, Power, Sex, and Greed. They want everything lawless, and no Government. It's either their way or no way. So if Radical Republicans don't want no Government, well then lets end all Government. Which means no Military; no Government and no Military Pay and Retirement Pay; no Police, both City, County, State, and Federal, FBI, CIA and end thier Pay; no Firefighters and end their pay; no Courts or City Hall, no Forest Ranges or Park Rangers; no Prisons, Wardens or Guards; end all Government agencies of City, County, State, and Federal, and their pay. Just let everything be controlled by Private Industries and Coporate America with no Government oversite. I guess we'll have another Wall Stree disaster and Economy disaster with Coporate Greed, Ponzi Schemes, and Fraud, and more School massacres. Americans will only wake up when all Congress people hear about their families were massacre, GOD forbid. Then Gun Control law will come to center focus of attention. So far many radical Republicans are just playing games. Misinterpreting the 2nd Admendment Rights. Trying to start some stupid stuff. Worshiping AM Talk Radio host Rush Limbo, and worshiping the NRA, which used to be good long-time-ago. And their mad because we have a Black U.S. President, who's keeping Congress and Radical Republicans feet to the fire, to stop bigotry, corruption, fraud, malpractice, Racism, White collar crimes, and etc., so that everyone plays by the same rules, on the same sheet of music, get a fair chance, due process, and play the cards right. Some people say, How do you “cut the Mustard”, “throw the Dice”, “slice it”, or “draw the line” to satisfy anyone? Well the answer is strict Laws and rules. A good example is such: Handicap parking space sign says violators be charged $2,000.00 and there's a cop patrolling the area every 10 mins. I bet nobody parks there if they're not handicap.!? U.S. Laws do matter, if their enforced. So , John Burge, that's stop this B.S. and twisting the 2nd Amendment rights to suit your needs, and your people's rights to slaughter people, who look stupid.

Alvin, my words were "you're surely not smart enough to be a Vet" and you have shown nothing to make me reassess that remark. teed off because you "put me in my place"? don't run off celebrating just yet- you have hardly done anything close to that. I never said i hate the government, but i do distrust it. live without laws? destroy the government? progressive lies that an intelligent man would see right through. where in the Constitution does it deny me the right to own what i choose? let's see your "research'" that you've claimed to have twice now. no a revolutionary war era musket is not an AK, what's your point? is it, that because so called "assault weapons"
weren't invented yet that they're not covered under the second, ninth, or tenth Amendments? if that's your argument, then radio,tv, and the internet wouldn't be covered under the first Amendment either. our Founding Fathers were smart enough to see advances in tools, medical practices and even the practice of rifling gun barrels. if you are what you say - you must be around 70 years old; haven't you see technology, mechanical, and so on advancements? but you portray the Founding Fathers as a bunch of dumb hicks in this. democrats like you can only lie and cast all blame elsewhere, never believing you had any part in causing problems; an honest person will share in their responsibility of the situation. you mention God like you're a Christian, the book of genesis states that "God created man in his own image" and science states that we're all members of the homo-sapiens race. can you tell what skin tone a man was just by looking at his skeleton? I'll answer that, NO! you can't! i don't care what color the President's skin is, but you certainly do or else you wouldn't have brought him into the conversation like that! and i can go round with you all day long on his law-breaking,corruption, etc. remember to bring your "research" along with you next time!

excuse me homo sapiens species or human race

So many people with so many ideas of what should be and not. I agree with your comments completely. If people would take time out and look at what this world is coming to, just maybe we can turn it around. But by the looks of things, it`s going to really get worse and all Hell is about to happen! But I guess that`s what it is going to take to wake everyone up to what needs to be done. History is always repeating itself, but in this case we are doomed if we don`t change our ways!

I don't know if you was watching Biden speak to some group of Anti-Gun Liberals or not, but he made another remark, that is literally stupid. His Comment was: We need more new Gun Laws because the ones we have on the Book,s, right now, aren't working. Stupid or what - What do you think ???? Thank you for your time. TSgt,., USAF Retired.

My view is the Army and the Marine Corps better forget this looney idea Instead of a team you will
have a bunch of competators looking to score with the young lady in their squad. I was in the green when the Army allowed women to train with the men in field situations. Bad news. Keep women out of the Combat Arms in the Army and the Marine Corps.

Thank you American Legion for your direction in this matter.
First I would like to say that we need to perpetuate the memory of our verterans who gave their lives in the pursit of their duties keeping this country free. That their dedication, deeds and supreme sacrafice be a constant surce of motivation towards greater accomplishments. Pledge loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America and its Constitution. It don't matter which service you served in. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, or Reserve. If you gave the oath, it is your duty to pass this knowlege on to your family, and your neighbors. It does not matter if they say you are just a crazy old coot. Because they watched the news and the cool thing is to hand in Grandpas M1 Garand for 50 or 100 bucks to be destroyed. We all know that the media stands for the highest dollar. And what is popuar today, can be detested tomorrow.
So at the fear of being to long winded.
God bless you all.
Mike "Willie' Williamson EN2/SS

Ben Franklin said it best (Paraphrasing here) "those willing to give up freedoms for perceived safety, deserve neither." You people out there that are so willing to let the government and the news media lie about so called "assault weapons" and then agree with them about restricting your freedoms and Constitutional rights fall squarely into the crowd Ben was talking about. The second amendment is not about hunting, it certainly is not about militia's. It IS about every citizens right to defend themselves, their families, their property, and their country from all enemies from outside and from within. Including defending the nation from a socialist takeover like the one occurring now.

Since the Vietnam War, military women have been killed and severely wounded by enemy action.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, women have routinely accompanied combat patrols, in the event it becomes
necessary to search or deal in other ways with civilian women. They have suffered the same dangers, injuries and fatalities as males in those patrols. So, the question of women in combat is a moot one
However, to completley remove restrictions on the assignment of women in combat organizations is only supported by those who are completely ignorant of the hardship, terror, unbridled violence, and physical demands that the combat arms Marine/soldier faces during normal operations - or they are politically motivated, seek elevation in rank, or other improvement of their positions. Women routinely serve as combat pilots, crew members on naval vessels that are subject to combat operations, military medical units, and other duties that put them in harm's way. In today's world, such employment is proper, and understandable. To open the combat arms to unrestricted assignment of women is not only unwise - it is idiotic! The physical demands on the average infantryman engaged in combat operations, on a sustained, continuous basis, could not be physically
tolerated by the "average" female soldier. Certainly, there are a small percentage of women - those who are body-builders and superb athletes, who could do the job, but they are a very small minority.
I fear that regardless of the many reasons that can be presented against allowing women to become combat arms soldiers, it will happen. The price these females will pay, and the damage that will be
inflicted on our force structure and ability to win on the gruesome, terrifying, hellish field of battle, will severely limit our combat capability.

W Churchill said it best with "you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they tried everything else."
What we see now is the same as every other action after an incident, its called Knee jerk!!!
Maybe what we really need to do is back off a bit and find a balance between the right of the individual and general well being of the public at large.
At this time banning assult weapons and magizine size is a lot like closing the barn doors after the horses are out. Except in this case we just create a market. Before Shady Hook an AR15 cost around $800.00 now just the speculation of a ban and the cost is $2500 Plus. Insisting that mental health providers report any person that may go postal would be a violation of their right to privacy.

Lets just all step back, Look to see what if anything could or should be done then fight to get it done

December 15, 1791, what kind of weapons did this country have when the 2nd amendment was adopted.? I just counted nine hunting guns I own and not one of them is an assault weapon. What in the hell is an assault weapon good for. Most people who wants these kind of weapons is young and retarted. I could see owning an assualt weapon if this country was invaded by some alien from some other planet. The assualt weapon I would prefer would be the .45 ACP THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN, (A GUN WITH A NAME) The marjority of the people who wants an assualt weapon is kids 40 years old and still home with moma. I have a remington 7mm mag that one shot will put you on your knees at 700 yards so think about it when you come after me with some ugly ass assualt weapon.

To Mr. Mike Johnson . Tell that line to the Army vet At ruby ridge. How about them Branch Dividians all dead, men, women and children thanks to Janet Reno. The king of all the Democrats FDR didn't He imprison American citizens with no Habius corpus. Keith as far as the military firing on American citizens. How about the military firing on other military vets post WWI in Washington DC, the Bonus army. During the war protest in 1968 they almost used the 6th marines from Lejune for riot control in DC. Let me tell you If the order was given I would have done it. As a naive 17 teen yr old I would have done it. Then thinking about it later, I would not have done it again. I have been a responsible gun owning citizen since I was 13 years old. Spent 4 years in the Marine Corps. Yet as a Pistol permit holder in the wonderful state of New York my name and address was posted on the internet by the Gannett news. Along with all the retired police and prison Guards. Then the states next move accomplished by our illustrious Governor Cuomo, in a speech reminiscent of the raving speeches of Adolf Hitler, mentions confiscation of weapons he deems to be assault weapons. All under the guise of protecting our children. Till today I did not know the position of The legion on the second amendment. Now that I do, I will for ever be a member, unless that position changes.
• I don't see that happening while I still breath. We as Veterans must not let the perversion of the second amendment happen. No denial of second amendment rights to our sons and daughters returning from combat just because they might seek help due to combat stress. Semper Fi

I'm an x-marine i served in beirut lebanon i was diagnosed with ptsd 10 yrs ago i admit that when it hit me the hardest i needed help but after time has gone by my life has leveled out very well i love to hunt and i have a life time hunting license i don't have any felonies and i have never pulled a gun on someone un less my life or my property was being abused i have no desire to hurt anyone and never have if i would have known now what that my gun rights were a going to be in danger because of me serving my country i would have took my chances on my own i can't believe that the gov. that i served wants to take my gunrights for being a good citizen i feal like a convict and all i did was protect my country to me an assault weapon is any thing that can do you bodily harm no matter if it is a stick your hands or an assault rifle or at least that is what the service teaches you and the law can charge you with i'm not a crimnal and congress needs to remember this .

Thank You American Legion. I am a Vet and I support your stand on the Second Amendment.
I was also in Law Enforcement And a sportsman.

Where does the militia come from? It is comprised of men and women who come out of their homes, with the weapons that they own, and band together to protect those that cannot protect themselves. So I belong to whatever Militia forms when the need arises, because I have weapons that can be effective against whatever enemy, however they are armed, that threatens our community.
And one more thing. Driving is not a privelege! I am not thankful that the state allows me to drive. We pay for everything that has to do with driving, and most people could not work without driving. The State exists at our pleasure, and unless I demonstarte that I am incapable of driving safely, The State needs to stay out of our vehicles.

I'm confused... really confused.

Regardless what your position is relative to the Second Amendment, there are many inconsistencies from government agencies, the media and on this site.

I am told "nobody needs a military type assault weapon and high capacity magazines", "just use a double barrel shotgun" (Joe Biden), "grab a pair of scissors to take down an active shooter if you can't hide or run" (Department of Homeland Security).

The Department of Homeland Security recently ordered 7000 M-4 select fire 5.56 assault rifles (by definition, since they fire an intermediate cartridge, are select fire - capable of full auto, and have a detatchable box magazine). When the semi-auto version is used by "civillians", the term is Assault Weapon. When the full-auto version is ordered by DHS, the term is PDW - personal defense weapon. This is the same department that suggests using a pair of scissors to confront an active shooter if you can't run or hide.

Of course, any legislation passed exempts law enforcement as well as "other government agencies". You may be adverse to firearms; you may be adverse to the modern sporting rifles - the so-called "assault weapons". That's fine - that is indeed your perrogative. However, do not attempt to deny my rights under the Second Amendment.

Do I "need" these "guns designed for one pupose only - to kill many people in a short amount of time"? Nobody "needs" MOST of what we currently possess or aspire to own. Nobody "needs" a car capable of speeds in excess of the posted limit, yet most automobiles easily exceed the limits. Do I "need" to smoke cigarettes, cigars or drink alcohol? No, but many of us enjoy some or all of these vices. "Do people need..." is an ill-defined question.

The quesiton then is "if my government decrees that nobody "needs" these weapons and magazines, why does the government exempt themselves?" In a free society, I DEMAND the RIGHT to exercise ownership of anything my government - including military and police - has access to. We are already limited in this regard, as ownership of NFA weapons (full auto / short barreled rifles / short barreled shotguns / "any other weapons" / destructive devices) are banned in less than half of the states. There are no such restrictions on the military, police or "other government agencies.

Since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act (the regulation of weapons stated above), there have been two murders comitted with legally owned automatic weapons - both by law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers have a 400% higher arrest record for domestic violence than the average American, yet these are the people who are automatically EXEMPTED from firearms regulation. I still have a great deal of respect for law enforcement personnel, but my quesion is this - if nobody "needs" these weapons of "mass killing", why do our police departments and "other government agencies" have them?

Yes, I demand the right to own. If you choose not to, that's your call - DO NOT decide what I as a law-abiding citizen "can" and "can not" have.

Molon Labe.

I have a difference of opinion on assault weapons. I consider firearms DEFENSIVE weapons as in self protection and preservation.

Pages

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Have a tip for us? A link that should appear here? Contact us.
News from the World of Military and Veterans Issues. Iraq and A-Stan in parenthesis reflects that the author is currently deployed to that theater.