Credible sites on Gun Control

[Dr.Doom]

My girlfriend is doing a paper over gun control, and was wondering if the fine gentlmen of this forum could give her some good websites to use as references.

Thanks for the help,
Doom

[LittleRedToyota]

here are some sites that i would not directly cite, but that are themselves well-documented (meaning you can follow the documentation to the original sources and cite them if they seem credible and objective enough).

www.gunfacts.info

www.guncite.com

http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm

also, the work of gary kleck should be of interest (he is also cited in some of the sites listed above) as he is a well-respected researcher:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

also, the CDC did a study that could not find support for gun control measures:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

the NAS did a similar study with similar results:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

[Dr.Doom]

here are some sites that i would not directly cite, but that are themselves well-documented (meaning you can follow the documentation to the original sources and cite them if they seem credible and objective enough).

www.gunfacts.info

www.guncite.com

http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm

also, the work of gary kleck should be of interest (he is also cited in some of the sites listed above) as he is a well-respected researcher:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

also, the CDC did a study that could not find support for gun control measures:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

the NAS did a similar study with similar results:

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

Thanks for the urls!

[A-Bear680]

Lots of very high quality secondary sources and background info from an organization that fights smart and wins:

www.saf.org.
Just dig past the press releases and recruiting stuff to the very solid law , history and ethics material.

[Business_Casual]

Here's one:

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

M_P

[rat31465]

http://www.nraila.org/

[the1911fan]

A Well Regulated Militia?
From and by: Ken kiger@northstate.net

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"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."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Solomon]

Here is the (libertarian) Cato Institute's page on gun control:

http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display..._id=30&ra_id=9

[titsonritz]

Necro-Thread - I was going to start a new, but after doing a search to see if this had been posted I ended up here, I checked all the links above and they still work fine.

I hear liberals always bitching how Congress won't authorize funds for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence, so they lie about and bury it. Guess it doesn't fit the agenda. I know big surprise.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...se-of-firearms

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_...lence_2013.pdf