Ban on Gun Ownership?

[Facetious]

Hope you guys like this. This thing is sweet.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml

:hatsoff:

Indeed ! Any such ban on guns would certainly metastasize into bans on other related items. - A ban on machine tooling, would eventually arrive, but wait ! I jumped the gun so to speak lol ! America doesn't even mill steel anymore ! The chicken has to come b'fore the egg.

Really though, our supposed "leadership" in America are killing us with their shortage programs and if there ever was (which there wasn't) a time to reconsider any such ban on firearms, this is no time !
Imagine how a country would be rendered absolutely defenseless without a broad resource for machine tooling. Now that I think of it it's already being accomplished here with the special interests

 

[negator]

Take a gander at these:

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/firearm-archive.shtml

:hatsoff:

The great American hero (and history will vindicate his actions) Ted 'Unabomber' Kaczynski made this great little homemade pistol using nothing but hand tools in his remote cabin in the USA. Ted Kaczynski made this gun to perhaps avoid the detection of having to buy one. It's remarkable in its craftsmanship but rahter clumbsey looking. Don't know if it worked, but given how meticulous he was, it probably did. This photo is part of the government evidence against him, found at this CBS site, without much explanation. If you know more, write.

rahter clumbsey indeed!

 

[bombardier52]

My point was that we have brought about changes to government not because of being armed (though until 1920 there was no gun control in the UK) but through popular persuasion and public pressure.Americans almost throw up their hands in horror at the mere word "government"...I wonder if it's because they have been fed nonsense about having to cast off a tyrannical yoke and risk losing their hard won freedom? Yet after Independence they were little freer than their English counterparts, in some ways less so, except that they governed themselves.
There is no talk of seizing Second Amendment rights, the question is simply whether there were any rights there to start with.

So the Magna Carta was signed throught popular persuasion and public pressure? I disagree.

By 1215, some of the most important barons in England had had enough, and they entered London in force on June 10, 1215, with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to the "Articles of the Barons", to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta. An unknown number of copies of it were sent out to officials, such as royal sheriffs and bishops.

The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document. This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed. This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.

Clause 61 essentially neutered John's power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a civil war, called the First Barons' War. Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it.

Maybe they didn't have guns but King John didn't sign the Magna Carta because he thought freedom was a groovy concept.

 

[Facetious]

When the lights go down, the intellectual conversation goes :wave: :wave2: Bye bye !










Did you hear that ? :eek:

 

[bombardier52]

No, not really. Hero worship aside, they were no more special than anyone else. Referring to them as "some of the greatest thinkers that this world has ever seen" is quite frankly ridiculous beyond words.
Regardless, their opinion and conclusion was based on conditions from over 200 years ago. Whether they came to a correct conclusion or not then doesn't mean it's correct today. If their reasoning was so sound, then use that reasoning to justify your position, not an argument that essentially boils down to "because they said so".

It is hardly hero worship. I am sorry that you didn't read my earlier posts where I boiled down the reasoning that they used for the Bill of Rights and the 2d Amendment. You sort of have to read from the top to catch my whole argument.

I disagree that they weren't special. They risked lives and their fortunes to create the country I live in today. I have travelled all over the world and while there were some places that I really enjoyed there were no places I wanted to live. My freedoms and liberty were secured by the vision, intellect, and huge balls of the men we call the founding fathers. Just signing the Declaration of Independence was like signing their own death warrants. In many ways they are akin to the Barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. Also men of vision who believed in liberty and freedom. The Constitution and the arguments for and against while it was debated is some of the clearest thinking I have ever read. It has pretty much stood the test of time. The intent of the founding fathers is the cornerstone of the Constitution today.

Sic semper tyrannis
-Marcus Junius Brutus

 

[Imagine]

It is hardly hero worship.

Really? Because you seem to be under the impression that staging a successful rebellion qualifies you for being one of the smartest people ever. If that's not hero worship, I'm not sure what to call it. Delusion, maybe.

I am sorry that you didn't read my earlier posts where I boiled down the reasoning that they used for the Bill of Rights and the 2d Amendment. You sort of have to read from the top to catch my whole argument.

Which one would that be? The one where you implied that correlation implies causation, or one of those with an appeal to authority and nothing else? Stating what the constitution says or what random peoples opinions are is not an argument.

I disagree that they weren't special. They risked lives and their fortunes to create the country I live in today.

People do that every day, to some extent. I doubt that their involvement in the revolution was as altruistic as you seem to think, not to mention that a whole lot of people risked no less or even more in the same war, and in pretty much every other conflict in human history for that matter. Quite frankly, the American revolution is hardly an ideal example on how to wage warfare. Successful, yes, but not necessarily well executed.

Oh, and it doesn't really matter anyway. Smart or not, they can be wrong like anyone else. Look up Einstein and his view on quantum physics if you want an example. Should the whole concept have been scrapped merely because Einstein didn't like it?

I have travelled all over the world and while there were some places that I really enjoyed there were no places I wanted to live.

Which means that where you live is automatically the best place in the world? I'm sure that opinion can be found in just about any nation in the world. Or for that matter, in any religious, cultural or even racial group. That people hold a certain bias for what they grew up with is hardly surprising, nor is it particularly interesting as far as this issue goes.

In many ways they are akin to the Barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. Also men of vision who believed in liberty and freedom.

The Magna Carta was also quite inspired by the nobility's desire to be given more power that previously belonged to the king. Many of the rights were, as far as I know, already in effect.

The Constitution and the arguments for and against while it was debated is some of the clearest thinking I have ever read. It has pretty much stood the test of time. The intent of the founding fathers is the cornerstone of the Constitution today.

Gee, that's nice, but it's still not an argument. It's a piece of paper. If the arguments are as good as you say, then they should still hold and there will be no need to refer to the summary of the debate (the constitution) over actually using those arguments directly.

 

[marquis2]

So the Magna Carta was signed throught popular persuasion and public pressure? I disagree.

By 1215, some of the most important barons in England had had enough, and they entered London in force on June 10, 1215, with the city showing its sympathy with their cause by opening its gates to them. They, and many of the moderates not in overt rebellion, forced King John to agree to the "Articles of the Barons", to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record the agreement was created by the royal chancery on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta. An unknown number of copies of it were sent out to officials, such as royal sheriffs and bishops.

The most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the document. This established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed. This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.

Clause 61 essentially neutered John's power as a monarch, making him King in name only. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London, plunging England into a civil war, called the First Barons' War. Pope Innocent III also annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear." He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John's dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church's authority over the King and the 'papal territories' of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it.

Maybe they didn't have guns but King John didn't sign the Magna Carta because he thought freedom was a groovy concept.

I wasn't talking about just the Magna Carta.It's the fact that we have moved from being a feudal society to what we are at the moment , arguably among the freest people on the planet by actually changing and reforming the governments stage by stage largely by force of argument.Our biggest problem isn't tyrannical government, it's inept government.

 

[bombardier52]

Really? Because you seem to be under the impression that staging a successful rebellion qualifies you for being one of the smartest people ever. If that's not hero worship, I'm not sure what to call it. Delusion, maybe.

Which one would that be? The one where you implied that correlation implies causation, or one of those with an appeal to authority and nothing else? Stating what the constitution says or what random peoples opinions are is not an argument.

People do that every day, to some extent. I doubt that their involvement in the revolution was as altruistic as you seem to think, not to mention that a whole lot of people risked no less or even more in the same war, and in pretty much every other conflict in human history for that matter. Quite frankly, the American revolution is hardly an ideal example on how to wage warfare. Successful, yes, but not necessarily well executed.

Oh, and it doesn't really matter anyway. Smart or not, they can be wrong like anyone else. Look up Einstein and his view on quantum physics if you want an example. Should the whole concept have been scrapped merely because Einstein didn't like it?

Which means that where you live is automatically the best place in the world? I'm sure that opinion can be found in just about any nation in the world. Or for that matter, in any religious, cultural or even racial group. That people hold a certain bias for what they grew up with is hardly surprising, nor is it particularly interesting as far as this issue goes.

The Magna Carta was also quite inspired by the nobility's desire to be given more power that previously belonged to the king. Many of the rights were, as far as I know, already in effect.

Gee, that's nice, but it's still not an argument. It's a piece of paper. If the arguments are as good as you say, then they should still hold and there will be no need to refer to the summary of the debate (the constitution) over actually using those arguments directly.

I'm not even sure how to begin to address this. I admire the founding fathers and I do believe that there was much more to their actions than a power grab. I don't hero worship anyone and calling be delusional is a really weak argument in itself. Nice analysis and logic! You seem angry over this issue. I am sorry that I am a fan of some old dead guys and that upsets you.

 

[Imagine]

I admire the founding fathers and I do believe that there was much more to their actions than a power grab.

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that you don't know their motivation any more than I do. Since their character seems to be a major factor in why you believe in their conclusion, I expect you to do better than merely believe.
But like I've said, not that it matters. The only thing you can get out of their character is whether they meant what they said or not, which is completely irrelevant. Even if they are twice what you seem to think, it still doesn't strengthen the argument. A flawed argument is flawed no matter how smart the person using it is, and there is absolutely nothing that prevents a smart person from using a flawed argument, especially not when that argument was based on factors from over two centuries ago.

I don't hero worship anyone and calling be delusional is a really weak argument in itself. Nice analysis and logic!

Oh that wasn't the argument. The argument was that there is nothing you said about them qualify them as being "some of the greatest thinkers that this world has ever seen". It qualifies them as being successful rebels (not necessarily even good ones), perhaps even "good guys" (although that is purely a matter of perspective, traitors is an equally valid description), but that is all. For example, they did nothing about slavery, something which the French that helped them expressed some distaste for. I believe that Lafayette even more or less literally said that he wouldn't have helped America if he knew slavery would still be allowed.

You seem angry over this issue. I am sorry that I am a fan of some old dead guys and that upsets you.

I couldn't care less whether you like them or not. I'm "upset" over the way that you use them as an argument instead of the actual argument that they supposedly had. That the only actual argument I've seen you use thus far (except for your supposed link between gun ownership and crime rates) boils down to "because some guy said it".

 

[negator]

 

[dave_rhino]

Maybe. Maybe not. The point is that you don't know their motivation any more than I do. Since their character seems to be a major factor in why you believe in their conclusion, I expect you to do better than merely believe.
But like I've said, not that it matters. The only thing you can get out of their character is whether they meant what they said or not, which is completely irrelevant. Even if they are twice what you seem to think, it still doesn't strengthen the argument. A flawed argument is flawed no matter how smart the person using it is, and there is absolutely nothing that prevents a smart person from using a flawed argument, especially not when that argument was based on factors from over two centuries ago.



Oh that wasn't the argument. The argument was that there is nothing you said about them qualify them as being "some of the greatest thinkers that this world has ever seen". It qualifies them as being successful rebels (not necessarily even good ones), perhaps even "good guys" (although that is purely a matter of perspective, traitors is an equally valid description), but that is all. For example, they did nothing about slavery, something which the French that helped them expressed some distaste for. I believe that Lafayette even more or less literally said that he wouldn't have helped America if he knew slavery would still be allowed.



I couldn't care less whether you like them or not. I'm "upset" over the way that you use them as an argument instead of the actual argument that they supposedly had. That the only actual argument I've seen you use thus far (except for your supposed link between gun ownership and crime rates) boils down to "because some guy said it".

You can't see or hear it, but I'm clapping right now. Nicely done.

 

[bombardier52]

Sorry old beans,
I was off on holiday and didn't get to see these posts until today. I have been confused by our disagreement on America's "Founding Fathers." I think that you would be hard pressed to find an American who doesn't think very highly of that group. Perfect? No way but better than most. So this gets me thinking. Why are you so hostile to any comment that puts them in a good light?

Little slow on the uptake here but....You are English! You are still pissed over losing your colonies to a rebellion. I had no idea that you Brits were still upset over that. Never mind then. Carry on!

Tongue in cheek.

It does explain something to me. I really believe most Americans think highly of that group of people although there is no way for me to know that for sure. I wrongly entered this tussle thinking that was just accepted. I apologize for that. My characterization of them as great thinkers is certainly an opinion. It is based on my reading and study of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Federalist Papers as well as numerous biographies that have come out over the last five years or so. If you don't think the care I feel they took to protect liberty and freedom is impressive well then I certainly am okay with agreeing to disagree.

 

[Imagine]

Right, let me explain this to you one more time...

I don't care what you think about the founding fathers. I don't care about what most Americans think about the founding fathers. I don't care what most of the world, various alien species, inanimate objects and abstract concepts thinks about the founding fathers. I don't care what God himself thinks about the founding fathers. Hell, for the sake of this debate, I don't particularly care what I think about the founding fathers

You want to know why? Because it doesn't bloody matter.

What matters is that you use their supposed character as an argument for why their conclusions are correct. You want to know why I'm "hostile" towards them? Because what I've been trying to tell you all along is that you don't know their character. They may have been great beacons of freedom and hope, but they may just as well have been treasonous bastards who didn't want to pay their taxes. You don't know that, I don't know that, and no one today can honestly say that they do. The same goes for any supposed attribute of theirs.

Basically, your entire argument is based on two things:
1) The character and intelligence of a group of people, and
2) The assumption that (1) implies that they will produce a correct argument

But alright, fine, let's assume that they were gods among men, the sharpest knives the drawer has ever had the pleasure of having in it, living saints with the best of intentions. Oh, and snappy dressers too.
Now here's the real kicker. It still doesn't matter. Being a successful rebel, a guy with really good intentions, or even a bloody genius doesn't mean that your opinions on gun control are good, especially not two centuries into the future. Not even if you look really good in a suit. What makes this even worse is that you don't even know if they are smart and good and well dressed. That is merely an assumption. (1) is a mix between appeal to authority and some sort of inverse ad hominem (not sure if there's a name for that one), (2) is just about a textbook example of appeal to authority. What you have is an argument that is based on a faulty implication which in turn is based on an assumption of factors that are not even relevant to begin with.

-

Oh, and I'm not English, nor is my nationality relevant. Who says I'm not American, and more importantly, why would it matter? The really amusing part however, is that I haven't even said whether I'm for or against gun control.

 

[Facetious]

ø ø





:crickets: :grins:

 

[bombardier52]

Right, let me explain this to you one more time...

I don't care what you think about the founding fathers. I don't care about what most Americans think about the founding fathers. I don't care what most of the world, various alien species, inanimate objects and abstract concepts thinks about the founding fathers. I don't care what God himself thinks about the founding fathers. Hell, for the sake of this debate, I don't particularly care what I think about the founding fathers

You want to know why? Because it doesn't bloody matter.

What matters is that you use their supposed character as an argument for why their conclusions are correct. You want to know why I'm "hostile" towards them? Because what I've been trying to tell you all along is that you don't know their character. They may have been great beacons of freedom and hope, but they may just as well have been treasonous bastards who didn't want to pay their taxes. You don't know that, I don't know that, and no one today can honestly say that they do. The same goes for any supposed attribute of theirs.

Basically, your entire argument is based on two things:
1) The character and intelligence of a group of people, and
2) The assumption that (1) implies that they will produce a correct argument

But alright, fine, let's assume that they were gods among men, the sharpest knives the drawer has ever had the pleasure of having in it, living saints with the best of intentions. Oh, and snappy dressers too.
Now here's the real kicker. It still doesn't matter. Being a successful rebel, a guy with really good intentions, or even a bloody genius doesn't mean that your opinions on gun control are good, especially not two centuries into the future. Not even if you look really good in a suit. What makes this even worse is that you don't even know if they are smart and good and well dressed. That is merely an assumption. (1) is a mix between appeal to authority and some sort of inverse ad hominem (not sure if there's a name for that one), (2) is just about a textbook example of appeal to authority. What you have is an argument that is based on a faulty implication which in turn is based on an assumption of factors that are not even relevant to begin with.

-
Oh, and I'm not English, nor is my nationality relevant. Who says I'm not American, and more importantly, why would it matter? The really amusing part however, is that I haven't even said whether I'm for or against gun control.

The anger is so unbecoming.

As I thought I said in my last response. Those are my opinions. You are correct that I know little of those men except fom their writings. Come to think of it, you used the character word not I. I don't really care if they screwed their foxhounds or molested cabin boys, I only care about their ideas, it being over 200 years ago and all. MY OPINION is that they knew what they were doing. You can have all the opinions you want too! There is freedom at FreeOnes!



When the case that led to this thread is decided it will be the opinions of nine judges about what the framers meant and if they were correct in what they thought.

 

[freshfreshy]

I think that it will be ruled unconstitutional on 2 grounds
The first is the second amendment; this could be debated b/c of how strangely the sentence is worded
The second is the right to self defence. Even if no 2nd amendment existed you still have the right to a gun because most criminals have them and if you live in a high crime area like washington, new york, chicago, detroit, LA, or Miami I think you have a valid reason to posses a hand gun. If you don't need guns to protect yourself then why do cops and criminals have them? Why does the Chief of police and judges need guns when they have body guards and sit behind a desk all day and face little danger(more so for the chief than the judge). Yet somehow if I live between two crack houses I have no right to have a gun. I know people who are anti-gun are so b/c they believe there is just a better way. But I used to live in a high crime area and luckly moved up and out and the police do not protect people they only investigate crimes after they happen, they do not stop crimes or deter them, they only investigate after a crime has happened, meaning citizen have to get beat, shot, or robbed before the police will help you.

Police have back up, citizen's don't and thats why they really do need the guns to protect themselves at the very least until the police arrive. Truth is supreme court ruled that police have no obligation to protect civilians unless there is a prior arrangement, ie witness protection, so saying people have no right to reasonable weapons like hand guns- not ak 47s and m16s which I think are excessive- has the consequence of leaving citizens unarmed in the face of armed criminals and leaves us at their mercy. Most importantly it violates your rights. If the cops have no duty to protect most citizens then who does, don't we have the right to security?

 

[Imagine]

The anger is so unbecoming.

A mix of annoyance and amusement, actually. I could use a few choice words about your contribution to the debate so far as well, alas, I fear it would be poor form.

Come to think of it, you used the character word not I.

You used the concept. The constitution says this, the people writing the constitution were great etc. (and smart people agree with it), therefore the constitution is correct. That is an appeal to authority, which is an fallacy based on the character of the one making it. Hence, I used the word.

I don't really care if they screwed their foxhounds or molested cabin boys, I only care about their ideas, it being over 200 years ago and all. MY OPINION is that they knew what they were doing.

Well that's lovely, but, like I've said more times than I care to count, that is not an argument. Your OPINION is not interesting in the slightest, nor is theirs. The whole point is that it doesn't matter. If their ideas are so great, I expect they had some solid reasoning behind them, which I'm sure you would have no trouble repeating. That is what matters. Even if they did molest cabin boys etc.

When the case that led to this thread is decided it will be the opinions of nine judges about what the framers meant and if they were correct in what they thought.

Then let's hope that they are capable of being at least somewhat more objective than you. They, however, are supposedly experts on law, and I believe their decision will determine what the constitution was supposed to say (a matter of interpretive law), not whether gun control is right or not. It is not exactly an appeal to authority if said person actually has superior knowledge of the matter at hand, provided that they have a valid reasoning based on that knowledge. You, however, are not an expert on modern gun control, and I dare say that neither were people who died 200 years ago (and it still wouldn't actually replace the need for an argument, it merely lends some credibility to their conclusions).

Either way, I don't really care. What I care about is the way people use the constitution (which is either an appeal to tradition or authority depending on how it is phrased) as an argument against change, any change, and actually think it's a valid argument. If there is no reasoning behind it, the constitution is not even worth the paper it is printed on. If there is, then use that instead of referring to aforementioned piece of paper.

-

The first is the second amendment; this could be debated b/c of how strangely the sentence is worded

Se above.

The second is the right to self defence.

Relies on the assumption that a gun is the only means of self-defense (which at least to some extent is not true) and that more guns among the population will increase individual security (which isn't necessarily true either).

Even if no 2nd amendment existed you still have the right to a gun because most criminals have them and if you live in a high crime area like washington, new york, chicago, detroit, LA, or Miami I think you have a valid reason to posses a hand gun.

And you're certain this will help? If you were to compare, for example, Canada and the US, I believe that the rate of violent crime is lower in Canada than the US, despite the US having a far higher gun density (last time I checked at least, which admittedly was a while ago).

(I should probably note as well that this doesn't necessarily mean that guns increase the crime rate, merely that there are clearly other factors involved. See the stuff I said about correlation and causation earlier.)

If you don't need guns to protect yourself then why do cops and criminals have them?

Criminals to project force, hardly to defend themselves. Police obviously to defend themselves, but they have a much greater need than the average civilian considering that it's their job to directly get involved in potentially dangerous situations. They also have extensive training in its use and are generally encouraged not to use them.
Not to mention that most policemen in the UK actually doesn't carry guns.

Why does the Chief of police and judges need guns when they have body guards and sit behind a desk all day and face little danger(more so for the chief than the judge).

They may have a gun, for various reasons (in case of the former, tradition is a big part of it I'm sure). Whether they need one is the whole point of the debate.

But I used to live in a high crime area and luckly moved up and out and the police do not protect people they only investigate crimes after they happen, they do not stop crimes or deter them, they only investigate after a crime has happened, meaning citizen have to get beat, shot, or robbed before the police will help you.

Does guns deter them? Maybe it does, but quite possibly the threat could just make them more trigger happy. Pulling a trigger can be done much faster than drawing a gun, aiming and pulling the trigger, so the question is whether that gun will do you much good if the guy is determined to kill you anyway (and if not, do you really need to kill someone in self-defense?).

 

[Friday on my mind]

I would just like to add that IMO this constant reference in many threads about the 2nd amendment was somehow adopted by the founders for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves from crime is not accurate.It was soley to defend themselves from over-reaching govt power.If you read the writings of the founders, no where do they talk about crime or hunting or anything related to those kinds of issues in arguing for the adoption of the 2nd amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[ballzano]

using a weapon to defend yourself kind of goes without saying if you live in a frontier area, manifest destiny and all.

 

[negator]

I would just like to add that IMO this constant reference in many threads about the 2nd amendment was somehow adopted by the founders for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves from crime is not accurate.It was soley to defend themselves from over-reaching govt power.If you read the writings of the founders, no where do they talk about crime or hunting or anything related to those kinds of issues in arguing for the adoption of the 2nd amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

that's right, and it's still the best reason for the people to keep and bear arms. everything else is just gravy.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

-thomas jefferson