It`s every Americans right to bear arms. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?. (311)

Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston

BOSTON
National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambus...hed on April 19th by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.

Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.











































Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

. . . And this, people, is how the American Revolution began .

April 20, 1775

“As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a “well regulated” militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.”

Wrong.

The term “well-regulated”, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant “functioning properly, functioning as expected”, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means “tightly controlled”, and is at odds with the “shall not be infringed” phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it’s explicit prohibition.

This view is completely missing the point. The issue is a societal one and does not boil down to whether a single individual has a right to bear arms. Of course the pro weapon lobby will say that they as individuals they never shot anyone and they're all responsible people. That may be true. But the fact remains that in a society where "the right to bear arms" is enshrined in law, there are far more gun related violent deaths. I wouldn't expect everyone who has the right to own semi automatic guns to go out and kill 26 children, but some will do that. If there were no guns in society then no one would get shot.

yep,If My Auntie...........................

A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.

ANONYMOUS

I could make a few points about your response here. I understand every part of "shall not be infringed". Are you presenting that to me as some sort of commandment handed down from the Gods? What part of "free speech" do you not understand? I don't agree with the gun laws in the US! Have a look at the statistics presented here,


Maybe you could put your cartoons away for a while and face reality? There seems to be a slight bias in gun related deaths in the Americas when compared to the rest of the world, wouldn't you agree?

Regarding banning rocks, do you think it's possible for some lunatic to murder 26 pre school children by throwing stones at them? They're hardly comparable to semi automatic weapons, are they?

Have a look at the statistics,



America has 10.3 gun related deaths per 100,000 per annum compared to Israel which has 0.94 per 100,000 per annum.

Believe it or not, guns are banned in Israel and I picked that country because you probably feel it's in a state of constant war!

My argument was to separate individual experiences and look at societal effects.

why are you so hung up on semi-automatic?
Most Rifles and Shotguns today are just that!
Really doesn't make much difference!
Except for introducing an invalid factor into the Argument,besides,what are you worrying about in Ireland!
The US won't compel you to on and bear arms!

And it,The Right to Arms is an extension of the Right to self-Defense,and it guaranties the Freedom of Speech!
But the whole thing is moot,you Europeans do just not understand the Concept of RIGHTS.

“As a textual matter, the Second Amendment does speak of the idea of a “well regulated” militia, phrasing which seems to at least concede the idea that the government could assert the authority to assert some conditions upon gun ownership by individual citizens.”

Wrong.

The term “well-regulated”, in the lexicon of the late 1700s, meant “functioning properly, functioning as expected”, not the dictionary definition we have today. Today, the term means “tightly controlled”, and is at odds with the “shall not be infringed” phrase found in the amendment. So no, textually the Second Amendment does NOT allow government to place conditions on gun ownership, as the Second Amendment is WITHOUT conditions in it’s explicit prohibition.

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well since you Americans are so committed to the concept of rights, why don't you extend that concept to other nations? Why don't you let Iraq, North Korea and Cuba bear arms in the form of nuclear weapons? They're really only bigger guns, aren't they? (Unless you want to introduce an "invalid factor"?)

However, I think the reason is that you don't want the world's lunatics getting their hands on weapons that they may use against you. The same philosophy should be applied to guns, there is no shortage of lunatics around!

Face reality and look at the statistics. Which is more important your right to bear arms or the lives of US citizens?

your argument doesn't make sense!
We are simply talking about the Individual's Right to self-defense!
The Right to bear Arms,guarantied under the Constitution!
All you are doing is obfuscating the Issue!

Guns used overwhelmingly for defense, make carriers safer
Obama orders CDC gun violence study, study shreds his position

Earlier this year, President Obama signed a set of executive orders targeting gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. Among them was an edict commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. Clearly, once the CDC produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, the American people would be eager to approve and fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation.

At least that was the plan. The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC’s direction, was recently completed and released. The anti-gun crowd has been awfully quiet about it. Could it be that it didn’t support their bogus hypothesis?

In a word, Yes. The CDC’s numbers basically back every pro-gun rights argument made over the course of the last year.

First and foremost, the majority of annual gun-related deaths are due to suicide, not crime.

The study finds that “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

While this is still a depressing statistic, it supports gun-rights advocates’ claims that the country has a mental health problem, not a gun owner problem. In fact, the study found that those who own guns, carry them, and fight back against criminals are actually fare better in dangerous situations.

The report notes that virtually all studies which “assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” found the same thing. There are “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

But self-defense with a firearm is incredibly uncommon. After all, that’s what the lefties are always telling us, so it must be true. Right?

Wrong.

The CDC report finds that “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.” In fact, while exact statistics are hard to come by, the report indicates that “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

So, there’s as much as a 10 to 1 ratio of defensive firearm use vs. offensive use, though admittedly the 3 million figure is probably a bit high.

On the downside, the study does indicate that we have the most firearm related deaths of any wealthy western nation, but - contrary to what the left would like you to believe - those numbers are declining. Things are getting better, not worse.

recommendations.