Full auto prices
- Thread starter woodcock
- Start date
stoney15
New member
Quote:
Quote:
I am glad that possessing a full auto weapon is difficult and expensive at best. Otherwise too many people that dont belong having them would.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif Really /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
all i will say is [ Shame on you
Hell most of the people who shouldn't have them will with or without being legal about it. Why make it such a pain in the arse and so expensive for the law abiding citizen.
And I agree SHAME ON YOU
Quote:
I am glad that possessing a full auto weapon is difficult and expensive at best. Otherwise too many people that dont belong having them would.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif Really /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
all i will say is [ Shame on you
Hell most of the people who shouldn't have them will with or without being legal about it. Why make it such a pain in the arse and so expensive for the law abiding citizen.
And I agree SHAME ON YOU
stoney15
New member
Quote:
With all due respect......folks that own legally registered machineguns are probably the most law abiding folks in the country.......since registration started in 1934, there has only been one documented case of a registered machinegun being used in a crime......and, that was by a police officer!
As a police officer, surely you must realize that criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.......they can build or buy illegal machineguns without much difficulty. Making it more difficult for a law abiding citizen to own a weapon does NOT reduce crime!
Your statement above regarding "regular citizens" is EXACTLY why there is an "us verses them" mentality when it comes to law enforcement.......you may not admit it, but the wording of your post smacks of elitism.....that somehow, "regular citizens" can't be trusted with such things. That mentality just widens the gap between law enforcement and "regular citizens" and then law enforcement wonders why people don't like cops??? Law enforcement officers are no better than factory workers, but many have the attitude that they are a special class of citizens. I think you need to step back and take a serious look at what you wrote......if you really believe it, then you are no better than the Gestapo.
By the way, according to the constitution, US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms......if you read the supporting documents, you will find that this specifically includes military weapons......that would include full auto weapons...... however, our rights have been chipped away a little at a time until we just accept the perversion of the original intent and our country and our freedom has suffered.
WELL SAID
With all due respect......folks that own legally registered machineguns are probably the most law abiding folks in the country.......since registration started in 1934, there has only been one documented case of a registered machinegun being used in a crime......and, that was by a police officer!
As a police officer, surely you must realize that criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.......they can build or buy illegal machineguns without much difficulty. Making it more difficult for a law abiding citizen to own a weapon does NOT reduce crime!
Your statement above regarding "regular citizens" is EXACTLY why there is an "us verses them" mentality when it comes to law enforcement.......you may not admit it, but the wording of your post smacks of elitism.....that somehow, "regular citizens" can't be trusted with such things. That mentality just widens the gap between law enforcement and "regular citizens" and then law enforcement wonders why people don't like cops??? Law enforcement officers are no better than factory workers, but many have the attitude that they are a special class of citizens. I think you need to step back and take a serious look at what you wrote......if you really believe it, then you are no better than the Gestapo.
By the way, according to the constitution, US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms......if you read the supporting documents, you will find that this specifically includes military weapons......that would include full auto weapons...... however, our rights have been chipped away a little at a time until we just accept the perversion of the original intent and our country and our freedom has suffered.
WELL SAID
woodcock
New member
Gun Rights by Jeff Snyder
Violence and Nonviolents
Part 2 American Handgunner
March/April 2006
Previously, I began exploring nonviolence as a strategy of effecting political change and as an overall moral philosophy (Sept/Oct 2005). It's my belief, if gun-rights advocates are going to recommend a right to keep and bear arms as a means for the people to deter the rise of a tyrannical goverment, or as a means of overthrowing a tyrannical goverment,they should have some familiarity with, and have thoughtfully considered, nonviolent solutions to that problem. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow man to carefully and thoughtfully consider the available options and the morality of our possible actions.
I begin with a 16th-century essay that investigates the nature of political obedience called "The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude," written by Etienne de la Boetie while he was a law student at the university of Orleans, in France. De la Boetie's key insight was that government, resting always in the hands of relatively few, does not have enough manpower or force to compel obedience to it's will, and does not really rely on force in order to govern. It was his view every government, even tyrannies, governed because men voluntarily obeyed and submitted to them.
It was his view if men would but awake to this reality, and simply refuse to cooperate in thier own servitude (e.g., not be police, soldiers, judges, prison guards, government employees, not vote), thier government would crumble, without a shot being fired.
Noncooperation
Because de la boetie's explanation describes both how goverments work and fail to work, his theory equally explains not only how nonviolent noncooperation can bring a goverment down, but also how it's possible for a relatively small group of men to overthrow an existing government, and have thier new government soon be accepted, or at least acquiesced in, by the people at large. His theory explains, and is consistent with observed experienece, even terrible dictatorships can have a long reign and enjoy the acquiescence of the people at large. As such, unlike some philosophies of nonviolence (which we'll look at later, which morally condemn the use of force to achieve political goals, de la Boetie's views admit the possibility the people, by exercising a right to bear arms against their government, could establish a new form of government.
Of course, if de la Boetie is right, it's a sobering thought men will soon except and cooperate with a government established by coup or force of arms, even if it's a dictatorship. And it's important for those who believe in armed resistance to tyranny understand that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees those who take up arms against their government will end up establishing a better government. The French Revolution began with high ideals, degenerated into a bloodbath and ended with France under an emperor (Napoleon).
Having and exercising a right doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Even those firmly committed to a philosophy or armed resistance to tyranny must consider armed revolt may unleash forces not forseen, cannot be controlled and lead to consequences far different than those at which they aimed.
De la Boetue's essay is in three parts, and we've reviewed the first, in which he explains governments work because men place themselves in servitude voluntarily, willingly aiding and abetting those who enslave them. In the second part of his essay, he investigates "how it happens this obstinate willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted in a nation that the very love of liberty now seems no longer natural."
Five Factors
By my count, he identifies five factors inducing men to seek, continue in, and even relish, their own servitude. Again, his analysis is neutral. The factors, which maintain people in their servitude, will prevent people from throwing off their chains by nonviolently refusing to cooperate with their government, just as much as they will prevent them from taking up arms to reign in a tyrant. Even one who doubts the efficacy of nonviolence but believes in a philosophy of armed resistance to tyranny would want to consider his explanations of why people, even under tyrants, cling to their servitude and don't seek freedom.
De la Boetie begains by conceding men who are free, before letting themselves be enslaved, must either be "driven by force or led into it by deception." Enslavement by force occurs when a people are "conquered by foreign armies - or by political factions." However, he notes, when men lose their liberty through deceit, "they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves."
What he finds incredible, however, is "as soon as a people becomes subject, it promply falls into such complete forgetfullness of freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willing that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement." He then begins his investigation of why this occurs.
The first and most compelling reason for men's voluntary servitude is custom. What they grow up with is what they are used to; it's accepted as natural, it's "just the way things are." How could it seem unbearable or intolerable to them, when they've lived so long in just this condition? How could they feel a real need to change what has always been part and parcel of their lives?
Proud American
But custom is more than just ease and comfort in a state of unquestioning acceptance. The subjection people don't even see or feel because it's "just the way things are" becomes part of their identity, their tradition and a source of pride. It's who they are. De la Boetie puts it this way: "Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings."
Consider our federal government's annual expendures are close to one-fifth our entire gross domestic product. Consider the degree of taxation, the extent of governmental surveillance, the reporting and monitoring of our personal activities. Consider the extensive regulation to which we're subject, the ever mounting number of crimes we may be punished for that don't involve real criminal intent (such as passing through a gun free school zone with a gun).
Now consider how many millions are "proud to be an American" where, in the words of a song, "at least I know I'm free."
Isn't there some profound disconnect here? Isn't this precisely what de la Boetie is talking about when he describes people's inability to see their own servitude because of custom and their fine history and traditions? People who are proud of "who they are" aren't likely to feel a burning need to change who they are or to work at changing it- with or without arms. Perhaps it's servitude that's in the words of the post- 911 bumper sticker "powered by pride."
In the next column I'll discuss the other factors de la Boetie cites that render a people willing participants in their own servitude, as well as his theory of how the tyrant secures his power. I'll argue his explanations undermine any simplistic idea liberty may be re-established and maintained by an armed people.
Personally, This artical has been an eye opener to me. My degree of servitude is quite obvous now. While I've gone about my business and excepted things the way they are, my right to bear arms is being dismembered. I had no idea that full auto weapons were being slowly removed from the general public. A citizens rights to pocess the means of carrying out the "Failsafe" in the second ammendment is being chocked off. Yes, we can still own one, if we have gobbs of money and settle for something that was made 20 or 40 years ago.
As of now, I'm going to get more involved in this. I guess it's time to fight back for me and help the people that are allready doing so. There is no reason that I should'nt be able to go to a gun shop and buy an M16 or an Uzzi for the same price as a simi-auto.
Violence and Nonviolents
Part 2 American Handgunner
March/April 2006
Previously, I began exploring nonviolence as a strategy of effecting political change and as an overall moral philosophy (Sept/Oct 2005). It's my belief, if gun-rights advocates are going to recommend a right to keep and bear arms as a means for the people to deter the rise of a tyrannical goverment, or as a means of overthrowing a tyrannical goverment,they should have some familiarity with, and have thoughtfully considered, nonviolent solutions to that problem. We owe it to ourselves and our fellow man to carefully and thoughtfully consider the available options and the morality of our possible actions.
I begin with a 16th-century essay that investigates the nature of political obedience called "The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude," written by Etienne de la Boetie while he was a law student at the university of Orleans, in France. De la Boetie's key insight was that government, resting always in the hands of relatively few, does not have enough manpower or force to compel obedience to it's will, and does not really rely on force in order to govern. It was his view every government, even tyrannies, governed because men voluntarily obeyed and submitted to them.
It was his view if men would but awake to this reality, and simply refuse to cooperate in thier own servitude (e.g., not be police, soldiers, judges, prison guards, government employees, not vote), thier government would crumble, without a shot being fired.
Noncooperation
Because de la boetie's explanation describes both how goverments work and fail to work, his theory equally explains not only how nonviolent noncooperation can bring a goverment down, but also how it's possible for a relatively small group of men to overthrow an existing government, and have thier new government soon be accepted, or at least acquiesced in, by the people at large. His theory explains, and is consistent with observed experienece, even terrible dictatorships can have a long reign and enjoy the acquiescence of the people at large. As such, unlike some philosophies of nonviolence (which we'll look at later, which morally condemn the use of force to achieve political goals, de la Boetie's views admit the possibility the people, by exercising a right to bear arms against their government, could establish a new form of government.
Of course, if de la Boetie is right, it's a sobering thought men will soon except and cooperate with a government established by coup or force of arms, even if it's a dictatorship. And it's important for those who believe in armed resistance to tyranny understand that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees those who take up arms against their government will end up establishing a better government. The French Revolution began with high ideals, degenerated into a bloodbath and ended with France under an emperor (Napoleon).
Having and exercising a right doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Even those firmly committed to a philosophy or armed resistance to tyranny must consider armed revolt may unleash forces not forseen, cannot be controlled and lead to consequences far different than those at which they aimed.
De la Boetue's essay is in three parts, and we've reviewed the first, in which he explains governments work because men place themselves in servitude voluntarily, willingly aiding and abetting those who enslave them. In the second part of his essay, he investigates "how it happens this obstinate willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted in a nation that the very love of liberty now seems no longer natural."
Five Factors
By my count, he identifies five factors inducing men to seek, continue in, and even relish, their own servitude. Again, his analysis is neutral. The factors, which maintain people in their servitude, will prevent people from throwing off their chains by nonviolently refusing to cooperate with their government, just as much as they will prevent them from taking up arms to reign in a tyrant. Even one who doubts the efficacy of nonviolence but believes in a philosophy of armed resistance to tyranny would want to consider his explanations of why people, even under tyrants, cling to their servitude and don't seek freedom.
De la Boetie begains by conceding men who are free, before letting themselves be enslaved, must either be "driven by force or led into it by deception." Enslavement by force occurs when a people are "conquered by foreign armies - or by political factions." However, he notes, when men lose their liberty through deceit, "they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves."
What he finds incredible, however, is "as soon as a people becomes subject, it promply falls into such complete forgetfullness of freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willing that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement." He then begins his investigation of why this occurs.
The first and most compelling reason for men's voluntary servitude is custom. What they grow up with is what they are used to; it's accepted as natural, it's "just the way things are." How could it seem unbearable or intolerable to them, when they've lived so long in just this condition? How could they feel a real need to change what has always been part and parcel of their lives?
Proud American
But custom is more than just ease and comfort in a state of unquestioning acceptance. The subjection people don't even see or feel because it's "just the way things are" becomes part of their identity, their tradition and a source of pride. It's who they are. De la Boetie puts it this way: "Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings."
Consider our federal government's annual expendures are close to one-fifth our entire gross domestic product. Consider the degree of taxation, the extent of governmental surveillance, the reporting and monitoring of our personal activities. Consider the extensive regulation to which we're subject, the ever mounting number of crimes we may be punished for that don't involve real criminal intent (such as passing through a gun free school zone with a gun).
Now consider how many millions are "proud to be an American" where, in the words of a song, "at least I know I'm free."
Isn't there some profound disconnect here? Isn't this precisely what de la Boetie is talking about when he describes people's inability to see their own servitude because of custom and their fine history and traditions? People who are proud of "who they are" aren't likely to feel a burning need to change who they are or to work at changing it- with or without arms. Perhaps it's servitude that's in the words of the post- 911 bumper sticker "powered by pride."
In the next column I'll discuss the other factors de la Boetie cites that render a people willing participants in their own servitude, as well as his theory of how the tyrant secures his power. I'll argue his explanations undermine any simplistic idea liberty may be re-established and maintained by an armed people.
Personally, This artical has been an eye opener to me. My degree of servitude is quite obvous now. While I've gone about my business and excepted things the way they are, my right to bear arms is being dismembered. I had no idea that full auto weapons were being slowly removed from the general public. A citizens rights to pocess the means of carrying out the "Failsafe" in the second ammendment is being chocked off. Yes, we can still own one, if we have gobbs of money and settle for something that was made 20 or 40 years ago.
As of now, I'm going to get more involved in this. I guess it's time to fight back for me and help the people that are allready doing so. There is no reason that I should'nt be able to go to a gun shop and buy an M16 or an Uzzi for the same price as a simi-auto.
Woodcock
Aside from the fact that prices are outrageous because the government has limited the supply......what REALLY burns me is the fact that a private citizen must obtain a Chief Law Enforcement officer's signature on the transfer application.....and, the Chief LEO cannot be compelled to sign.....in other words, an anti gun Sherrif, Chief of Police, Judge, etc......can refuse to sign and there is nothing that we can do about it.......yes, I know a person can form a corporation and get around the signature requirement, but the real question is why should we need permission from ANYONE to exercise our constitutional rights????
Anybody who thinks we have REAL freedom in this country needs to WAKE UP! There are very few laws passed that don't somehow erode what little freedom we have left....and the lawmakers keep cranking them out at an alarming pace!!
Aside from the fact that prices are outrageous because the government has limited the supply......what REALLY burns me is the fact that a private citizen must obtain a Chief Law Enforcement officer's signature on the transfer application.....and, the Chief LEO cannot be compelled to sign.....in other words, an anti gun Sherrif, Chief of Police, Judge, etc......can refuse to sign and there is nothing that we can do about it.......yes, I know a person can form a corporation and get around the signature requirement, but the real question is why should we need permission from ANYONE to exercise our constitutional rights????
Anybody who thinks we have REAL freedom in this country needs to WAKE UP! There are very few laws passed that don't somehow erode what little freedom we have left....and the lawmakers keep cranking them out at an alarming pace!!
Some of the History of Gun Control in the US.
We have some serious back pedalling to do to get some of this reversed. Starting with the 1986 acts. As it is, thay are laws, and not consitutional amendment.
We have some serious back pedalling to do to get some of this reversed. Starting with the 1986 acts. As it is, thay are laws, and not consitutional amendment.
Yotehunter59
New member
Quote:
There is supply out there for FA weapons but its generally to Law Enforcement/Military. I had no idea that regular citizens had to go through those lengths and prices for FA weaponry. Just the same, from a Police Officer standpoint, I am glad that possessing a full auto weapon is difficult and expensive at best. Otherwise too many people that dont belong having them would. Alot of SWAT teams are getting away from FA anyway and most of our Colt sub guns and H&K MP5's we are having converted to three round burst trigger groups. They are much more practical and tactically sound than FA.
Discusting to say the least. The same goes for the elitist outlook from all governments at all levels, if someone shoots a cop or gov't employee, the bad guy will recieve the death penalty by law. If a regular civilian gets shot, the bad guy will get anything from suspended sentence to the death penalty for his troubles. NO OFFENSE, BUT WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, SOMEONE SPECIAL? I THINK NOT, YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE REST OF US AND THE CONSTITITION ALLPIES TO US ALL AND HAS BEEN WHORED OUT BY OUR PIMP POLITICIONS. Think about it again and remember the oath you took when you became an officer. I hope you were joking, or just taken out of context, if not, take a closer look at your statement and re-consider for awhile those words...Signed, a very disapointed.....JOHN
There is supply out there for FA weapons but its generally to Law Enforcement/Military. I had no idea that regular citizens had to go through those lengths and prices for FA weaponry. Just the same, from a Police Officer standpoint, I am glad that possessing a full auto weapon is difficult and expensive at best. Otherwise too many people that dont belong having them would. Alot of SWAT teams are getting away from FA anyway and most of our Colt sub guns and H&K MP5's we are having converted to three round burst trigger groups. They are much more practical and tactically sound than FA.
Discusting to say the least. The same goes for the elitist outlook from all governments at all levels, if someone shoots a cop or gov't employee, the bad guy will recieve the death penalty by law. If a regular civilian gets shot, the bad guy will get anything from suspended sentence to the death penalty for his troubles. NO OFFENSE, BUT WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, SOMEONE SPECIAL? I THINK NOT, YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE REST OF US AND THE CONSTITITION ALLPIES TO US ALL AND HAS BEEN WHORED OUT BY OUR PIMP POLITICIONS. Think about it again and remember the oath you took when you became an officer. I hope you were joking, or just taken out of context, if not, take a closer look at your statement and re-consider for awhile those words...Signed, a very disapointed.....JOHN
HighPlainsDrifter
New member
Wow, I didnt mean to open a can of worms but I guess I did. I think what I said was poorly worded and was indeed taken out of context. Sorry if I offended anyone. I dont want to prevent good law abiding citizens from having these weapons and I agree that most all of the people that can and do get them deserve to have them and use them responsibly. I guess what I was trying to say is I am somewhat thankful they are not as easy to get on the street as a saturday night special. I realize criminals dont obey the law and get their hands on weapons illegally but full auto weapons are really not that common or easy to get for street thugs. I dont think I am special or above anyone, I just know that on average 130 or more police officers die in the line of duty every year and I dont want to ever see that number rise. I fully understand where all of you are coming from but our job is hard enough without worrying about someone leaning out the door on the next traffic stop with an Uzi. Could it happen anyway. Sure it could. It certainly is not very common and outside of situations like North Hollywood, pretty rare. I dont agree with the control that the Govt has over these type of weapons that prevent good law abiding citizens from having them but I do think that people should have to go through at least some kind of background check to have them. I am not talking about anything more restricting than no Felony convictions or Family Violence convictions which are the two things that currently prevent anyone from possessing any kind of firearm anyway. This does not make me an advocate of gun control and certainly our forefathers had no intentions of extending the right to bear arms to the criminal element of society. I hope this unruffles some feathers and if not, maybe I have warn out my welcome.
WYOSongDog,
What do you think a ATF Form 4473 is?
Or how about someone going through the process to get a State issued CCW permit?
It is government getting too big for it's own britches plain and simple.
Why do we need more tax codes than can't be enforced? or driving under the influence?
Why do judges who have the ability to really put the hurt on someone to tech them a lesson, dole out symbolic wrist slaps?
Why does Law Enforcement, who have the responsibility to enforce such laws, always ask for more laws for the same offenses?
Why are parents of underage criminals NOT held accountable for their incorrigible troublemakers?
As to wearing out your welcome? I doubt it. Topics like this will always strike a sore spot with some. I realized it long ago when I became a part of the on-line forum world 4 years ago. It is a great resource for learning, but some things just need to be allowed to roll onto the ground were it belongs.
What do you think a ATF Form 4473 is?
Or how about someone going through the process to get a State issued CCW permit?
It is government getting too big for it's own britches plain and simple.
Why do we need more tax codes than can't be enforced? or driving under the influence?
Why do judges who have the ability to really put the hurt on someone to tech them a lesson, dole out symbolic wrist slaps?
Why does Law Enforcement, who have the responsibility to enforce such laws, always ask for more laws for the same offenses?
Why are parents of underage criminals NOT held accountable for their incorrigible troublemakers?
As to wearing out your welcome? I doubt it. Topics like this will always strike a sore spot with some. I realized it long ago when I became a part of the on-line forum world 4 years ago. It is a great resource for learning, but some things just need to be allowed to roll onto the ground were it belongs.
WYOSongDog
"most all of the people that can and do get them deserve to have them"
What do you mean by "deserve to have them"......that phrase suggests that people earn the privilege to exercise a constitutional RIGHT! Do we "deserve to have" freedom of speech too??? The Constitution affirms a right that is already in existence.......it does not grant that right....
Think about that!
I'd also like to know your definition of a "Saturday night special"!!! If someone can only afford a Jennings or Lorcin or other inexpensive handgun that you would label as a "Saturday night special".....does that mean they shouldn't be able to purchase one to defend themselves??? Do you know that the phrase "Saturday night special" was coined by anti gun advocates to cast a bad light on certain firearms in the effort to get them banned??? Same for the term "assault weapon"......it's a label placed by anti gunners to make a gun sound evil......and it is pure BS!
I'm not trying to flame you, I'm trying to open your eyes to the brainwashing you have obviously been sucked into.....
Repeat after me......there are no "bad" guns, there are only bad people who misuse them!
Realistically, I can only think of a couple of laws that make sense with respect to firearms......1 most felons shouldn't be able to own them......2 anyone that misuses one should face immediate and severe punishment, up to and including death........
By the way.......don't dismiss me as anti law enforcement ......my father is retired law enforcement and I have many friends and relatives that are either retired or active LEOs...... I'd tell them exactly the same thing I'm telling you....... when they wear a badge for any length of time, most LEOs become "jaded" with a mindset that most folks are like the scum they deal with everyday......I think that's where the "us verses them" mentality starts......
"most all of the people that can and do get them deserve to have them"
What do you mean by "deserve to have them"......that phrase suggests that people earn the privilege to exercise a constitutional RIGHT! Do we "deserve to have" freedom of speech too??? The Constitution affirms a right that is already in existence.......it does not grant that right....
Think about that!
I'd also like to know your definition of a "Saturday night special"!!! If someone can only afford a Jennings or Lorcin or other inexpensive handgun that you would label as a "Saturday night special".....does that mean they shouldn't be able to purchase one to defend themselves??? Do you know that the phrase "Saturday night special" was coined by anti gun advocates to cast a bad light on certain firearms in the effort to get them banned??? Same for the term "assault weapon"......it's a label placed by anti gunners to make a gun sound evil......and it is pure BS!
I'm not trying to flame you, I'm trying to open your eyes to the brainwashing you have obviously been sucked into.....
Repeat after me......there are no "bad" guns, there are only bad people who misuse them!
Realistically, I can only think of a couple of laws that make sense with respect to firearms......1 most felons shouldn't be able to own them......2 anyone that misuses one should face immediate and severe punishment, up to and including death........
By the way.......don't dismiss me as anti law enforcement ......my father is retired law enforcement and I have many friends and relatives that are either retired or active LEOs...... I'd tell them exactly the same thing I'm telling you....... when they wear a badge for any length of time, most LEOs become "jaded" with a mindset that most folks are like the scum they deal with everyday......I think that's where the "us verses them" mentality starts......
HighPlainsDrifter
New member
I could not disagree with you more FarmerJ about having to go through the process for a CCW permit or filling out ATF form 4473 is Government getting too big for its britches. Just because the Constitution grants Americans the general right to bear arms doesnt mean that there are those who have not lost that right. The Constitution never said or even implied that you could not lose this right if you chose to participate in a course of conduct that would exclude you or in other words make you lose this right. It would be difficult to argue that there are plenty of Americans that should not have the right to bear arms. If there are no application processes or forms to fill out then how would such things ever be regulated? Its easy for Yotehunter to call me disgusting or Gonhuntin to compare me with the Gestapo or for George Ackley to say "shame on me". Its easier still for Yotehunter to ask me who "I think I am, someone special". Its funny to hear those things (in this case read them) yet most of you would not do my job for three times what I get paid. Most of you could not handle the horrors and the nightmares that those who wear the uniform experience every day. The level of fecal matter that cops deal with every day is no where near expressed to citizens through the media. You get the tip of the iceberg. Citizens will not hesitate for 1 second to hold the police to a higher standard than they themselves are held regardless if I am on or off duty because after all, most citizens will tell you that I am a cop 24/7. Then they have the nerve to ask me if I think I am special or different. Maybe you need to answer that question yotehunter. I do believe I and all my brothers and sisters who walk the thin blue line have earned the right to have some say so in the laws, rules and regulations concerning the possession of such weapons. Until you walk a mile in our shoes, you have no right to call me names or stand in judgement of me. Any of you. In many jurisdictions, sanitation people make as much as cops do. Its okay for me to take the risks and put my life on the line for peanuts because thats my job right! Its okay that my brothers and sisters are dying on the streets of America to keep you and your families safe from the predators. Yet I am the Gestapo when I imply that it should not be as easy as walking into Walmart and buying a full auto m16 for ANY American. I wonder how many that jumped down my throat realy have considered what it would be like on the street or what the ramifications would be if anyone could go to their local gunshop and buy Uzi's, M16's and M60's. Have you stopped to consider the peril that your family, friends and the people you care about could possibly face? I even heard about the intent of our forefathers when they granted us the right to bear arms in the Constitution all those years ago and how those rights included military weapons which in turn would include full auto weapons. Thats funny that you can speak to the intention of our forefathers when automatic weapons were never even dreamed of at the time the Constitution was wrote. I suppose your next argument is that your right to bear arms also includes AT4 and Law rockets launchers, 155 Howitzers and chemical/nuclear weapons. After all, our forefathers never did say that these were excluded. Again, I will admit that my first post was done hastily and was poorly worded. I also think what I said was taken out of context. I stand by my opinion that the possession of fully automatic weapon systems, needs to be somehow regulated and controlled. Along with the carry of a concealed weapon. I do think that American citizens who have a background that does not exclude them from the purchase of automatic weapons should be able to obtain a permit and the weapons without paying those ridiculous prices.
Well Mr Citizen
Well, Mr. Citizen, it seems you've figured me out.
I seem to fit neatly into the category where you've placed me.
I'm stereotyped, standardized, characterized, classified, grouped, and always typical.
Unfortunately, the reverse is true, I can never figure you out.
From birth you teach your children that I'm the bogeyman,
then you're shocked when they identify with my traditional enemy... the criminal!
You accuse me of coddling criminals... until I catch your kids doing wrong.
You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day,
but point me out as a loafer for having one cup.
You pride yourself on your manners,
but think nothing of disrupting my meals with your troubles.
You raise hell with the guy who cuts you off in traffic,
but let me catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you.
You know all the traffic laws...
but you've never gotten a single ticket you deserve.
You shout "foul" if you observe me driving fast to a call,
but raise the roof if I take more than ten seconds to respond to your complaint.
You call it part of my job if someone strikes me,
but call it police brutality if I strike back.
You wouldn't think of telling your dentist how to pull a tooth or your doctor how to take out an appendix,
yet you are always willing to give me pointers on the law.
You talk to me in a manner that would get you a bloody nose from anyone else,
but expect me to take it without batting an eye.
You yell something's got to be done to fight crime,
but you can't be bothered to get involved.
You have no use for me at all, but of course it's OK if I change a flat for your wife, deliver your child in the back of the patrol car, or perhaps save your son's life with mouth to mouth breathing, or work many hours overtime looking for your lost daughter.
So, Mr. Citizen, you can stand there on your soapbox and rant and rave about the way I do my work, calling me every name in the book,
but never stop to think that your property, family, or maybe even your life depends
on me or one of my buddies.
Yes, Mr. Citizen, it's me... the lousy cop!
Well Mr Citizen
Well, Mr. Citizen, it seems you've figured me out.
I seem to fit neatly into the category where you've placed me.
I'm stereotyped, standardized, characterized, classified, grouped, and always typical.
Unfortunately, the reverse is true, I can never figure you out.
From birth you teach your children that I'm the bogeyman,
then you're shocked when they identify with my traditional enemy... the criminal!
You accuse me of coddling criminals... until I catch your kids doing wrong.
You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day,
but point me out as a loafer for having one cup.
You pride yourself on your manners,
but think nothing of disrupting my meals with your troubles.
You raise hell with the guy who cuts you off in traffic,
but let me catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you.
You know all the traffic laws...
but you've never gotten a single ticket you deserve.
You shout "foul" if you observe me driving fast to a call,
but raise the roof if I take more than ten seconds to respond to your complaint.
You call it part of my job if someone strikes me,
but call it police brutality if I strike back.
You wouldn't think of telling your dentist how to pull a tooth or your doctor how to take out an appendix,
yet you are always willing to give me pointers on the law.
You talk to me in a manner that would get you a bloody nose from anyone else,
but expect me to take it without batting an eye.
You yell something's got to be done to fight crime,
but you can't be bothered to get involved.
You have no use for me at all, but of course it's OK if I change a flat for your wife, deliver your child in the back of the patrol car, or perhaps save your son's life with mouth to mouth breathing, or work many hours overtime looking for your lost daughter.
So, Mr. Citizen, you can stand there on your soapbox and rant and rave about the way I do my work, calling me every name in the book,
but never stop to think that your property, family, or maybe even your life depends
on me or one of my buddies.
Yes, Mr. Citizen, it's me... the lousy cop!
WyoSongDog,
All I can say is.....
Your welcome.
From the millions of brothers and sisters in arms that have stood the line to protect this country and uphold the constitution.
Now if you want to say that you are a better class of citizen because you wear a badge in the name of law enforcement.
I call that elitism in it's finest. And that type of personality should not wear a badge.
All I can say is.....
Your welcome.
From the millions of brothers and sisters in arms that have stood the line to protect this country and uphold the constitution.
Now if you want to say that you are a better class of citizen because you wear a badge in the name of law enforcement.
I call that elitism in it's finest. And that type of personality should not wear a badge.
WYOSongDog
The tirade you posted above is just more of the same old garbage that most cops spew forth......crying about the low pay, the danger, the long hours etc......well, guess what.....NOBODY is holding a gun to your head and making you put on that uniform every morning! If you didn't want to be held to a high standard, you shouldn't have taken that oath and put on that badge!! If you think you are overworked and underpaid.....QUIT! Go find a job that treats you better.....but don't expect any of us to feel sorry for you because you weren't smart enough to research the negatives before you decided to become a cop...... personally, I'm sick and tired of the whining I hear from cops!!! Nobody forced you to be a cop and nobody is forcing you to remain one! I believe it was you who said sanitation workers get paid the same.....and, hey, the garbage they deal with doesn't talk back or expect much out of them......maybe you would like that job better???
If you want to discuss what the fathers of the constitution intended.....we can do that....I can assure you, they intended for every citizen to have the opportunity to own state of the art weapons.....no, I don't believe that includes "weapons of mass destruction", but it sure does include small arms.......and, last I checked, that included full auto weapons! Go do some research and see what the founding fathers said about carrying weapons......they were all for it and they didn't mention background checks, licenses or permits! They didn't expect the "police" to protect them because they realized then, and it still holds true now, the police can't protect the citizens!
I don't believe your first post was "poorly worded" I believe that, deep down, you meant EXACTY what you wrote!
Next time you let a fellow officer or a member of his family get away with breaking the law, out of "professional courtesy"....while the average guy is punished for the same thing.....ask yourself if you really deserve the respect you demand out of us "regular citizens"!!!
The tirade you posted above is just more of the same old garbage that most cops spew forth......crying about the low pay, the danger, the long hours etc......well, guess what.....NOBODY is holding a gun to your head and making you put on that uniform every morning! If you didn't want to be held to a high standard, you shouldn't have taken that oath and put on that badge!! If you think you are overworked and underpaid.....QUIT! Go find a job that treats you better.....but don't expect any of us to feel sorry for you because you weren't smart enough to research the negatives before you decided to become a cop...... personally, I'm sick and tired of the whining I hear from cops!!! Nobody forced you to be a cop and nobody is forcing you to remain one! I believe it was you who said sanitation workers get paid the same.....and, hey, the garbage they deal with doesn't talk back or expect much out of them......maybe you would like that job better???
If you want to discuss what the fathers of the constitution intended.....we can do that....I can assure you, they intended for every citizen to have the opportunity to own state of the art weapons.....no, I don't believe that includes "weapons of mass destruction", but it sure does include small arms.......and, last I checked, that included full auto weapons! Go do some research and see what the founding fathers said about carrying weapons......they were all for it and they didn't mention background checks, licenses or permits! They didn't expect the "police" to protect them because they realized then, and it still holds true now, the police can't protect the citizens!
I don't believe your first post was "poorly worded" I believe that, deep down, you meant EXACTY what you wrote!
Next time you let a fellow officer or a member of his family get away with breaking the law, out of "professional courtesy"....while the average guy is punished for the same thing.....ask yourself if you really deserve the respect you demand out of us "regular citizens"!!!
You forgot about the code of silence, as far as the conceled weapons law I think it has slowed down some crime,I know of two guys that had thier law breaking
careers ended because of it. I think it helps the cops as it should make a cop think twice about beating hell out of someone just because they can get away with it. The guy might have a gun. There are good cops but now most of them want to be judge,jury,and exacutioner before they get to the jail. I have gone to the jail to bail out a few guys in the past and most of them have a lot of black and blue marks on them. But no one saw a thing. WYOSONGDOG if you get called out to the Bars in Mills and there in Casper I am sure you wouldn't work over any of the guys from the oil fields would you? Just asking Mauser
careers ended because of it. I think it helps the cops as it should make a cop think twice about beating hell out of someone just because they can get away with it. The guy might have a gun. There are good cops but now most of them want to be judge,jury,and exacutioner before they get to the jail. I have gone to the jail to bail out a few guys in the past and most of them have a lot of black and blue marks on them. But no one saw a thing. WYOSONGDOG if you get called out to the Bars in Mills and there in Casper I am sure you wouldn't work over any of the guys from the oil fields would you? Just asking Mauser
HighPlainsDrifter
New member
It amazes me how quick people get nasty when someone has a difference of opinion or maybe views an issue from a little different perspective. It is obvious to me that you will not take the time to perhaps consider a different view on this issue or walk in someone elses shoes. It also amazes me how you all know exactly what the intentions of our founding fathers were for modern weaponry even though there was no way for them to consider any of the factors we are faced with today. Sounds like a convenient interrpretation to fit your view on the issue. It seems to have gone unnoticed or perhaps ignored that I have clearly stated that I agree that law abiding citizens should be able to posses automatic weapons and without paying the huge inflated prices. I also agree that Americans should be able to carry concealed weapons but only with a valid permit. I disagree with the fact that just anyone should be able to carry concealed or full auto weapons without some system of checks and balances. To do otherwise would allow some very dangerous people to legally arm themselves and would make our nation a very dangerous place for all. I agree that the system makes it very difficult on the average law abidding citizen but if it were not this way anyone could do it, some of whom you would not want being legally armed. Lots and lots of street gang members are not convicted felons so lets legally arm the Crypts and the Bloods with full auto weapons. The system you so desire would do so. I bet the founding fathers didnt intend that. That is just a guess though. It is sad that since I do have a different perspective and perhaps a difference of opinion now I am Gestapo, an elitist, a whiner, corrupt, I am not worthy of my badge and I use excessive force if you ask Mauser. Funny thing is none of you know me and what I say is SHAME ON YOU. The freedom you all so viciously defend with your right to own and carry full automatic weapons and concealed weapons without permits and free of any inconvenience to you, you defiled when you attacked me for my different perspective.
Oh by the way GonHuntin. I give lots of citizens breaks for traffic violations so I could easily give a fellow officer, family member or friend a break with a very clear conscience and without you or anyone else being able to call it "professional courtesy".
Oh by the way GonHuntin. I give lots of citizens breaks for traffic violations so I could easily give a fellow officer, family member or friend a break with a very clear conscience and without you or anyone else being able to call it "professional courtesy".
You never said anythig about the code of silence or is that just on TV? I never said you where a bad cop I asked you if you ever worked over the oil field guys in the bars in Mills or Casper. I have been there I know what happens. I have heard them called oil field trash by the boys in blue.
Mauser
Mauser
Yotehunter59
New member
WyoSongDog, excuse me for the misuse of words, as I did not mean "YOU" personally. The context I was using that word was in YOU ELECTED OFFICIALS. Also the use of "discusting to say the least" was not you as a person, but your words only, because I believe you are saying the things that are not what our Constitution was about. No! please don't leave Predator Masters because none on this Forum is upset with you personally including myself. I have great respect for what you do and YES I would walk a mile in your shoes and have done many ride-alongs here in Las Vegas with a Friend of mine who was on the GANG UNIT. I am not afraid to get my feet wet so to speak. I was with her the night TOPAK was shot even. I have been with her in police pursuits, gang shootings, drug busts just to name a few. I how-ever, cannot understand how society can give up freedom for security. You as I know that you as an officer are to be reactionary rather than preventive, meaning you are not obligated to protect me as a person individually or be my personal bodyguard 24/7. Your role is to be reactive to a crime after it happens usually, not to say that if you have information that on is about to happen you could not or should not take steps to prevent it. But in the same instance, your role as an officer was never meant to be Preventive by nature. Your role was to arrest someone for breaking a law, not to arrest someone who may break a law before that person were to do so.
As you said "to get a permit", that is "Gun Control". This is were I will beg to differ with you, this is the attitude that I was talking about, and I understand it is due to your training. My friends training was similar, after facing enough bad guys, after awhile everyone must be considered a bad guy, it goes with the job. I for one would be happier if more people could stand up and take more responsibility for themselves and the same goes for the responsibility of their actions. I have seen the people who call the POLICE for the most rediculious stuff. People need to learn to workout and handle more of their own problems, rather than call the police for the smallest things. Call the Police when a real crime is commited and make sure if you have to call the police and an arrest is made, go to court to follow it thru to the end. Do our police DESERVE our respect, NO! respect is earned and those that earn our respect should also get our support. We had an officer killed here just a couple of weeks ago. My question is, "Why did those who stood by while one officer was killed and the the next one to arrive without backup got shot in the leg not get involved? Because laws have put chains on anyone who would get involved. Yes, I understand this officer does not know who it is that is helping him or her by getting involved, and this will put the person at grave risk. I know of 2 911 calls that people were watching the whole incident unfold. Does the law allow for a civilian to assist an officer in this manner? Probably, but for sure? Who knows! Would that officer under fire want someone, anyone to take action? I would think so, but you and I know there is going to be hell to pay after it were over. These are the chains laws have placed on All of us, including yourself. Everyone has to second guess their actions, even when it may be the right thing to do. One officer lost his life, a second was wounded, people stood by and watched. That in my opinion is disgusting and shameful. People are afraid to stick out their neck for someone because society and the laws have made it that way. For example, just look at 9/11. For years we were told to cooperate with hijackers. I don't think that will ever happen again. How many people have tackled uncontrolable passengers on planes since then?
It all boils down to taking responsibility for one actions and more laws just confuse the issue and make everyone into a bunch of sheep.
Just look at NY city. Does the Constitution not apply there? Of course it does, but hey, no guns allowed. The Sullivan Act in I think 1927 was the cause of that. The law was to prevent Irish immigrants from getting firearms, by having to ask permission. ASK PERMISSION??? It's a right not subject to permission, hense not subject to any PERMITS
The Bill of Rights, as I see it, cannot be changed as the rest of the Constitution can be, because the first 10 ammendments ARE the "BILL OF RIGHTS". WE ARE BORN WITH THOSE RIGHTS. The Second Ammendment states;
"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".
We all understand that we have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS and those rights are not to be INFRINGED upon. This specificly applied to the Government, but has been turned into something else by our courts and people who are willing to accept security at the cost of freedom. This is why some of us on here get upset when we READ, HEAR OR SMELL GUN CONTROL.
I do get disappointed when I see that someone has fallen into the belief that a Right can be infringed upon, whether by taxation, limitation, red tape/anal probe, outright ban or any other means our lawmakers can come up with to stop personal ownership of any firearm. I don't think you personally would like to take away those arms as I think that would turn into another Civil War in short order. I just think that you may have become used to the idea of background checks (because the law says so, and it sounds reasonable), paperwork (because the law says so, and it sounds reasonable), checks and balances (because the law says so, and it sounds reasonable), and "by valid Permit" (because the law says so, and it sound reasonable)!!! There is that word again, "PERMIT"! permit does not apply to RIGHTS. This is what we are talking about. No offense intended, and I am not trying to call you any names. I just want you to understand that you have chosen a dangerous career, but you did take an "OATH OF OFFICE", and you may not really understand what the oath you took really means. Those rights apply to you as well as the rest of us. So think about it if you will. Think about someone saying you yourself need some sort of PERMIT or PERMISSION. You had to go through a background check to become a Police Officer, and everyone should, BUT, to become a Police Officer is not a Right
Sorry for being long on this, I hope I have stated my point and you can also see what it is that I am talking about....You have my respect because you enjoy the shooting sports like the rest of us, but it is not about this thing called SPORT, it is about RIGHTS. Let no-one confuse the difference between the two......JOHN
As you said "to get a permit", that is "Gun Control". This is were I will beg to differ with you, this is the attitude that I was talking about, and I understand it is due to your training. My friends training was similar, after facing enough bad guys, after awhile everyone must be considered a bad guy, it goes with the job. I for one would be happier if more people could stand up and take more responsibility for themselves and the same goes for the responsibility of their actions. I have seen the people who call the POLICE for the most rediculious stuff. People need to learn to workout and handle more of their own problems, rather than call the police for the smallest things. Call the Police when a real crime is commited and make sure if you have to call the police and an arrest is made, go to court to follow it thru to the end. Do our police DESERVE our respect, NO! respect is earned and those that earn our respect should also get our support. We had an officer killed here just a couple of weeks ago. My question is, "Why did those who stood by while one officer was killed and the the next one to arrive without backup got shot in the leg not get involved? Because laws have put chains on anyone who would get involved. Yes, I understand this officer does not know who it is that is helping him or her by getting involved, and this will put the person at grave risk. I know of 2 911 calls that people were watching the whole incident unfold. Does the law allow for a civilian to assist an officer in this manner? Probably, but for sure? Who knows! Would that officer under fire want someone, anyone to take action? I would think so, but you and I know there is going to be hell to pay after it were over. These are the chains laws have placed on All of us, including yourself. Everyone has to second guess their actions, even when it may be the right thing to do. One officer lost his life, a second was wounded, people stood by and watched. That in my opinion is disgusting and shameful. People are afraid to stick out their neck for someone because society and the laws have made it that way. For example, just look at 9/11. For years we were told to cooperate with hijackers. I don't think that will ever happen again. How many people have tackled uncontrolable passengers on planes since then?
It all boils down to taking responsibility for one actions and more laws just confuse the issue and make everyone into a bunch of sheep.
Just look at NY city. Does the Constitution not apply there? Of course it does, but hey, no guns allowed. The Sullivan Act in I think 1927 was the cause of that. The law was to prevent Irish immigrants from getting firearms, by having to ask permission. ASK PERMISSION??? It's a right not subject to permission, hense not subject to any PERMITS
The Bill of Rights, as I see it, cannot be changed as the rest of the Constitution can be, because the first 10 ammendments ARE the "BILL OF RIGHTS". WE ARE BORN WITH THOSE RIGHTS. The Second Ammendment states;
"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".
We all understand that we have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS and those rights are not to be INFRINGED upon. This specificly applied to the Government, but has been turned into something else by our courts and people who are willing to accept security at the cost of freedom. This is why some of us on here get upset when we READ, HEAR OR SMELL GUN CONTROL.
I do get disappointed when I see that someone has fallen into the belief that a Right can be infringed upon, whether by taxation, limitation, red tape/anal probe, outright ban or any other means our lawmakers can come up with to stop personal ownership of any firearm. I don't think you personally would like to take away those arms as I think that would turn into another Civil War in short order. I just think that you may have become used to the idea of background checks (because the law says so, and it sounds reasonable), paperwork (because the law says so, and it sounds reasonable), checks and balances (because the law says so, and it sounds reasonable), and "by valid Permit" (because the law says so, and it sound reasonable)!!! There is that word again, "PERMIT"! permit does not apply to RIGHTS. This is what we are talking about. No offense intended, and I am not trying to call you any names. I just want you to understand that you have chosen a dangerous career, but you did take an "OATH OF OFFICE", and you may not really understand what the oath you took really means. Those rights apply to you as well as the rest of us. So think about it if you will. Think about someone saying you yourself need some sort of PERMIT or PERMISSION. You had to go through a background check to become a Police Officer, and everyone should, BUT, to become a Police Officer is not a Right
Sorry for being long on this, I hope I have stated my point and you can also see what it is that I am talking about....You have my respect because you enjoy the shooting sports like the rest of us, but it is not about this thing called SPORT, it is about RIGHTS. Let no-one confuse the difference between the two......JOHN
Yotehunter59
New member
Woodcock,
This is the way to voice an opinion against GUN CONTROL. Keep pounding with the facts, pound the facts, pound the facts. It does no good to start to call someone names or worse. Everyone will just get on the defensive and not listen to anything we pro-gunners have to say. I am sure that WyoSongDog considers himself pro-gun, but if we attack him by pounding him into the ground, there is no reason for him to listen. If he does not listen he surely will never see our point or change his mind. Now take this forward to the other 300,000,000 people in this country, some are big time pro-gun, some are big time anti-gun, these two catagories will never move to the other side. It's the ones in the middle that we need to educate with the facts. Anger, and name calling will just drive them away. This is a conflict. A conflict of words and ideals at this point. If people are pushed away to the other side, will it remain a conflict of words and ideals. Hope we never have to find out. Let's keep it that way...Good going Woodcock....JOHN
This is the way to voice an opinion against GUN CONTROL. Keep pounding with the facts, pound the facts, pound the facts. It does no good to start to call someone names or worse. Everyone will just get on the defensive and not listen to anything we pro-gunners have to say. I am sure that WyoSongDog considers himself pro-gun, but if we attack him by pounding him into the ground, there is no reason for him to listen. If he does not listen he surely will never see our point or change his mind. Now take this forward to the other 300,000,000 people in this country, some are big time pro-gun, some are big time anti-gun, these two catagories will never move to the other side. It's the ones in the middle that we need to educate with the facts. Anger, and name calling will just drive them away. This is a conflict. A conflict of words and ideals at this point. If people are pushed away to the other side, will it remain a conflict of words and ideals. Hope we never have to find out. Let's keep it that way...Good going Woodcock....JOHN
Yotehunter59
New member
For those that have not paid attention to the Bill of Rights, read each line and study each and every word. Look up the Federalist Papers and as many other documents you can find to understand why certain things were written the way they were. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is our right, and A CASE COULD BE MADE BASED ON THE 10TH AMENDMENT dis-allowing infringement upon by even the State let alone Federal Government if you look at the 10th Amendment and examine each word carefully. KEEP THINKING, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", when reading about limits set on Federal Gov't and the States....More to the point;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Now we just need to get the JUDGES into office to see the same thing...JOHN
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Now we just need to get the JUDGES into office to see the same thing...JOHN
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.