Writing a paper on Gun Control, need sources

imported post

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

I decided to write a paper showing the proof of my statements, and I don't believe I have enough to make a decent paper. If anyone on here has some links to youtube videos, articles, or news reports I could use, I would be beyond grateful.

Also, and info about how the Second Amendment is vital to the security of the US would help too. This report will be read in front of hundreds of students, and so I think it would be well worth the effort.

Much thanks to any and all help.

imported post

You can start with how the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and how government has not followed the constitution.

imported post

If you have the time I suggest you read the book "Unintended Consequences". It does a fairly good job of presenting the chronology of gun-rights loss beginning with the first major laws in the 30's.

imported post

http://www.guncite.com/

/thread

imported post

You need to read "America Fights Back" by Dave Workman & Alan Gottlieb.

Enlightening book to say the least.

imported post

Trent wrote:

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

Click to expand...

What claims did you make?

imported post

HankT wrote:

Trent wrote:

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

Click to expand...

What claims did you make?

Click to expand...

Nothing over the top at all. I talked briefly about how liberal parties like the Brady Campaign are dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment. Also that such organizations have used illegitimate tactics to convince the public of their viewpoint (like when the BC labeled semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles", and that hollow point bullets are "cop killers")

imported post

grishnav wrote:

http://www.guncite.com/

/thread

Click to expand...

Don't take this personally but your off my Christmas card list.

Do you have any idea how many hours I am going to spend reading this site. :lol:

imported post

Trent wrote:

HankT wrote:

Trent wrote:

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

Click to expand...

What claims did you make?

Click to expand...

Nothing over the top at all. I talked briefly about how liberal parties like the Brady Campaign are dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment. Also that such organizations have used illegitimate tactics to convince the public of their viewpoint (like when the BC labeled semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles", and that hollow point bullets are "cop killers")

Click to expand...

What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

imported post

grishnav wrote:

http://www.guncite.com/

/thread

Click to expand...

Amazing site. I actually printed off the entire document, at work or course, and it was a hefty chunk of reading.

imported post

One of the most concise and inclusive sources on the second amendment is the 'Second Amendment Primer'. Included in the book is an incredible paper called 'The Embarrassing Second Amendment'. This is an absolute must.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Trent wrote:

HankT wrote:

Trent wrote:

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

Click to expand...

What claims did you make?

Click to expand...

Nothing over the top at all. I talked briefly about how liberal parties like the Brady Campaign are dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment. Also that such organizations have used illegitimate tactics to convince the public of their viewpoint (like when the BC labeled semi-auto rifles as "assault rifles", and that hollow point bullets are "cop killers")

Click to expand...

What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

Click to expand...

While I can't claim to speak for him, the highest "scorecard" state for the BC is California. That's a state where ownership and legal transfer of a firearm has an expiration date based on a book of their arbitrary standards, where the color of a gun can cause it to lose certification, where not paying a fee every 5 years and recording with the government what guns you own can result in prison time, where only the politically connected are issued concealed weapons permits, where private citizens may not engage in the transaction of their firearms without federal and state approval, where guns are banned solely on their cosmetic appearance, where a gun stolen from you and used in a crime can result in charges against you, and many other things. That is the closest state to their ideal state of being, and it's insane.

Not only that, but taking this quote from their mission statement:

Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

Click to expand...

It's clear they do not believe any firearms that are not strictly for sporting purposes should be banned. That is obviously in contrast to the second amendment, which provides a military-based reasoning for the people to keep and bear arms. Even if they don't want to ban all guns, those they do want to ban are in stark contrast to those which would be useful within the framework they claim the second amendment follows - for the militia.

imported post

HankT wrote:

What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

Click to expand...

Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.

imported post

Trent wrote:

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

I decided to write a paper showing the proof of my statements, and I don't believe I have enough to make a decent paper. If anyone on here has some links to youtube videos, articles, or news reports I could use, I would be beyond grateful.

Also, and info about how the Second Amendment is vital to the security of the US would help too. This report will be read in front of hundreds of students, and so I think it would be well worth the effort.

Much thanks to any and all help.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent paper on gun control and may be helpful

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

imported post

If Google is failing you it must be because you typed "gun control logic."

imported post

Trent wrote:

So I am talking with another student about how the liberal government is slowly taking away gun rights until there is nothing left, and my prof. comes over and demands I show sources for my claims. I tell him I am happy to.

I decided to write a paper showing the proof of my statements, and I don't believe I have enough to make a decent paper. If anyone on here has some links to youtube videos, articles, or news reports I could use, I would be beyond grateful.

Also, and info about how the Second Amendment is vital to the security of the US would help too. This report will be read in front of hundreds of students, and so I think it would be well worth the effort.

Much thanks to any and all help.

Click to expand...

Author John Lott JR "More Guns, Less Crime"

FBI Unified Crime Report

CDC studies on guns.

Fraternal Order of Police studies 2000 - current

imported post

Google Gary Kleck or search Guncite.com for him.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

HankT wrote:

What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

Click to expand...

Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a cite?

imported post

HankT wrote:

heresolong wrote:

HankT wrote:

What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

Click to expand...

Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a cite?

Click to expand...

http://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_brady_center.pdf

Contrary to the lower court’s view, guaranteeing a
right to keep and bear arms to “the people” does not
imply that the right extends to private purposes unrelated
to militia service.

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment guarantees individuals the
right to be armed only as participants in an organized
militia that serves the security needs of the States.

Click to expand...

The lower court argued that guaranteeing a right
to keep weapons for private purposes such as hunting
and self-defense was “the best way to ensure that the
militia could serve when called.” Pet. App. 33a. This
assertion defies common sense and is, once again, historically
inaccurate. Guaranteeing a right to possess
guns for private purposes is neither necessary nor sufficient
as a means for arming state militias. It is not
necessary, since the Constitution gave Congress the
power to require the possession of guns for militia purposes,
nor is it sufficient, because it makes the effective
arming of the militia dependent on the uncertain
choices of private citizens about whether to arm themselves
and what arms to possess.

Click to expand...

The arming of the militia
was a matter of government command, not individual
choice.6

Click to expand...

While the lower court thought it self-evident that
the word “keep” injects a private, non-militia purpose
into the Amendment, there is no historical or textual
basis to believe that while the right to “bear Arms” is
military, the right to “keep and bear Arms” is not.

Click to expand...

Shall I continue?

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

HankT wrote:

heresolong wrote:

HankT wrote:

What is your source for the statement that the Brady Bunch is "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment?"

Click to expand...

Actually they have made this statement on numerous occasions, including filing supporting documents in court for the Washington, DC complete gun ban.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a cite?

Click to expand...

http://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_brady_center.pdf

Contrary to the lower court’s view, guaranteeing a
right to keep and bear arms to “the people” does not
imply that the right extends to private purposes unrelated
to militia service.

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment guarantees individuals the
right to be armed only as participants in an organized
militia that serves the security needs of the States.

Click to expand...

The lower court argued that guaranteeing a right
to keep weapons for private purposes such as hunting
and self-defense was “the best way to ensure that the
militia could serve when called.” Pet. App. 33a. This
assertion defies common sense and is, once again, historically
inaccurate. Guaranteeing a right to possess
guns for private purposes is neither necessary nor sufficient
as a means for arming state militias. It is not
necessary, since the Constitution gave Congress the
power to require the possession of guns for militia purposes,
nor is it sufficient, because it makes the effective
arming of the militia dependent on the uncertain
choices of private citizens about whether to arm themselves
and what arms to possess.

Click to expand...

The arming of the militia
was a matter of government command, not individual
choice.6

Click to expand...

While the lower court thought it self-evident that
the word “keep” injects a private, non-militia purpose
into the Amendment, there is no historical or textual
basis to believe that while the right to “bear Arms” is
military, the right to “keep and bear Arms” is not.

Click to expand...

Shall I continue?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Please get to the part where it says that the Brady-ites are "dead set on getting rid of America's guns even though doing so violates the second amendment."