Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Everyone knows the 2nd Amt. is only for arming the army

Now that I've grabbed you, what does everyone think of the idea that the Second Amendment actually guarantees (I didn't say grants) every law abiding American the right to own and carry any firearm he or she wishes, including full auto, without having to check with a government agencey? Seems clear that a militia requires such things. What does the word "infringed" mean in this context, if not that the Federal Government has to keep its paws off the matter, other than to prevent states from violating our rights in this regard?

As Tom Clancey said; "My gun is no one else's business."

Hawk, at the risk of stiring a fire storm similar to what we see about the Remington rifles, I think we, US citizens, do have the right to own and possess firearms. I do think, however, the Government has the right to restrict which type of firearms are manufactured and sold and even possessed by the citizens. I know that drawing an extreme conclusion would enable Big Brother to first ban anti-tank guns, then machine guns, then semi auto's, then pump guns, then bolt guns, then green ones, black ones, etc. But, I do believe that it is in the best interest of us all that only with severe restrictions ( I can't define that very well), only certain of us are allowed to own machine guns, "street sweepers", anti-tank guns, bazooka's hand grenades, etc. I have dropped out of the NRA many years ago because I felt the NRA wasn't doing it's part to help the cities draft legislation that would on one hand, protect the rights of citizens to own and possess firearms and still would enable the law enforment that we all desire and, I would add, require.

If I were an Anti my response would be "What part of Well Regulated did you not understand ?"

The first phrase provides the reason for the second. That is to say (to paraphrase), "Seeing that the best method of defending liberty is that which relies predominantly on a 'well regulated militia,' we the people hereby forbid the infringement by government of our right to keep and bear arms."
<br>
<br>You have to realize first off that our current understanding of the phrase "well regulated" is not the sense in which it was understood originally. When we see the word "regulated," we moderns automatically think of the many and diverse government regulations that we have all learned to live with in modern America. That understanding of the word was unknown at the time, however. "Well regulated" simply meant well organized, well equipped and well trained (Thanks B.C. Ranger). It had nothing at all to do with being regulated by a governmental agency. That notion was alien, in fact, to the early Americans. You only need to read what they themselves thought they were doing with the Second Amendment.
<br>
<br>In order to have a well organized, equipped and trained militia, you must first have a militia (i.e., an armed citizenry). In other words, a well organized, equipped and trained militia has as a prerequisite that the people's right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment, and no serious legal scholar, who has actually studied the issue, believes otherwise. I don't consider leftist ideologues serious scholars, by the way.
<br>

It's an argument I've encountered...I point out that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samual Adams, Thomas Jefferson & Co were not guaranteeing the ownership of weapons they were recognizing that men had a proclivity to arming themselves to ensure that they could violently disagree with tyranny if the occasion arose and more importantly to ensure the safety of themselves and their loved ones...The Second Amendment isn't about hunting it is about fighting tyranny with the most effective means available...

I wish the liberal "scholars" had the wit to understand what the framers of the bill of rights had in mind and what they understood at the time. As Hawk points out their understanding of regulated was trained and properly armed. Not controled by the central government but by the states. They also had an abiding fear, with reason, of a "standing army". One of the causes listed in the declaration of independance is ".. has kept standing armies among us in time of peace..." The milita in their time was considered to be all free males willing and able to shoulder arms in defence of the state. The idea lasted well into the nineteenth century.
<br>BCR

"Proclivity" is not the word the Founders used. The word was "right," which means something very different. The Founders were Enlightenment thinkers, and the notion of Natural Rights was very much a central feature of the Enlightenment. Read the Federalist Papers.

Proclivity noun plural- ties.The natural or habitual inclination or tendency; propensity: predisposition according to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
<br>
<br>I meant in this instance that the forefathers knew people armed themselves whether it was legal to or not. I know at Lexington, Mass on April 19, 1775 after the King had outlawed private small arms ownership in the colonies his subjects revolted thereby fighting the first battle in the Revolutionary War.

Yes, the battles of Lexington and Concord were all about the Brits trying to collect the powder and guns of the Massachussetts colonists. These conlonists, however, were under the impression that they had a right to arms, not a mere proclivity, which is why they sniped dead over 70 Brits on their way back to Boston. Apparently they felt pretty strongly about it. Normal people don't usually resort to deadly force over mere proclivities.
<br>
<br>A kleptomaniac may possess a proclivity to steal, but he does not thereby possess the right to do so. The proclivity to arm oneself is not the source of the right. The right derives from the necessity to arm oneself in order to secure life, liberty and fundamental human dignity.
<br>
<br>A man who is disarmed by his own government is no longer a citizen (perhaps not even truly a man), but rather a slave to the state (lower case s state). Modern-day British SUBJECTS, for example, are not true citizens of Great Britain as they are disarmed by that government. They are something significantly less than citizens. Perhaps serfs is an appropriate word, or servants, or slaves, or subjects, or wards, but certainly not citizens. Their position in relation to their government is servile. This has always been the distinction between a slave and a citizen, i.e., a citizen may go about armed, while a slave may not.
<br>

Rolly, I know someone who teaches in Coeur d'Alene, ID. maybe you know each other.

Hawk,
<br>
<br> You are right onthe money in your description of the meaning of "well regulated". I have tried to explain this a few times over the years but most folks just don't get it. (or do not want to get it).
<br>
<br>MM

Obviously the word "proclivity" is becoming too obscure a word to use in conversation anymore...a testament to our public schools

Logansdad, I'm not sure I understand your concern with this word? What's with quoting the dictionary? Aren't you being a little ridiculous suggesting that I don't understand you when you use this word, and that it is due to my not having an adequate education? What's the point in that kind of talk?

Sorry about the education crack...I didn't think you were reading my posts. We agree on this issue.

My last post was deleted by a moderator or something

Hawkeye, who is the teacher?

All I learned here is that even people you agree with will argue with you on a topic given the opportunity

It seemed to me that our point of disagreement was worth commenting on. We probably are 90% in agreement, however, which is good enough for government work.

Rolly, check your messages.

Hey folks, I believe a little history lesson is in order here. The entire Bill of Rights was written to counter laws and restrictions which had been placed on the colonists and across the British empire by the Royalists in a weak attempt to prevent the revolution they saw coming. I won't say that they were a knee jerk reaction, but they were a reaction, for sure. All of the things from firearms, to billotting, excise taxation, forbidden gatherings were a means to keep the colonists from getting together and conspiring to rebel. (Which they did very well.)
<br>
<br>If the Bill of Rights had been about guarantees of freedom, you would have seen such common practices as slavery and indentured servitude included. So let's not fool ourselves into believing that there was some divine guidance involved in the writing of the Bill of Rights. The entire episode, from the initial rebellion to the War of 1812 was fought about money, trade and finance.
<br>
<br>Who thinks the Boston Tea Party was about Tea? It was about the right to trade directly with India and cut the royals out of the tax they believed they had coming.
<br>
<br>One of the measures that the crown had imposed was the regulation of firearms and gun powder. They, the royals, had concluded that without firearms the colonists would have a devil of a time raising a rebellion. They were right. The Second Amendment was a reaction to that restriction.
<br>
<br>

AMENDENT II
<br>
<br> 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.
<br>
<br>
<br>Reading a little further we find:
<br>
<br>Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
<br>
<br>No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
<br>
<br>No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
<br>
<br>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
<br>
<br>Now, someone PUHLEEZE explan to me that the 2nd Am. only applies to the National Guard.
<br>7mm
<br>

You, of course, are correct. As are many of the previous posters.
<br>
<br>The Bill of Rights didn't get written at a weekend retreat by hired writers and then approved in a board meeting the following Monday.
<br>
<br>Every word, comma, dash and dittle was criticised, crucified and wordsmithed to death.
<br>
<br>As earlier referenced, most , or much of those debates are recorded in The Federalist Papers.
<br>
<br>Back around the tail end of the 1780's the framers were vehemently opposed to any form of "standing army". This is a term which is loosely defined as maintaining troops for any purpose other than the direct defense of the country. I wouldn't argue about a more specific definition if someone's got it at hand.
<br>
<br>Aside from standing armies the only other generally accepted means of waging battle were the use of mercenaries or militias. Mercenaries notwithstanding, the framers considered any person who received any pay for military service from any government entity to be a part of a standing army.
<br>
<br>Since the inception of the National Guard, these members have received pay for their services. This is exactly what the framers opposed. They are, in fact, a standing army.
<br>
<br>So, this National Guard thing kind of got slipped in on us as another good idea which not too many opposed. The problem now is that the lib's kind of think the Guard was there back in 1789 and the whole militia point is moot.
<br>
<br>Well, they're flat ass wrong!!
<br>
<br>"The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms, has no historical foundation.8
<br>
<br>Indeed, George Mason made a distinction between a 'standing army' and a 'militia' of civilian men.9 That is, the 'militia' was to be composed of all males capable of "bearing arms supplied by themselves."10"
<br>
<br>(This above in quotes from a Second Amendment website)
<br>
<br>
<br>The militia are we, the able bodied MEN who are citizens of this country who do not currently belong to any standing army. Or Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard for that matter.
<br>
<br>A better scholar, that's just about anybody, can give you more specific details. I'm just running on memory and I'll grant you it's not all that good.
<br>
<br>Key Words to remember in this debate :
<br>
<br>Militia------------------Us
<br>Standing Army------- Guard, Paid Reserves and Regulars
<br>
<br>2D

Here is an interesting article on this subject. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051601.shtml
<br>
<br>And here is the study discussed.
<br>http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm

Good pull. I added that to my "Favorites" list.
<br>
<br>I had kept a great reference list on this subject, but, had a major brain fart last summer and wiped out everything on my old computer. I have to start over. I really enjoy honest discussions on the 2nd and like to be at least partly armed going into battle.
<br>
<br>Thanks,
<br>
<br>2D

Vin Man, Thanks for the marker. That is a great article. It takes a subject which has been made complex and simplifies it into the most basic terms.
<br>
<br>GREAT!!
<br>
<br>

In my opinion, there was a big flaw in the above mentioned article, though it was generally good. The flaw was in asking a linguist, or grammarian to interpret it, divorced from a knowledge of history, law or archaic usage. The words "well regulated" do not, as the expert suggests, mean "answerable to a governmental authority." There are countless examples of this in early American texts. There is no doubt but that the grammarian has erred here, due to this factor being out of his field of knowledge. "Well regulated" meant "well ordered," not "well controlled by a governmental agency," which is what the phrase means in modern English. Other than this, I recommend the article.

2nd Amendment isn't about hunting
<br>
<br> It's about being able to fight tyranny. In the 1770's the vast majority of people weren't unhappy enough
<br> with the King to raise arms against his troops. It was treason to openly suggest it..a hanging offense. The
<br> Revolution was not popular with society at that time...nobody wanted to raise a fuss or call attention to
<br> themselves. Do you read your paycheck stubs ? Are you happy with the government you are paying
<br> heavily for ? They didn't pay taxes like ours back then and they took up arms That's what
<br> that tea party was all about A relatively small but very vocal group
<br> of people pass laws about the environment, or make school policy but we just sit and complain about it to
<br> each other....Preaching at the choir as my father the Reverend would say...We need to write letters (not
<br> e-mail or phone calls) because they get the idea that we really mean it because we sat down and took
<br> the time to put it in writing and send it through the mail

That's right. It says nothing at all in the Second Amendment about hunting. It's about the best method of preserving liberty against potential tyranny, and that best method is an armed citizenry. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that every able-bodied man be armed with a weapon, belonging to himself, equivalent to that of a contemporary military personal arm. Today, that arm is an M-4 assault carbine. Every able-bodied American man should have an M-4 (or its rough equivalent), as that is the official arm of the United States Military, and should know how to use it, and have a stockpile of .223 ammo. That is a basic responsibility as a citizen of this republic. When, in a hundred years or so, the United State Military adopts "ray-guns" as the standard personal arm, it will be our obligation to own one of them as well, along with a stockpile of plutonium to power it. I plan to.

How about a plasma rifle in 40 watt range...taken from "The Terminator" to which the gunstore salesman says "Just what you see here"

Just thought I'd try to revive this one. Any takers?

All I can add is an interesting argument taken from Vin Suprynowicz that addresses the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own artillery pieces, anti-aircraft missiles, armored vehicles, military aircraft, or even (here it comes, get ready) nuclear weapons!

Suprynowicz points out that America was built upon the assertion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed...that is, all the powers the government has are delegated to it by the people. Therefore, it is impossible for the government ever to justly have a power that the people do not have, since the people are the only legitimate source for government power.

If you followed that, then it's obvious that if the government legitimately has the power to own nuclear weapons, then the only way it could possibly have obtained that power is to have had it delegated from the people. Conversely, if the people have no right to individually own nuclear weapons, then the government can have no such right either!

I thought that was a particularly astute observation. He outlines it at least a couple of times in his book The Ballad of Carl Drega, but I don't remember exactly where.

Barak, that's an interesting point. You are correct, of course, that the founding philosophy of our nation is that all just powers exercised by government derive from the consent of the governed (i.e., they all originally resided in us individually), but although it is a traditional liberty that free men may keep and bear arms, it is not a traditional liberty that individual men are free to posses nuclear weapons, therefore it is possible for the majority to vote away that individual right which we theoretically originally possessed, and thereby bind the minority (which is not the case for personal small arms). Although this vote was never actually taken, it was presumptively taken in our name by our elected representatives in government (i.e., it is illegal for you or I to posses a nuke). Personal small arms, however, are another matter, as this has always been the mark of a freeman over a slave, i.e., the right to own and "bear" personal small arms (let's refer to this as one of our "inalienable rights"). We may know that the founders were referring to personal small arms, because they can be "borne" by a person. The right to possess and bear personal small arms is also protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, as this is a liberty traditionally possessed, recognized and exercised by free Americans at the time of the founding. A suitcase nuke, by the way, is not a personal small arm by any definition I am aware of, even if it can be borne. It is not, therefore, one of those fundamental liberties that cannot be voted away by the majority (it's not inalienable), even if it is true that it was theoretically originally an individual right. Some powers which originally belonged to us individually have been delegated to government, such as the power to make war on nations, for the greater good. Other liberties are inalienable. The inalienable ones are those that we were traditionally known to possess at the time of the founding of our nation. We also, as sovereign people, are the original source of all governmental powers (including the power to posses nukes), but we have delegated many of those (i.e., we have alienated them from ourselves) to the government. Nukes are one of those powers that were not inalienable, and have been delegated away from us individually by actual or presumptive majority vote. We retain this right now only as a nation, not as individuals. The right to keep and bear arms (i.e., those personal militia arms capable of being individually borne), being inalianable, we retain as individuals.

I understand your point of view, and I respect it, but I'm more Spoonerian.

I believe that if at some point in time I have a particular right, then I have that same right at every point after that as well, unless I specifically and personally decide of my own free will to give it up.

By the reasoning above, if the government now has the power to possess a nuclear weapon, then at some time I must have had that same right. Since I never gave it up, that means I still have it.

(We'll leave aside for a moment that the Constitution does not anywhere (that I'm aware of) authorize the government to prohibit the mere possession of anything.)

I understand the argument you make that my elected representatives have given up that right in my name, but I disagree with it. The most effective argument you could make, I think, is that my vote for a particular representative constitutes my personal agreement to give up whatever rights he decides I don't need or shouldn't have. I still have issues with that; but I absolutely refuse to accept that a representative I didn't vote for (and whom I may even have voted against) has any authority whatever to speak in my behalf.

I also understand that the government would take issue with me for that belief, but I'm sure you'll understand if that doesn't particularly impress me. The government takes many issues with me, and the feeling is thoroughly mutual.

Barak, your elected representatives do not possess the authority to vote away any of our traditional liberties, i.e., those recognized and enjoyed by individual Americans at the time of our nation's founding. The reason they do not possess this authority is that you do not possess this authority. Certain rights are inalienable, even by you. You may choose not to exercise them, but you retain them still the same. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those rights, as is the right to seek and secure employement, and the right to travel, as well an many others not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights. We retain all rights not delegated exclusively to government by the Constitution, e.g., we gave up the right to wage war on nations when we gave it exclusively to the Federal Government. We gave up the right to print money when we gave that power exclusively to the Federal Government. That list of powers is pretty short though. Somehow I am willing to let the Federal Government exercise authority over who can have a nuke. That one doesn't bother me too much. I see your point though.

Who's "we?" I never gave up that right. I suspect you probably never gave up that right either. Somebody a long time ago, before either of us was born, took it upon himself to give up that right for both of us, obviously without our consent. Since we didn't consent, I don't believe he was successful in his endeavor, whoever he was.

That's part of what I mean in my signature when I say, "The Constitution may have its problems." Lysander Spooner sums it up this way: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

You have a point when you say that the mere fact that you choose not to exercise a right does not mean that you don't have it. In most cases, I am willing to choose to live in the same way I would if I actually had consented to give up the rights the Constitution purports to take from me; but that doesn't mean it has taken them from me, or that I no longer have them. If I should choose at some future point no longer to be governed by the contract laid out in the Constitution, it would be entirely just (in my estimation, anyway) for me to do so.

Politicians and bureaucrats, on the other hand, are a different breed. If when you take your oath of office you swear to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," then you are bound to be governed by it.

I think I understand your doctrine of "traditional rights," but I've never heard it anywhere before and it's not yet clear to me why I should accept it.

Barak, "traditional liberties" is a legal term of art. It is used to refer to all the rights retained by the people, which are alluded to in the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Basically, we have the right to do everything we could do before the Constitution was enacted, except those things which "We the People" have assigned exclusively to the Federal Government. For example, We the People have surrendered the individual right to wage war against foreign nations (we have to join a national army in order to do that). While "We the People" still retain that right, we retain it only in the collective sense of retaining it via our elected representatives in the Federal Government (or we can join a foreign military, as was done by H.W. McBride in WWI). We can do that now, only as a collective.

I know you and I didn't agree to this stuff individually. It is presumed we presently agree to it (at least the majority of us), however, because there is no grass roots movement to elect representatives to restore those powers to us individually.

"Traditional Liberties," on the other hand, require no grass roots movement to restore them to us individually, because they are always retained by the people individually. Certain rights are inalienable, such as the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Our right to keep and bear arms is part of our right to life and liberty. Since we have the right to life, we have the right to defend that life, and liberty cannot long survive without the right to the means of defending it from tyranny, as stated clearly in the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers.

Okay. It appears that at least on this subject we have reached an impasse.

Anyone else?

Anyone?

Coming in late on this thread, but I have to respond to part of Danr55's "little history lesson"..."If the Bill of Rights had been about guarantees of freedom, you would have seen such common practices as slavery and indentured servitude included."

Problem with this assertation........

The abolishment of slavery was indeed brought up in the Constitutional convention. There was much pressure to include it (though I don't recall if it was suggested to be a part of any "BOR"). The fact that it was not taken up has less to do with whether the BOR is about rights or not, than it does with the reality of having to apease the southern states to some degree in order to assure ratification of the Constitution.

The BOR was not part of the original Constitution, because it was accepted at that time that it should be unneccessary and might even be damaging. The result of controversy over BOR was for it to be tabled until after ratification.

Whether slavery came up during the same debates that gave us the BOR as amendments is a point that I no longer recall with any reliability. But to assert that because one right (or "wrong", in this case) is not included in the BOR - that the entire collection has nothing to do with rights is error. It is the same attitutde that alarmed some of those at the Convention against a BOR in the first place. The fear was that they could not possibly include every right known to man (for lack of a better phrase), and that government would surely usurp those that were left out. Accordingly, it would be better to assume that government had no powers that were not specifically granted by the constitutuion. Under this theory, a BOR should not be necessary. Of course, we know what happened later...(long subject).

BTW - in regards to slavery. Slaves were held by individuals or corporations. For slavery to be properly adressed in the BOR, it would seem to me that said BOR would have to be adressing slaveholding by government (another loooong subject we could get into). The BOR is not about what citizens and/or corporations do to each other, it is about what government cannot do to citizens.

Sorry, Dan - IMO, that was an errant line of thought.

-FreeMe

Barak???? Is that you, my friend?

I have some thoughts on 2A, regarding "weapons of mass destruction". I'm interested to hear your response.

Do you think the BOR was meant to include devices that a typical citizen could not aquire or deploy individually? I mean - why would it not also say that a citizen or group of citizens, on their own, could maintain an army - if there was not an intent to allow some upper limit of destructive power not controlled by government?

I'll save other questions for another post...

-FreeMe

Yup, 'fraid so. Looked like the other site was going to shut down, so I decided I'd come over here and inflict myself on these good people, perhaps managing in the process also to soil the reputations of Flower Child and T LEE for inviting me.


Well, if you accept Hawkeye's argument about "traditional rights," then I suppose you could argue that.

But my argument about the absence of automatic limitations on the extent of the 2A doesn't come from the Constitution, but from the DoI's stipulation that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If the government now has the power to possess tanks, planes, artillery, aircraft carriers, etc., then according to the DoI that power must have been given to it by the people. Therefore, at some point the people must have had that power to give. (Remember, the BoR doesn't purport to create any rights, just to protect rights that existed before it was written.)

Now, you could argue, using various dubious theories and historical assertions, that the implicit intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution was to sign over to government and subsequently give up their right to possess crew-served weapons. Perhaps you would win that argument, and perhaps you wouldn't.

But my assertion, fueled by treatises like Lysander Spooner's No Treason, is that the argument is moot. Whether or not you can argue convincingly that the founders gave up those rights, you cannot argue convincingly that I have given them up. Even if the Constitution can be construed as transferring those rights to government, I didn't sign the Constitution, I didn't swear to uphold or defend it, and I didn't vote for any politician that is now in power. (Or at least, you can't prove that I did.)

So, 2A or no 2A, I believe I have the right to own whatever military or paramilitary weapons I can afford. Right now, that's pretty much limited to a Springfield M1A and a Glock 17; but I have the aircraft carrier on order--I got a good deal on e-bay.

Barak, trust me, you can't tarnish my rep. It's already green from my opposition of GW's little war in the making.

I was a card carrying Republican most of my life. I now vote on the basis of issue alone, don't look to party affiliations for salvation, they are all just politicians (the nastiest word I can think of) bent on keeping their job and their fingers in the till.

Barak, you have armed yourself very well with a Springfield M1A and a Glock 17. Can't argue with your two gun battery (assuming you don't hunt). Only change I might make would have been for you to get yourself a good 1911 A1 Government Model .45 instead of the Glock, but I know why you got the Glock (I think), and it's probably a good idea. I think you wanted a handgun that didn't require a whole lot of training for everyone in the house to know how to use it effectively, and that's a Glock alright. Glocks are very reliable and tough. Good choices. If a person is properly trained in the Government Model .45, however, it's a better combat weapon than the Glock in my humble opinion.

Well, Barak - I'm gonna take some time to wrap my mind around your last post.

Real glad to see you here, amigo. And FC too. There are some great personalities here at the Campfire, and it will be even better with you guys here. Now, if we can get the rest of the top hands from that Shooters ship before it goes down, all will be well with the cyberworld...

-FreeMe

I know whatcha mean. There are a bunch of people in my congregation who are scratching their heads about me too. "I don't understand: surely you can't be on Saddam's side, can you?"

But they've scratched their heads about me before in that place, and they probably will again.

Oh, I too am NOT for Saddam, I am against wasting our military and the consumate funds needed to pursure a usless war. Tracking down and killing the terrorists is on the other hand a worthwile endevor in my mind.

Window dressing to cover a lack of results in the pursuit of the Tango's is all that stomping Saddam is, a diversion at best from the real issues now facing us in the world. If, and I mean IF, the government could prove to the American public that Saddam is a "Clear and Present Danger" (shades of the Missiles of October) to us and our way of life then I would say DECLARE WAR and go get him. This BS police action stuff and for the good of the world 'cause he is a bad man is a sorry excuse to put our military in harms way.

I support our men and women in uniform 110%, I do not offer the same for the .gov fools that have control of them.

Why, thank you.

Actually, it's not a two-gun battery; I was just talking about military and paramilitary weapons, and most of my other guns probably don't qualify.

I do have a French MAS 49/56 in 308, and it was intended to be a military gun, but I'm not sure I'd want to shoot it at a person more than 50yd away; after I spent a whole magazine getting dirt in his eyes, I'm afraid he'd get mad and nail me. It's mostly a fun gun at the moment. (When I got it, it was the best I could do in the way of a battle rifle; but a few years later I scored the M1A.) It's also on paper, so perhaps it could serve as confiscation fodder.

Technically, I suppose I do own ten 8mm Mauser bolt-actions, which are military guns, but they're, ah, not immediately accessible to me, shall we say, and I wouldn't be surprised if I never saw them again.


You're close. I'm limited to Five Calibers, and none of them is 45ACP. Given my choice of a pistol caliber, I probably would have chosen either 45ACP or 40S&W (I think 40S&W probably has more potential as a cartridge, but the better guns seem to be made for 45ACP), but my wife didn't like the recoil, and I wanted her to practice. So I have a Glock 17 and she has a Glock 26.

But the puniness of the 9x19mm has [bleep] at me ever since, so recently I decided to add a Fifth Caliber to my stable of Four and bought a 7.5" Ruger Redhawk revolver in 44Mag. 9x19mm isn't the puniest handgun caliber around, but it's definitely toward the bottom of the heap. Similarly, 44Mag isn't the heaviest handgun caliber around, but it's definitely toward the top. The problem is that it's ex-freaking-spensive and I don't handload. Yet.


I'm not religious about Glocks; but I am religious about trigger breaks. A gun without a trigger break (DA, DA/SA, or DAO) makes me very nervous. I want to know at some point that the very next fraction of a millimeter that the trigger moves will fire the gun. Given that, I shouldn't like the Glock's sproingy plastic trigger, but I've learned to deal with it. If I could find a thinner, smaller gun, though, that had a similar grip angle and a nice trigger break in 9mm, I'd be interested. The Kahr is good except for being DAO, and the LST (is that right? Subcompact 9mm of 1911 design?) is good except for the blindingly high price.

What's the LST?

Grabbed, yes. Hehe. An inalienable right, it is the right of the individual. The different definitions of what a militia is simply amazes me. We are talking about defense. Prosecute offenders. Allow the law abiding to defend themselves, their loved ones, their land and property. If it ever comes down to it, please let law abiding, freedom loving, decent common men to defend the country with the use of their personal firearms. Any anti's want to put all their faith in government for protection?

jojo, that's true. When asked, years after the war, why Japan did not just invade the west coast after destroying most of our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, a former high ranking Japanese naval officer said that the Japanese high command was aware that every American household had a loaded rifle stashed behind the kitchen door, and that most Americans knew how to use them effectively.

I know this thread is long inactive, but I'm new here and wanted to add my 2 cents.

My take on the 2nd ammendment is that is indeed for inividual persons. The concept of gun ownership is mentioned not in the general Constitution, but in the area reserved for individual rights. Yup, all 10 of them are aimed at individuals. The Constitution proper is where states rights are defined. And where Armys (well regulated militias / government contoled) are set up.

Does this sound reasonable??