Matt_E

Yes. Numerous times. I have relatives there, as well. Same applies to Scandinavia, sans the relatives.

One more thing: Switzerland, or even Finland, are prime examples of countries that have "assault weapons" available to the masses (Registered, of course), heck, even fully automatic guns. Crime waves? Naw... How come?

Armaments Two different things. Same thing. You can look it up. sigh.... The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context), but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their indictment. A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court — goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons, but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692 P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981) (billy clubs). With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns (so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment. Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a constitutional right to own machine guns. Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).) But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech. Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.) The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).) But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers one potential line of argument. Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g., suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties. Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core. Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are becoming common in special attack units. Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows: "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary." Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes really is a good offense. Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms" also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government

One more thing, about what you said on Canada...I really don't think that guns are to blame for that situation. I believe one must look at deeper social issues responsible for crime situations than just the availability of potential tools.

Armaments Two different things.

I understand the concern. I believe what you are trying to achieve is the elimination of those certain types/models of guns through restricting/eliminating the sale of them altogether, hoping that this stoppage of supply will eventually trickle down to the black market. Correct? I simply do not think that would happen, not for decades, anyhow. Whether those guns are available legally or not, those that would commit crimes with them do not acquire them through the channels you would seek to restrict.

Look up the meaning of "arm" or "arms". I am sure you can handle that.

Your point must be pretty weak to have to lace it with personal insults. There are plenty of good books/opinion pieces written on the meaning of militia, but I doubt anything could really change your mind. What harm am I doing to you, as a legal firearms owner? No one's been able to answer that so far. Correct. And you need to subject to a federal background check. Also, the firearm serial number is tied to you. What's the problem? Bullshit. Where do you get that information? Most any state has laws in place against exactly that, ESPECIALLY Washington State. Why would there be? I load my own...in fact, I load thousands of 9mm Handgun ammo at a time. Does that concern you? And just why is that a problem? Do they kill people, as if by magic, by themselves? Or is there mayhaps still a human factor? Are we shunting responsibility away from ourselves by trying to outlaw devices? If you really believe Hollow Points are somehow more deadly than FMJs, or whatever else, you are mistaken. ugh. More uneducated nonsense. Teflon coated bullets??? Where do you get this information? You can buy bullets, even loaded ammo, with Molybdenum coat, or derivatives. The purpose is to reduce barrel friction and barrel fouling. Most any standard rifle cartridge will penetrate most any "bullet-Proof" vest out there. What kind of scare tactic are you trying to run? There were a couple, true. I can't answer the question, because I don't know. In fact, I am a bit confused about this issue...after all the Assault Weapons ban has never been shown to have any appreciable affect on crime. So why would a police union care? In fact, why would anyone care whether they get shot at with a gun with or without a pistol grip, or bayonet lug? The crux of the matter is that you fellas seem to be content with trying to combat illegal ownership and use of firearms by restricting legal ownership and use of the same. A bit of a dis-congruent approach, no?

Err....no. I was bringing up "arms" because someone here thought it included bombs, etc....now, if you'd like me to get into the whole militia deal, fine. Gimme some time, though. I am at work, after all.

Not quite...the gun ban for German citizens had been put in place by the winning forces of WW1, through enforcement of the Treaty Of Versailles.

I am not arguing that point right now (Though I could, if you'd like me to). What part of "Look up what "arms" means" did you sleep through?

Look folks: I guess I have trouble understanding why you (figuratively) want to take away my right to (responsibly) own firearms, or defend myself with firearms, should, God forbid, the need ever arise. I mean, what's it to you? I am not doing you any harm.

It would behoove you to find out what "Arms" means in the context of the second amendment. Its funny to see arguement against the context of "well-regulated militia" but when it comes to "arms" all of a sudden context is important What's so funny? Did you bother to look up what "Arms" actually means?

In other words, punish the legal owners so that criminals cannot steal their stuff, right? I disagree, and I am sure most would see the failing logic of your argument. Tell me what it was written for. It isn't legal, unless you have an FFL Class III license. Been that way since 1934. I agree to some extent. What harm is a legal gun owner doing to you? Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out, I suppose. Strangely, I felt that it was *you*, not me, getting all upset over this issue. And speaking of common sense, I haven't seen you adequately a single point I have brought up. Is that why "you are done"? Buh bye.

You probably don't. In fact, most states limit the amount of rounds in the gun at a time for hunting. But, what most of you folks fail to realize, is that the second amendment is NOT about hunting, mkay? The founders didn't think hunting was so important as to make it second in significance only to freedom of speech. Sheesh..think about it. If I want to have a 17 round mag in my pistol I keep in my bedroom, what do you care? I'd prefer *you* didn't determine what *I* need, mkay? People own them for recreational shooting, target shooting, collections, etc. What's it to you? Word to the wise: People that use them in "mass killings" very very likely didn't acquire the firearm legally. On a sidenote, mayhaps you can tell me of the most recent "Mass killing" committed with an evil assault weapon, or UZI, or whatever? Good. Then leave me alone about it. And please try to understand that the second amendment has zilch to do with hunting. Nonsense. Who determines that? Who draws the line, and how? There are plenty of laws in place to prevent "ineligible" folk from owning guns. On yet another side note, one of the defining characteristics of a good personal defense sidearm is just how good it is at putting someone down. Personal defense necessitates that, by definition. Did that person acquire the gun in question legally? The answer is most likely, NO. In fact, if you are referring to the DC snipers, the answer is indeed no. So what would a ban have accomplished? Absolutely nothing. Why is it so hard to understand that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by the lawless, that pay no respect to any ban you or I could come up with?