Some Good Old-Fashioned Gun Ownership...

[DynamiteMcGhee]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

What is the deal with crack users?

Seriously. Crackheads have feelings too.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by WA_Vol

Your just trying to compensate for some inadequacies you feel in the bedroom


That is some great advice, thanks. I think I would prefer the 9 mm. After your post, I did some research doesn't appear it's that much bigger then the p238 either.

Service weapon

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by DynamiteMcGhee

Seriously. Crackheads have feelings too.

May be true, but violent crime stats say different

[PKT_VOL]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

With regard to your first point, I think the general decision to declare independence had some roots in what was then modern day philosophical thinking about the role of government in the lives of individuals. No doubt about that.

But I think the Second Amendment was grounded in practical fear, not some sort of appeal to natural law. The practical reasons for a reading of the Second Amendment so as to empower a militia no longer exist. And indeed, the enormous harm caused now by private gun ownership, particularly again handguns, is sufficient in my view so as to distinguish between guns held for purposes of an actual militia versus for so-called self-protection against other citizens.

I am glad we agree about the fundamental political philosophy which inspired our revolution. We are going to have to agree to disagree about the Second Amendment being drafted for the protection of the States.

I am not a gun nut a by any stretch of the imagination. However, I can't help but look upon history and the abuses of governments when they had all the military or "fire power" while their citizen has nothing. It is never a good idea to let government have absolute power. Eliminating private ownership of guns would only enhance this risk.

As the old adage goes, "peace comes from the barrel of a gun".

This saying along with Thomas Jefferson's "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I feel the only way to adequately insure this balance of power between a militarized government and its citizens is for private gun ownership under the Second Amendment as I and many other interpret it.

Now, this is not to that private gun ownership doesn't create its own issues. It does. However, I believe those issues are heavily outweighed by futile armed resistance towards government. Just a side note, those issues which you alluded to (and I conceded) that are caused by private gun ownership are often cancelled out by the would be victim also having a gun. Funny how that works. Such instances are a microcosm of social contract in my opinion.

Originally Posted by lawgator1

With regard to your second point, I think the Second Amendment would bar the federal government from preventing a state from doing so. But I think most states would rightly view such a project as a clear waste of time, space, and money. A few might do it to politically appease their own gun nuts. But over time I think more rational people would come to see that there just is no point to it.

I agree. A militia would be impractical in modern times.

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Again, remember, I am just saying that the Second Amendment I don;t think bars a state from regulating the crap out of private gun ownership. I personally think they should. But they might not. Its just that if they do regulate it I don't think the Second Amendment is an issue.

This would go back to our interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[OrangeEmpire]

Militia is impractical?

The National Guard is the state militia.

[RespectTradition]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

Militia is impractical?

The National Guard is the state militia.

Would you stop making sense?!?!?!?! We are talking about gun control here! Facts and logic have no place.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

Would you stop making sense?!?!?!?! We are talking about gun control here! Facts and logic have no place.

Just saying.............

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

Militia is impractical?

The National Guard is the state militia.

technically, it isn't

in a militia, the individual members keep their weapons at their homes.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by MG1968

technically, it isn't

in a militia, the individual members keep their weapons at their homes.

Just saying, at least in Ky, Oh & Va the national guard is militia.

[n_huffhines]

This story is even better than in the OP. Grandma bustin' caps on armed robbers.

Granny gets in shootout with would-be robbers

[Chris4Vols22]

Originally Posted by n_huffhines

This story is even better than in the OP. Grandma bustin' caps on armed robbers.

Granny gets in shootout with would-be robbers

Hahaha awesome story. My favorite part:


"I thought I was going to die," Luisa 'Lulu' Campbell said -- and she wanted to take someone with her.

[MG1968]

reminds me of Ma Boggs from "Every Which Way But Loose"

[n_huffhines]

Enfuriating. No wonder LG loves it in Florida.

20 Years for Standing Her Ground Against a Violent Husband - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by T-TownVol

kinda hard to be a bully when every one is laughing at your arse

[KentheOrange]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I don't know a soul who belongs to any sort of official state militia. Do you?

At the time, the colonies had fought largely organized as state militias because, by definition, they had not had any sort of state sanctioned military or independent police force. Much of their focus was on preserving their arms and ammunition because that was such a target of the British in the Revolutionary War.

Naturally, they feared giving to the new federal government the same power that had been attempted to be exercised against them by King George and British Parliament.

Viewed through the lens of modern America, I simply cannot equate those concerns with anything today. Only complete a-hole nutjobs think they need to keep a gun to fend off the federal government. They might trot that out there to wrap themselves in the flag, but they are mostly liars and vigilante types.

Having said that, this means only that I do not attach to the Second Amendment some type of carte blanche authorization for people to have any gun they damn well please. Rather, I think it means that a state can maintain a store of arms for purposes of fending off any sort of federal government military incursion into the homes of their citizens, a rare and obsolete worry, to be sure.

As to private citizens, therefore, I see no Constitutional restriction on a state's ability to restrict individual gun ownership. Therefore, I would say that a state government should be permitted to bar private ownership of firearms or, much more likely, restrict ownership severely.

I think that, in the case of handguns, there is a legitimate debate to be had in any given state as to whether private ownership of them should be permitted basically at all.

I tend to think all states would allow it, as it would be incredibly politically unpopular at the current time to ban them. But, I could see a lot of states over time adopting measures that might make it much more difficult to own one. And in my view that would not violate the Second Amendment.

Actually, you probably do and just don't know it. During the "Republic of Texas" movement several years ago, Florida seemed to be the second largest semi organized group with a militia.