Posted on 05/01/2008 4:48:49 PM PDT by neverdem
In Montana if one wants to loose in an election, all they need to do is even hint that they are in favor of gun control of any sort. More people own guns in this state than any than other state in the union, and this issue is not even up for discussion in this part of the world. Most of us feel a basic right of an American, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is a right to own and bear arms. Actually that right has been nibbled away at and redefined a number of times, and probably will be again in the future.
Things have changed in the last two hundred plus years and the rules had to be changed in this writers opinion. Even in Montana it is illegal to have a fully automatic rifle (although the writer is aware of several fully automatic submachine guns and rifles in the area.) Bazookas, artillery and rifle propelled grenades are not for public use, and in this state we cannot carry concealed weapons without a special permit. So even now the right to bear arms is not an unrestricted privilege.
Those who are in favor of strict gun control laws, and many are all for doing away with all private ownership of guns, have come up with some very compelling stories and statistics which make this a significant public health issue. In the year 2005 there were 30,694 deaths due to gun shot wounds in this country (statistics indicate that an American is safer in Iraq than in the USA). Before the next election this is going to be a big issue, and in considering the reasons for and against gun control there are a few arguments in favor of people being permitted to have fire arms at home.
Switzerland has a higher percentage of homes with guns in them than does this country. What is the only country in Europe that has not been invaded ( excluding the island countries of Iceland and the UK ) in the last 150 years? Switzerland, it was strongly considered by a number of aggressive neighbors, and avoided because a determined and well armed citizenry was judged to be too difficult a people to conquer. In World War II, after pretty well neutralizing the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, invasion of the American main land was considered but rejected by the Japanese High Command. This was primarily because their intelligence was convinced that an invasion would not succeed because such a large proportion of the citizenry was well armed and would vigorously resist invasion.
Perhaps what we really need to do is think about what the first clause of the Second Amendment means and work on that.
Richard S. Buker, Jr., M.D.
County Health Officer
Well put Dr. Buker.
I was in Billings last weekend, and it occurred to me... I could definitely live there! :)
We The People, are much more law abiding than our government.
Along the way to making a case for wholesale review of U.S. nuclear-weapons control policy, Scarry usefully reviewed the militia laws since 1792, including the relevant acts governing the National Guard whose constitutional problems she illuminates as a side issue to her main thesis.
She shows that the Framers fully intended that the People be armed, and that they intended that the nation, for the sake of the People's liberty, rely primarily on the Militia for its security.
Thank you very much for the info.
Here’s a frivolous aside: In the distant past, when wearing swords in public was common among gentlemen, if not the bourgeoisie and laborers, as much as not, swords were a symbol of class and rank. A gentleman just wore a sword, to identify himself as a gentleman, and that was that.
It was somewhat different in the old West, as guns were most frequently worn by the laboring class, and less common among the middle class and wealthy in most situations. And far from being fashionable, guns were seen as a useful and practical tools. If you were working out in the wilderness, you just had to have a gun for all sorts of reasons.
But in either case (and I’m sure that someone could point out great flaws in either of these examples), weapons had a dual purpose which made them almost a uniform need among the people who carried them.
So my aside is, today, carried openly or concealed, what other social reason can you imagine that would make guns “the thing to have” for the typical man on the street? Just like men all used to wear hats, what do you think might be the trendy reason to sport a gun today, besides its purpose as a weapon?
In past, I’ve thought that a business could encourage its employees to be armed, not for any great reason, except to both improve morale and esprit. Of course, if the business was either in a bad neighborhood or its employees were at some risk, it would be a good idea as well, and would demonstrate that the business cared for its employees.
But what would make a gun “the thing to have” for the typical man on the street, beyond its use as a weapon?
Perhaps as a tool, perhaps as a fashion statement, perhaps as a symbol of affiliation or adulthood. And not just for men, but women as well. I wonder.
Times may have changed, and rules may, may I said, need to have been changed. But they haven't been. The Rules for government in the United States are set out in the Constitution, the Second Amendment still reads the same as the day it was passed. It still still means the same thing too. So until the rules *are* changed, any talk of "gun control" better mean hitting what you aim at.
But I like the doc's notion of getting more fully automatic intermediate power rifles out into homes. If nothing else it would make burglars think about 10 times and then decide they had other things to do.
Then I stopped reading.
Thanks for the URL.
Possession or use of a machine gun in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence is punishable by not less than 20 years in prison. Possession or use of a machine gun for an aggressive or offensive purpose is prohibited. A presumption of possession for an aggressive or offensive purpose is raised by possession or use by a person who has been convicted of a crime of violence.
This law does not prohibit or interfere with the possession of a machine gun for scientific purposes, or the possession of a machine gun that is not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake, or the possession of a machine gun for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive
“loose” an election. That ended it for me. It’s petty, I know.
ping in my crosshairs
Well said Doctor;
I have a few additional thoughts. Some may make you smile, and some may make you think. Keep in mind these are from a typical white guy, who clings to his gun while reading his bible. My personal thoughts on gun control can be summed up in one sentence. Gun Control means hitting what you aim at. Enjoy the following.
GUN FUNNIES
1. Don’t pick a fight with an old military man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
4. A gun without bullets is a club, and an expensive one at that.
5. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
6. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him “Why do you carry a .45?” The Ranger responded, “Because they don’t make a .46.”
7. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
8. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. “Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?” “No Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.”
9. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!
10. I was once asked by a lady visiting my home if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said “Well I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!” To which I said, “Of course it is loaded. It doesn’t work without bullets!” She then asked, “Are you afraid of some evil person coming into your house?” My reply was, “No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are also loaded.” To which I’ll add, having a gun in the house that isn’t loaded is like having a car in your garage without gas in the tank.
11. The Course Director on the rifle range at a local Scout camp was approached by a reporter and asked if he was not afraid that he was equipping the next generation of school shooters. “No Ma’am” he replied. “Teaching how to safely handle and use guns responsibly doesn’t turn boys into killers. After all, you have the equipment to become a prostitute, but that doesn’t mean you are one.”
12. Those who live by the sword risk being shot by those who don’t.
Squeeeeeeeeze the trigger. Don’t jerk it.
It’s not a posting error either, it’s in the referenced cite.
How can anyone be expected to be considered seriesly if they cant use grammer right in the very first sentence?
Deterrence and retaliation/protection. The secondary purpose is prevention. The primary purpose is defense.
How about as a symbol of citizenship and freedom?
"The sword and sovereignty ever walk hand-in-hand together." - Aristotle.
"Those who possess and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not." - Aristotle.
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.