The Second Amendment has NEVER been about "hunting" -- "A well-regulated militia . . . " is about providing an armed electorate as a defense against a tyrannical government. Jefferson talks about this, Hamilton, Madison.

Second Amendment is about defense, not hunting. And it's entirely proper that law abiding Americans should have their right to keep and bear arms (military arms) not infringed by a tyrannical government.

History proves that the first act of a tyrannical government is to confiscate, register, or otherwise restrict the people's access to firearms. English Common Law, Magna Carta recognized that the people own the arms, not the government.

Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison derived the Bill of Rights from English Common Law. And it took some significant vertebrae . . .

I would be inclined to be a little kinder to those people in Congress. After all, any legislation that concerns firearms fuels the fires of the Fear & Smear Republicans who seek to stir up single-issue voters. There are enough weapons, of all types, available to those who want to kill and wound our citizens. What is the difference between a gunman who shoots many people before taking his own life and a suicide bomber? The current administration realizes this and knows that proposing anything that can be fuel the fires of unreasoning fear that "They will take our guns away" would be shooting themselves in the foot. (Pardon the pun, but it is my favorite form of humor.)

Sir;.... The government does not need a spine, but it does need to be democratic, and follow the will of the people...Now; I am not inclined to own an asassault rifle... The rifle I do own is some Polish army reject that some one tried to butcher up and put a scope on...I say my prayers and then I pull the trigger, and so far it hasn't killed me...But I am hunting for larger game than a rifle can bring down... And, unlike most of my friends on the right, I believe if it comes to making a stand against the government, which is the true object of the 2nd. Amendment; by the point where that become necessary it will be useless... If this government thinks it will help them to hold power, they will nuke us, or nerve gas us, or germ warfare us... The only method of making it disappear is to withdraw our trust, and our faith, our obedience, and our allegiance; and get on with building a new form of government to replace the old...Guns are old technology and useless against a government that owns so many, and so many high tech machines of death..It is a natural, emotional response that makes every worm turn..NO.. It is to reason that I appeal... When people change their minds, weapons are unnecessary, and really, pointless... If the government wanted to make every high power, high rate of fire weapon in the country useless; it would simply control the amunitiion... What citizen army in this country has the ability to make even an ounce of gun powder??? The whole notion of protection from government is idiotic... Either government is legitimate; in which case, it governs as the people will, or it is not legitimate, and in that case, should simply be re-formed... Those people who want violent revolution only want violence... There is not one part of revolution that requires violence of itself... Rather; counter revolution is always violent, and to hang on to the past no crime is ever thought unnecessary... So people, all people, have the right, and should try to defend themselves against government, or anyone else... Or they are not free...But to attack the government, as people seem quite willing to do in this time of stress, is a last gasp of pain and frustration... Are the police, which is to say, the law, a problem??? Law is just a form, and forms are changed one for another all the time...Is the eeconomy the problem??? The economy is just a form; and forms are changed, one for another, all the time... Is the government a problem??? Governments are just a form, and forms are changed, one for another, all the time... The entire history of human kind is the story of changing forms....And it is what we often must do...If an old form says you are not needed, and you are expected to drop dead; it is time to change the form...Look at the vast numbers employed, detained, or killed by law enforcement; and are we any closer to a law abiding society??? We have 25% of the criminal population of the world, having only 5% of the world's population, and there is no doubt that law enforcement consumes great quantities of our resources, and money, and time...Is Justice right around the corner, for them; or for us???Our forms fail us, and because they are built to resist change nothing on earth can make them work once they have learned to loaf... People stuck in forms that do not serve them think to fight their way out...It is not necessary...If you want out, you are out, and it is time to get on with your life in another, perhaps more informal form of relationship...I do not like the government, so the government is done...Now all I have to do is govern myself, my own behavior, and suddenly I am free of tyranny... People must look at forms as voluntary... We are an association of friends, and if your friends displease you, they are not your friends... So do not think it is necessary to fight...Resist the government...Resist the law...Resist the economy...Form new relationships, and then form new forms... Simple...Thanks...And Thanks Again Mark Shields for your opinion...You are a good man, and I know you want good... But greater government power, and more laws has not ever resulted in good...Or let me put it another way: If the government does not use its ample power to do good now, it needs no more power, but less...More power is not the cure for too little of will... Thanks...Sweeney

Re: Genghis Khan; ... Your exalted eminence sir, the right to bear arms was once an obligation in every free city, and no man could be admitted as a citizen without the ability to bear arms...You can see where the obligation became in time a right, and now that it is seen as a threat to order, as not a right at all because the rich and their government feel threatened by it...It is not our freedom they want to protect...It is our freedom they most fear...And who can blame them???It is for this same reason that short horned cattle where bred...If your existence depends upon what you can take from others by force, the last thing you want is the fear to use your force... What criminal wants his victims armed??? If the object of prison is to suffer the convict with every indignity imaginable, what fool would not resist it to the death??? People often suffer great indignity to have their jobs... If after that indignity they should suffer the indignity of unemployment, or pauperism; why not fight back???What I hate to see is people taking out the failure of their whole society on their own children, or on themselves, or on other innocents... I can understand an expression of violence...People's lives are being shattered... But, for God's sake, find some one you know is guilty, at a minimum...The thing is, that the government, and the rich cover themselves with security...There are more private police in this country than public police... So the poor and the suffering population have no one to take their violence out on but other people, just like themselves... Clearly, the more violence seems the only alternative, the less it really is... When a gun seems the correct tool for the job it is time instead to use ones head...I may be different... I have a sense of personal power.... No matter how much futility threatens us, I think we owe it to ourselves to make every difference we can... So many people striking out have no better effect than so many kittens in a pillowcase thrown in a river...We must do better to hope to do good.....Thanks...Sweeney

Dear Southern Neighbour,

Go travel. Go to Europe, go to Australia or come up here and visit us. Then you'll see your country more clearly. You'll see 300 million people holding 800 million guns. You'll see a country that enshrines in its constitution the right to bear those guns, and you'll see that the fight to get even the most ridiculous of those weapons off the street is completely lost.
Stiffer gun control works in a country like Canada because gun ownership is already severly limited. You can still go hunt moose or goose, and you can even go to a shooting range and try out an AK-47, if you like - but you can't stockpile assault weapons in you're basement or carry them around in your truck. If you did, and you were caught, you'd go to jail for a very long time, which is good, because I don't want the guy across the street with a bad temper to be in legal possession of automatic weapons. That's the way it is up here, but I'm afraid that's the way it can never be in your country.
As someone who admires the United States for so many good reasons, (baseball, blues, jazz, bluegrass, bourbon, etc.), my only suggestion to those who support gun control in American is this - go buy a gun. Now.

You're gonna need it.

This is a home run, Mark. And you did a nice job of dispatching that pathetic blob of calcium-deprived protoplasm Rich Lowry yesterday on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, though I guess that's not saying much. I'm sure you headed for the showers as soon as you could after having to share the same space with him. As far as "Genghis Kahn" is concerned, how dare he tarnish that great name with his comfy-duff, couch-fantasy sillyness. If we follow his logic we should allow citizens to arm themselves with tanks, bombs, and anti-aircraft weapons. The intent of the Constitution was to create unity and a country, not to guarantee perpetual readiness to engage in wholesale slaughter. Can the second amendment fanatics actually believe the framers were thinking: "Yup, we want to make sure every single citizen, far in the future when machine guns actually exist, has the right to stock up on them"? No they can't. They just want their toys and their dreams about fighting in the streets and teaching all those liberals a good lesson. The trouble is, some can't be happy with just dreaming about it.

The last "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't work. During the last assault weapons ban I personally purchased a 9mm Glock 17 with a 17 rd. magazine, along with several additional magazines at greatly inflated prices ("Pre-Ban" mags, and the ban drove up the price.). I purchased an Uzi Mod. 45 Carbine -- folding stock, pistol grip. I purchased an Uzi Mod. 45 Micro Machine Pistol. Both Uzis came with high capacity magazines. ("Grandfathered" and not subject to the AWB) I purchased -- during the Assault Weapons Ban -- an AK-47. The AK-47 was "altered" and became the SAR1 -- American mfg'd trigger mechanism, no bayonet lug, no folding stock. The AK was equiped with two 30 rd magazines, two 40 rd. magazines, and a Bulgarian 75 rd. drum magazine, all "Pre-Ban" and legal.. I purchased two AR-15's -- the civilian version of the military M-16. Per the "AWB" these rifles had no flash suppressor, no folding stock, but they were sold with 20 rd magazines and additional magazines were readily available ("Pre Ban" magazines, and not expensive.). Let's add here that none of these firearms have threatened or killed anyone or anything. Democrats learned that the "Assault Weapons Ban" doesn't work, and that "gun control" is a losing political issue. Laws don't prevent violence. There are plenty of laws forbidding the shooting of civilians, police, students. Take away the guns and people get stabbed, bludgeoned, poisoned. There are laws forbidding import of firearms into Mexico. These laws don't stop criminals, don't stop smuggling, don't stop guns, don't stop the drugs that fuel the crime. Gun laws only deprive law abiding Americans their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms -- as a defense against a tyrannical government. And you'd better think twice when you assert that the government doesn't fear an armed electorate -- speaking of vertebrae.

Re: John;...There is no way around the fact that each person's defense is there own responsibility, and no amount of handing that job off to police or army or politicians makes anyone any safer... Can you see what the Japanese did during WWII with junk weapons for the most part, and how those people intended to defend their homes with pointed sticks???No one could bear the price of attacking us if we were universally armed... Sure they could nuke us, but we stand as good a chance of our own worthless government nuking us as anyone... The willingness of this people to take a stand, even if it is the wrong stand at the wrong time taking out innocents or relatives is the only thing keeping our government from running rough shod all over our bleeding hearts...Like I say, I am not heavily armed, and hope to God I die before I am ever faced with the choice of taking or losing life... That is not a choice I feel free to make for another...I hate the willingness of people to consider taking human life, or the poor excuses they make for doing so... I hate most of what the right stands for, and they are the ones with most of the guns... Yet, I support their right to arms, far more than their government supports their right...If we are a democracy we have to be free, and allow freedom, and trust all our neighbors with arms, and all rights...I realize we are not a democracy, but that is the goal; and that lack of trust in our neighbors in the conduct of their own affairs is about the only thing standing between ourselves and democracy...And something else...It is our powerlessness that allows the general lack of respect we find so prevelent...Now; I don't have to think of people as armed to show them the respect I naturally feel...But; I would dare anyone to bad mouth an armed man, and this society should connect with the past, and understand that the social contract consists of each m an giving up his immediate resort to violence for certain justice, in the promise that justice will be soon forthcoming...This is a land that sorely lacks for justice in every day affairs, and I do not blame anyone in the least for taking matters into their own hands..I blame anyone living a life of quiet desparation....It is not regretable, but tragic; that societies do not make an issue of justice, so that individuals must...Is it too much to ask, since this government was formed with the purpose of achieving justice, that we put Justice one step ahead of profits??? Thanks...Sweeney

Re: Masako;...If you don't trust your neighbors, you haven't got any...What would make them more trust worthy and responsible would be to have democracy, and to have to consider the consequences, and understand that the reactionaries have no more authority over the liberals than the liberals have over them... We all have to give to others their space, and their rights, and if that means that they make spitting in the street illegal, and punish it with public hangings in their neighborhoods, then we have to allow them that right, and demand the same...Trying to use simple majorities to control everyone only results in everyone losing rights, and in the demagogues gaining... Democracy does not empower right against wrong, but each person against every other...And out of that understanding we must seek consensus to have change...Thanks...Sweeney

Re: "Genghis Khan": Well, should we outlaw murder because people just go ahead and murder anyway? I do agree with you, however, that laws banning various crimes, including laws that ban machine guns if they are passed, will just cause more of the problem they are meant to correct if they are not enforced. Our lawmakers are famous for putting down pretty, symbolic words on paper and riding off into the sunset looking for more poetic opportunities instead of actually doing something to make their august pronouncements bear some relation to reality. I believe in owning guns because the government simply cannot come close to adequately enforcing the laws that are supposed to keep us safe from crime. I still remember living through the aftermath of an earthquake and roving bands of unsavory folks, while cops were nowhere to be found, and how naked I felt not having the slightest defense against those who had the opportunity to take advantage. I will never let myself get into that kind of position again. Yes, the second amendment is not about hunting. But neither is it about hardwiring the kind of lawlessness we see in Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, and thanks to our former president, Iraq, into a permanent state of affairs. That is exactly what will happen here if our laws, with competent enforcement, do not draw the line between weapons that allow individuals a reasonable opportunity to protect themselves against crime and those that will send us down the path of instability that seems to be eating up so much of the planet these days.

Napoleonic Code holds that the "king" owns the property, and the guns. English Common Law (Magna Carta) is a departure from Napoleonic Code, ruling instead that property and guns belong to the people. Framers of the Constitution, writers of the Declaration of Independence applied that theory of popular ownership and Democracy in the line: "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed." The people own the guns, and determine the rule of law, not the government. The government serves the people. The people are not subjects of the government. The founders hold that these are rights "endowed by the Creator" and not the law of man. The means for ensuring this balance of power "necessary to the security of a free state" is to provide for a "well regulated militia." The militia is regulated by the consent of the governed, who shall have the power afforded in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And so before you argue this concept, read Scalia's opinion in "Heller v. Washington DC," SCOTUS 07-290. We have stare decisis now.

Re: Genghis Khan and the history of law: First of all, its DC v. Heller, not the other way around. And while it's no great masterpiece, it does not support your position any more than the First Amendment cases support yelling "Fire!" in a packed movie theater. But the main thing is that you don't need a bunch of robed men and women socked away in the never-never land of Washington D.C. to tell you what the obvious result of unlimited controls on weapons is. Maybe you should take your arsenal and head for Afghanistan to check things out. While you're at it, you might do some research on the history of Yugoslavian jurisprudence, may it rest in peace, or perhaps how they do law in some of those crumbling African countries.

A new ban on semi-automatic rifles will have the same effect as the last one. There will be no reduction in crime and the Democrats will lose control of congress.

Military assault weapons are created for maximum lethality on the battlefield. Their rounds cause unspeakable damage for any soldier or combatant unlucky enough to be near the target. The founders could not imagine how their common sense intentions outlined in the 2nd amendment have gone awry. Take a look at the future of weapons and on the horizon are weapons that will make the AK-147 look like a toy cap gun. Keep the military assault weapons on the battlefield where they belong-the do not belong in civilian society.

Re: Masako
You keep bringing up "Machine Guns". You do realize that an assault weapons ban has absolutely nothing to do with "Machine guns" don't you? Machine Guns have been heavily regulated since 1934 (Research: National Firearms Act) and banned from public sale since 1986 (Research: Firearm Owners Protection Act).

This is the worst part of this media storm that is hitting our country in regards to the Assault Weapons Bans....lies. An Assault Weapons Ban is nothing more than a purely cosmetic ban on guns. Nothing outlined in the ban does anything to improve the "killing power" of any of these weapons. The funniest part of all this? The actual Military Weapons than your average joe can buy, aren't even included in the ban. Show me the last time that the military issued actual AR-15's, and I will show you how the M1 Garand (not outlined in the ban) was the main issue weapon in WWII and basically won it for the U.S. Yet because the AR-15 has a moveable stock, pistol grip, flash hider and is all black, it looks much more scary than an M1 Garand, which happens to shoot a much more powerful round int he 30-06.

To the Author. If you are going to attack guns, I suggest you get your so called "facts" straight. #1 A Semi-automatic weapon CANNOT fire off "hundreds of rounds in mere seconds". Unless you have some kind of magic finger that can pull a trigger that many times that fast, you are making that up.

#2 The Binghamton shooter did NOT use any so called "assault weapons". He used 2 basic handguns.

Any more lies you want to make up to push your agenda?

Re: OnlyTruth: Well, you know, the Framers probably had an even less sophisticated notion about guns than poor old unsophisticated me. All of those weapons that can turn living flesh into hamburger meat in a few short or long seconds are machine guns to me. The hamburger factor is, after all, why they're used to wage war. So I don't really care about the technical distinctions. I just think, like most people who would like to see war not be a way of life for us, whether in the "gentlemanly" form that western democracies like to buy or in the street-to-street episodes cropping up all over the globe like little cancers growing toward each other, that freedom to build arsenals for fun and fetish is not the way to go and not what the Framers had in mind.

Re: Masako; sir; a flintlock rifle was the stinger missle of its age, and the government could have banned it; but without the promise of rights, the constitution would not have been bought by the people... And there is another factor...It is possible people subscribed less to the second amendment then, and cared little for the thought of any military service, and that the government, without the means to tax and support a standing army actually expected to be backed up by a well regulated militia....How things have changed, where now the government fears the people...The thing is; I consider myself liberal in most respects, but I shake my head at liberals who know first hand the injustice of government, have suffered it far more than the conservatives, and have no reason to believe they will not suffer injustice and violence at the hands of their government again, and yet they support the right of the government to disarm the people... What la la land are they living in???I trust the worst of my neighbors armed better than I trust the government...The cops have machine guns, full automatic assault rifles; and you tell me that law abiding citizens cannot have an automatic knockoff... I love this Mark Shields...The man is a true humanitarian, but having been in the military, he should realize that the difference between those inside, and those outside of the military is nil... And he tells a little lie when he compares Assault Rifles with the military version... They are simply not the same... And if one could get a sur pin to change the fire to full auto, that would be illegal in any respect...I trust my neighbors, but what makes them terribly dangerous is the threat to their lives, and to their rights...If they live a million miles out in the sticks, there is no police force in the world they can count on for support, and none they could afford to have standing by...They have to take care of themselves as we all must...Mr. Obama is a pragmatic man... He knows that to do good he must have power, and to have power he must do good... For enough people, a threat to their rights, especially their rights to self defense is not doing good... I expect Mr. Obama is smart enough to know this...There is simply not enough force to take this right, and now that we need to work together, to form a reasonable coalition, this weapons ban idea will not happen... And I rejoice... No person is made better by being robbed of rights.. If people are reasonable they will never kill...If they are not reasonable they cannot be stopped from killing... If they are sometimes reasonable, a law for the misuse of weapons should be clear and strong... Thanks...Sweeney

Re: Jeff Beall; Sir,...Tomahawks and scalping knives did a lot of damage too, in the rights hands with the will behind them...The difference betweenthis age and that age is not really the cruelty of the weapons, but the perception among the government that the governed are so many mutinous aliens, not deserving of trust or power...The first people governed by the constituton were more democratic; they spoke their minds, and they voted their will, and they did not fear to punch any rascal in the nose, or take a punch for their opinions... Being democratic they knew they were the law, and and were the government, as we have forgotten... We can't even dare to let children donny brook it on a play ground... We are so fettered by law that we fear to look crosseyed at anyone, and need to have a lawyer on retainer to have a simple conversation.... It is not just nutty; but God aweful stupid that we would manage our lives this way...And I hate it that our leaders seem willing enough to send a cruise missle flying, having absolutly no idea where it will land or who it will kill when they have never had to draw a line in the dirt, and take on a fight there was no way in hell they were going to win... Are our leaders just a bunch of nancys???They will send our kids to kill when they can't even make a fist... It may seem strange to liberal ears, but humanity has come out of carnage, and we may have to go through it again... Until the peace of the world is certain, everyone should stay prepared.... We have enough laws, and our laws have not brought us peace, or tranquility, or justice... Until law can show a better man, a man who is made better by his experience with the law, there is simply no point in offering more of it...To my mind, law makes criminals rotten, and police rotten, and judges and attorneys rotten, and the government rottenest of all.... People have always been willing to lay down their weapons for justice... Give us justice and keep the damned laws...Thanks...Sweeney

Re: James A, Sweeney. My good friend, I disagree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it. And especially when it comes to defending you. You may be right, I admit I don't know for sure. But it seems even you agree the line must be drawn somewhere. The knock-off is okay, but the real thing is not--do you agree with that? How about if Rush Limbo wants to buy a military tank or a bazooka? He just might consider himself entitled and anointed to use same. Cheers. Masako.

I have a feeling if Barry had the benefit of watching the flow of the US for the past 20 years, he wouldn't look at it the way he apparently did - according to your quote. Barry wasn't perfect. Let's take the statement of a well-known liberal from Barry's day... & see if he didn't have a better viewpoint - (The 2nd Amendment ain't about duck-huntin').

Vice President Hubert Humphrey:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to always be possible." I think we may need more than single-shot rifles if his warning comes true. Anti-gun mentality would be better focused on enforcing the thousands of gun laws already on the books, & more consistent/severe punishment of criminals. ( My dad was a lifetime policeman). Mike