Tom Eblen: NRA's slippery slope full of holes

HERALD-LEADER (Kentucky) ^ | May. 25, 2008 | Tom Eblen

[weegee]

The no-compromise crowd has kept law enforcement agencies from having some tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. And that has led to some over-reaching, such as when police in New Orleans illegally seized hundreds of guns after Hurricane Katrina.

The police TURNED LOOSE criminals and crazy people and in addition became looters themselves. There was a total breakdown of society. Those who were awaiting trial never went to trial. Police abandoned their posts.

A police state requiring the public to turn over their guns to a corrupt police force was NOT the answer. It was all about stemming any bloodshed from those doing the shooting that the police were unwilling to do.

[pawdoggie]

I don't know whether the American Hunters & Shooters Association is a good organization or a bad one.

I don't know either, but I do know that "Hunter's rights" is Liberal code for "we don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment". I wonder how long before some enterprising conservative blogger finds the Soros/Democrat connection to "American Hunters and Shooters Association".

[neverdem]

I don't know either, but I do know that "Hunter's rights" is Liberal code for "we don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment". I wonder how long before some enterprising conservative blogger finds the Soros/Democrat connection to "American Hunters and Shooters Association".

American Hunters and Shooters Association

Connections to the usual suspects was better than I expected in Wikipedia!

[Ghengis]

I know all that I need to know about possible compromise with the 2nd amendment when I read, "...Shall not be infringed."

[EdReform]

BTTT

Paper: I Know, Let's Compromise Our Rights Away!

[Who is John Galt?]

Only thing is, your average person might not have the land, money or knowledge to maintain WMD. In that case, it could be collectively owned by the town, and I don’t mean town government.

One common interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it guarantees private ownership of weapons that can be carried & operated by an individual, meaning anything short of crew-served weapons. Quite frankly, that interpretation may be overly restrictive (many 'historical' militias possessed artillery). IMO, the most common references to WMD as they relate to the Second Amendment (and I am not saying this applies to YOU) are as 'straw man' arguments by the uninformed and ignorant, opposing the rule of constitutional law, and supporting totalitarian government...

[wastedyears]

By WMD, I mean destruction on a massive level. Nukes of all types, bio and chem-warfare stuff.

As for crew-served, I wouldn’t mind an 80lb grenade thrower.

[Who is John Galt?]

One of my best friends, an Army vet, says his favorite weapon is a grenade launcher. With a little practice, he tells me, you can drop a round into a barrel at a hundred yards or better...

;>)

[wastedyears]

Into a mortar barrel?

[Who is John Galt?]

I would guess he was referring to a standard 42 gallon steel ‘oil’ barrel. Whatever they were, they were definitely disposable. ‘Training’ is one reason we have the finest military in the world...

[Who is John Galt?]

By the way, you seem to have wandered off topic - apart from historical references, I don’t believe anyone here has suggested that the Second Amendment refers to anything but small arms...