Posted on 12/16/2007 3:35:16 PM PST by An Old Man
As much as the ideologues and constitutional scholars enjoy it, the Second Amendment issue is only academic anyway. For there are tens of millions of handguns and long guns in private possession in the country, they don’t wear out quickly, and no legislation is going to get many of them back. Only still more oppressive government could accomplish that. Indeed, the more that government tries to outlaw guns, the more that people might see the need to keep them.
(Excerpt) Read more at projo.com ...
The excerpt is the second to the last paragraph in the artical. It would seem that no mater which way the court rules, they cannot have the guns.
Indeed. The more talk from lawmakers breaking the law by violating out Constitutional rights, the more private gun acquisitions increase.
“It would seem that no mater (sic) which way the court rules, they cannot have the guns.”
Well, not unless they want another Lexington and Concord, at least.
Merely academic? I don’t think so. There should be no argument on this issue (same for many others) because the Second Amendment is quite clear.
Even a cursory examination of the underlying discussion and debate shows that this notion was particularly espoused so that there could be no mistaking that individuals have the ultimate responsibility for their own safety and protection...protection from crime, and protection from government gone awry.
I find it patently offensive that this argument continues.
You would think it would behoove the court to side with “The People” but time will tell.
Give them up? Come and take them! If you can.
I feel the need for more guns.
a CZ does fit the hand VERY nicely.
But for some FUN home defense how about one of these.
http://calicolightweaponsystems.com/home/
Watch the vid on the fron page.
I’m in good shape for close quarters contact, and was thinking more along the lines of a SiG 556 as a good HD weapon when the hordes of Islamic terrorists and MS13 gangs start visiting Mayberry, USA.
There is a developer who has made a handy carbine in .45 ACP that has almost zero recoil and allows the shooter to stay on target even with full auto fire. I can’t remember the name, thoyugh.
I don’t believe I will see firearms confiscation in my lifetime (almost 40) although I fear more firearms might require registration in the future (.50 calibers for example).
Who would enforce such an action in America? Law enforcement folks I know would not do this nor would the military. I have twenty years in those institutions and that is not the constitution I swore to uphold. I am also a gun owner as is my entire extended family.
I know which side I would be on and I suspect deep down most of “them” know this.
Well it's either that or the Romanian T-33 a case of 7.62x25... She just said, "Order yourself a gun" so there isn't anything specific... ;)
More on topic, Republicans better get to working on something to replace the gun issue, and darn soon too. If the SCOTUS rules in favor (I think it will), the entire Democrat party will become pro-gun or at least neutral. It's already starting with individual candidates around the nation.
I don't think you will ever see fire arm confiscation in the area I was raised in. When I was younger, we (A few WWII USMC vets and me) used to take some Chicago Typewriters out into the country and drink beer while poking holes in the empty cans. Almost all of the vets are lying in some federal cemetery now but the Tommy Guns still work like new. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much about the registration of a .50 Cal, there are a lot of things out there that the government was never meant to know about. Just don't take em to town when ya do yer bankin, that has a way of making everybody nervous.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I think you are talking about the KRISS http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=974
"In support of gun controls like the D.C. ordinance, liberals stress the amendment’s dependent clause to argue that the right to bear arms is limited to those who are or may become part of a state militia. If a state wants to forego raising a militia this way, liberals argue, it can nullify the right."The liberal opinion about the 2nd A. is just more evidence that ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic. Widespread ignorance of the Constitution is also evidenced by the following link.
http://tinyurl.com/npt6tBut the truth about the 2nd A. is that John Bingham, the main author of Sect. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes defining personal privileges and immunities that the 14th A. made mandatory for the states to respect. So there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd A. protects the personal right to bear arms from both the feds and the states as much as any other constitutional privilege and immunity helps to protect other personal rights. See the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Record.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nThe bottom line is that the people need to wise up to politically correct interpretations of the Constitution, particularly where their privileges and immunities are being threatened by special interest factions. The people need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
I have to disagree with you. It is not “epidemic” it is “endemic” to the libs. :)
I stand corrected.
Nevertheless, thousands of firearms are reported to have been confiscated during Katrina. A federal court has ordered them returned to their owners, but proper records weren't even created to support that.
These arms were confiscated by agents of the government, some of them being law enforcement personnel on loan from places like the People's Republik of Kalifornia.
The most publicized incident involved a California Highway Patrolman tackling an 80-year-old woman in her own house in order to take away her handgun.
Since Katrina several dozen states have passed laws clarifying that arms shall not be confiscated during emergencies, but we already had the Second Amendment to protect us, for all the good it did at the time.
The U.S. Supreme Court corrected that interpretation in the Slaughterhouse Cases a few years later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.