And there you have it...

..laughs.. I find it funny that an Englishman would champion gun control as "common sense" when it was because of the private use of arms that his country lost American control.

no, no, no

Yeah, because the weapon of choice makes all the difference in the world - Heaven forbid a firearm be used when a knife can just as easily do the trick. Murder is murder, regardless of what weapon is used. Firearms and crime, in reality, have little to do with the 'gun-control' battle – That argument is a façade - This is either true or gun-haters are complete ignoramuses (I don't use this term condescendingly, but literally)... Just like Robert said - "If you want to be brave... take a knife" - this statement shows the true inward intent of those who want to ban guns. They readily admit that crime will continue through other means, even when guns are off the street, but still continue to argue that guns equal crime and that safety will abound once they are gone. In reality, of course, we see all the evidences against this logic - but they still pursue it, why? Because it's not about guns and crime - it's about control. In whose hands should the control reside? The people's or the government's? Robert inadvertently admitted the whole flaw to this liberal philosophy: Murderers are still murderers, whether they have a gun or not - if they don't have access to a gun, they'll use a knife. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with ‘gun-control’ or establishing peace - it’s about totalitarian control.

But at least we'd be spiritual... Or something like that...

James Madison had NO idea what he was talking about! It's not like he ever did anything important, drafted a Constitution, or knew what it took to keep a country free from oppression!

Yeah, stupid founding fathers, how archaic.

Gun Haters - when they find that they don't have anything to fight off oppression with - they'll reach for anything to lob at the enemy. = )

So, we get rid of all our guns - what then? Nirvana, utopia, heaven, paradise, peace? From getting rid of a gun?! Really?! I will gain spirituality by ridding the world of guns?! No Way!! I just.. I don't know what to say, I'm shocked!! Gandhi established peace by getting rid of guns?! Wow! Boy, did I get my facts and stories all mixed up! And here I thought that Gandhi was about self-expresion of inward peace and brotherhood without violence - shoot, I've been on the wrong side of this issue all along - who knew that the evil of society rested in such an inanimate object?! Gee, I wonder if the same evil is found in owning a knife, bow-and-arrow, or a pair of nun chucks? **GASP** I think we should ban all of these too!! Because they, by definition, are also used in killing!! But, then, if we do that, we should get rid of all the sticks and clubs in the world - because, isn't that the archaic weapon of choice? Yeah, in fact, I think Gahndi was against sticks too... Wow, am I glad I'm on the right side now!

Agreed with David... there are too many quotes that could be pulled from the founding fathers that look exactly like this one ..in shock.. ..gasp.. It's amazing, the people who worked together, fought together, bled together, and gave their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor together - They actually KNEW the principles of protecting SELF-government in a Republic and all agreed to the 2nd Amendment - I'd be willing to pay serious money if someone could find a founding father AGAINST the 2nd Amendment... Liberty Quotes, what-do-ya-got?

Anon in Reston HAD to give at least one star to this, the quote comes from a democrat. Party line people are easy to detect - except sometimes they surprise you - you occasionally find an occasional die-hard Democrat voting for the Socialist Party and the same kind of Republican voting for the Fascist party... It's all pretty much the same anymore. = )

In what utopian facade do some people live under that they think that they can overthrow oppressive, tyrannical, and coercive government by 'peaceful' means? Are the virtues and principles of a Republic REALLY that dead in the hearts of so many Americans? Do we REALLY want safety (perceived or not) over freedom and liberty? We haven't reached the place of Nazi Germany, yet, but is it too far off to say we're taking steps towards it? How do you protect yourself from a criminal who is pointing a gun down your throat? Gangs, troubled teens, murderers, etc. - we all think these people should not be in possession of fire-arms, that's not in question - but what happens when a populace has been completely disarmed, years and years from now, and government becomes that criminal with the gun down our throat? What of 'peaceful' resistance then? "If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom - go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms, crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, may your chains set lightly upon you, and may our posterity forget that you were ever our country men." - Samuel Adams

I'm curious to know what would have happened if the "innocent leaders and great men" who have all been killed "by the idiot with the gun" would have been killed instead with another type of projectile weapon - for instance: a frozen water balloon or a sling-shot. If logic would follow, the same gun-hating people would be lobbying to have freezers taken out of all the homes of America and a Bill proposed to ban all ice because it can be used with a slingshot to kill people! What the gun-hating people fail to realize, or just ignore all together, is that a gun is just a tool. The murders that are going to happen will happen regardless of the tool used (knife, sword, spear, bow-and-arrow, lance, gun, sling-shot, poison, etc.). Murderous intent is the cause of murder, not guns. Every now and again you hear of some moron who didn't take the precautions needful to keep their kids or someone else away from this particular 'tool' - There are also several cases that don't make it into the media of small kids going into shock and dying because of a boiling pot fell on them or they fatally cut themselves with a kitchen knife. Should we ban all kitchen pots and knives while we're at it? How about a Hunting Knife? No one REALLY needs one of those, do they? After all, they're only really used to kill or skin innocent animals, so we should get rid of them too?? ... Oh, and if you can't think of any, or many, civilized countries that have had to rise up against it's oppressive government with guns, then I would suggest you invest in an accurate history book. Just keep in mind that it's not about "guns" - as said, a gun is a tool - and in today's society it is the most common tool of defense. If we were living between 500 B.C. and A.D. 1300 then we'd be talking about banning swords, spears, and horses...

Samuel Adams wouldn't have been able to fathom the idea of a "registered gun". Such a term is itself unconstitutional. Government control over weapons does nothing to make the populace safer. The Bill of Rights does NOT need to be revised or amended - it needs to be followed! A Constitution, said Thomas Paine (in The Rights of Man), is a contract between the individual sovereign and another - hence, "We the People". The people and the government cannot make a contract with each other because doing this would suggest that the government is a party that existed before the people and can exist independently of the people. This establishes the reason for the 10th Amendment - the Federal government can assume no right, duty, or privilege, except what is specifically given to it by the amending power of the Constitution. Government is neither the source for Liberty, Freedom, or Privilege but only exists to protect man in these humanly or divinely inaliendable 'rights'. From the Declaration of Independence we know that there are certain 'rights' that cannot be alienated from any man, regardless of what government says - in a Republic, the people DELEGATE some of these rights to certain elected officials (DELEGATE is a world of difference from ABDICATE) to represent them to the greater whole. These rights are never given up! When the 'right' of self protection is delegated to a police officer, this does not mean that the man delegating his 'rights' no longer has the right to self-protection. Every 'right' that is delegated is still held inviolate within each man, women, and child! The right to protect oneself is NEVER abdicated but simply delegated... Each person has the right to defend themselves against any threat to their freedom, liberty, and agency by the use of weapons, if necessary, regardless of its size or if it's a projectile weapon. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say, in a Republic, that the police or army can be armed and the people cannot -- such is usurpation and blatant tyranny!

Stupid Americans will do anything so long as the facade is that they're safe... Your world of an armed government and an unarmed populace is a very, very, very, very scary world Reston. And yes, for protection from government, I probably DO need a 500 round clip and a FULLY automatic machine gun. Cheesy movie, but a great quote, "The people should not be afraid of their government - the government should be afraid of it's people".

The truth is, no society will ever be "free" from guns... Any gun-control laws that are passed will only make the honest people more honest. Once the honest people are disarmed, how will they protect themselves from the criminals who aren't following "the law"? That's what makes a criminal a criminal - someone who does not follow the law. What would you do then? Call the police to protect you? You have good luck with that. This is why Socialism will never work - you cannot disarm a society and create peace.

The 'right' of people to 'bear arms' was not an archaic means of obtaining food; in fact, the ability of obtaining food had little or nothing to do with bearing arms, and to say that it was shows a gross misunderstanding of American history. Just a glimpse into what the Founder's of this nation said about this subject would revolutionize the way we view the 2nd Amendment (too bad the founder’s words are too revolutionary to even be taught in our own public schools). Why do people generally go back to the founding fathers to show their case or establish original intent? Because they, unlike any of the generations that have followed, lived under tyranny and forced coercion and then actually did something about it - they overthrew an oppressive ruler, revolutionized government, and established a new Republic. When drafting the Bill of Rights, they looked back through their experience and saw the specific freedoms that they had fought for and the tools that had enabled them to break the bonds of tyranny. Which leads us to the 2nd Amendment - by an overwhelming majority, the reason the 2nd Amendment was included was not for the ability of obtaining food, but for the protection and ability of fighting off oppressive government – An un-armed citizenry is helpless against an oppressive government. Should the Republic they created ever become coercive and unjust, they understood that the people MUST be able to defend themselves and physically able to fight against that government. In short, the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' was the right of the people to protect themselves, by force, from their own government. However, since the 2nd Amendment has been so foully re-defined throughout the years, the people now find their own 'right' (their own personal check and balance against government) to protect themselves from oppression and coercion as archaic. Sad. Now that this has been said, we can now hear from those who will argue about automatic and high powered guns in the hands of criminals and the need for control.

The argument here is simply mis-applied definition - 'Morality' as defined in early Judeo-Christian writings was the source of all desire towards action. Sure, there needs to be actions, but towards what? A Boy Scout may be praised for helping an old lady across the road (action) but it is the inward 'morality' factor that says whether or not he will rob her or simply shake her hand when they are safely on the other side. You speak of Madalyn Murray O'Hair - how appropriate - her son wrote of her, "My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her." This is but one proof that Atheism has no 'moral' code... Actions? Perhaps - but towards what? Madalyn Murray O'Hair is the perfect example of atheist action - hospitals should be built instead of flagrent prayers? Absolutely! But at what cost? Philosophically, religiously, politically, or historically - in order for society to stand, a certain 'moral code' needs to exist within the hearts of the people - a 'code' that says something is right or something is wrong.

Of course men must have the right to choose and make mistakes - this isn't in reference to "man must be able to break the law without punishment from time to time because he needs to learn to be good" - but in order to be free, man must be able to choose his path, right or wrong, and have the ability to follow it. Anything more or less than this is forced compulsion and results in tyranny.

Plato understood the REAL meaning and use of 'morality' - Not the government forced coercion that most athiests claim morality to be, but the inward need of moral values and virtues in the heart of every individual. Pre-emptive laws only make honest people honest - it does nothing to deter crime. A criminal has no inward 'morality' that governs his actions; hence, the need for jails and prisons - to take law breakers out of society because they cannot control their actions and are a danger to society. Criminal's break the law with no thought TO the law - how do you control such people? You can't - that is, without personally restraining him and taking him out of society. This establishes Plato's thought: "Good people" have a certain inward law or code (morality) within themselves that make them able to be self governing, regardless of any outward law - "Bad people", on the other hand, have no 'code' or inward set of 'values' (morality) and need the forcible structure of the law.

Vices are not crimes so long as through a vice no crimes are committed. For instance, I personally have no problem with drunk drivers - I know several people who drive better and more alert when they're drunk than when they're sober. I do believe that there should be stricter punishments for drunk driving accidents - if they hurt or kill someone while drunk driving - then they should be locked up indefinitely - not because of their "vice" but because they allowed their own pesonal "vice" or "choices" to infringe upon the rights of another in a way that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Instead of trying to pass pre-emptive laws (victimless crime laws) - it would be far more effective to punish someone after he's violated someone else's rights... It's nice of people to try and put their own spin and definition to such words as 'morality' - but most people miss the fact that once compulsion or coercion are introduced into society, morality is gone. You cannot blame 'morality' for tyranny.

The quote itself is not enough to know one way or another. If he is talking about criminals - then this quote is accurate because a criminal (someone who breaks actual de jure law and not the majority of de facto laws) has denied any moral virtue within himself and is not governed by any code and must be restrained in order to prevent him from further crime. However, for the honest man to be constrained or limited in his action for his "possible" crime is unjust. This is why pre-emptive laws are incompatible with society - they only keep the honest people honest. Criminals who have no morality are going to "break the law" regardless what rules are established. If the government punishes the free exercise of expression from those who are honest in order to catch the few who are dis-honest - tryanny is instantly born.

The George Washington source is his Farewell Address - a speech that's now illegal in public schools because it mentions God. As for defining a Christian - absolutely you can define them by what they DO. Christianity has a set of moral virtues of adherence (as does most religion) - a simple profession of association to a group does not classify as a party of that group. Especially of Christianity - "By their fruits ye shall know them". Christianity IS testable by the principles of, let's say, the Bible - It only takes a village idiot to look at a person's actions and see if they practice what they preach. Atheism has been classified as a non-belief in God or a structured set of moral values - as such, all a person would HAVE to do is claim Atheism and that is that. However, with Christianity, along with any other structured religion, it is easy to determine if that person is true to what they say due to their actions and conduct in accord to what they say they believe in.

Realistically speaking. No one can say that I'm not a Christian, if I simply proclaim myself one? Or say that I'm not a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Islamic or another belief if I merely state that I'm associated with them? I can see how that would work for an atheist but for the rest of civilization, it just can't be contained within those terms. Consider the terrorists - only an ignorant person to the Islamic and Muslim world would say that they are in fact Muslim or Islamic. They have (as it has been said) "high jacked" a religion. This is the difference with Religion and Atheism: You can't merely say you're a member of some group in Religion and have it be true - you have to live and practice what is taught in order to hold claim on those ideas, good or bad - a person may be a sympathizer or lean towards a particular thought; however, in such situations, this person is clearly not a member of his proclaimed belief. Atheism, on the other hand, has no code or core belief except a non-belief in God - What principles of morality and religion can an Atheist hold? He cannot, for he has disavowed them - and for this reason, he can simply claim Atheism and be grouped into that classification by mere self proclamation. There are endless examples of this fact.

Said like a good agnostic. You confuse religion with compulsion... While it is true that secular religion, when coupled with government, has led to national decay - it is not true that Religion is the culprit and stands to blame. You are partially right, but for all the wrong reasons. Governments have suffered from compelled and forced virtue long before Christianity came into play, this is true - Sparta and Grecian history, Roman history, Babylonian, Egyptian, and a slew of other western civilizations have faltered for what seems, on the surface, to be established Religion. But to say that it was "religion" that destroyed the civilization is inaccurate, to say the least. Any true historian can look at the facts of history and see the pattern of society - All civilizations are built on the same principles and they all commit suicide by the same principles... Strong and independent nations are brought about on the strength of the morality and a belief structure of religion; albeit, these nations never FORCED the people to belong to these virtues but allowed them their own agency of choice. Freedom and Liberty, brought about by the agency of man in choosing his own path, are what made these nations great. However, it always follows that as soon as the civilization becomes powerful, men come along who claim that you can have religion without morality or that you can have morality without religion and that society will stand strong. They divorce these two pillars from each other and teach an idea that it's okay. Once a civilization starts down a path of religion without morality, you have the foundation of tyranny. Mark it, this has happened to every failed civilization: Religion and Morality are divorced by an establishment of a particular political denomination – Since there is no more morality, immorality abounds (rape, drugs, murder, abuse, crime, broken families, etc.), which causes more strict laws and “forced virtue” upon the heads of the people to save society – This is done because the people “cannot be trusted to govern themselves” due to the “immorality” that has ensued. On the same note, when you have someone professing that they can have morality without Religion associated, the same, historically, has proven just as fatal. The facts don't lie. These two standards, once divorced, will prove the downfall of a nation. You can't have one without the other or slavery is all that is left. So while you say that Religion has been the historical reason of national decay - you're only half right - and not for the reason you think. It’s not religion’s fault – after all, religion is merely a belief held by men – it’s the fault of the men who believe that they can govern themselves without morality.