Posted on 10/21/2005 3:21:50 PM PDT by Ain Soph Aur
My Daddy used to take my brother and I target shooting..in California, no less! : )
I have coveted my Mom's Colt revolver for over twenty years now. She shows no signs of passing it along, although I have never seen her shoot it.
I just can't take any chances with my son, though.
Probably, certainly the well led part, but the other part depends on one's conception of "the law".
One purpose of the second amendment was to see to it that the federal government could not disarm the miltia, that being the body of the people. The people have several roles in government. Voter, taxpayer, juror, and finally the militia which is the final watchdog of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. The founders distrusted standing armies, and felt the militia would be good temporary substitute should war break out, and could serve as a check against anyone who would mis use the standing army that Congress was granted the power to raise.
A couple of quotes to back that up.
---------------
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
-- Noah Webster
An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
-----------------------------------
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.", under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789 at 2 col. 1
That turns out not to be correct. While it's not a right per se, but rather a delegated power, Congress, and most state governments as well, has been granted the power to do just that, and as has been pointed out, they did, in the 1792 Militia Act.
Now whether that's good public policy is up for debate of course, as it every other act of Congress, but they do indeed have the power to require you to own a gun. They also have the power to provide exemptions for the religiously scrupulous, or the just plain squeamish, if they so choose.
As I recall a town in Georgia required every head of household to be armed. There was no penalty for not complying though. However the act was never, AFAIK, found to have exceeded their powers. That was just a small town council. Your state legislature or the Congress can do the same, and put teeth in it. Maybe they'd require a "fine" to help pay for guns for those who wish to comply with such a law, but cannot afford a gun. That, or something very like it, has been done in the past as well.
Why stop at one? I own six. An old 30/30, a 12 gauge shot gun, a .410 shotgun, two twenty gauges, and a handgun.
I'll own one when I feel I need one. Fortunately, I live a place with a low crime rate. I have two big dogs and know how to throw a table or chair. Plus, I am fortunate to have been born with two big guns attached to my torso.
I believe that would be Kennesaw, the next city over from me. That was enacted before I moved to GA, I think, so I missed all the hoopla. Drat.
I think it is a duty for every able bodied citizen to maintain a military style rifle and be proficient in it's use. You just can't tell when things might go completely to hell so you might as well be prepared. It has just become habit for me. In the Army I spent 9 years of my time being in a constant state of readiness to deploy. In Montana we have a very high proportion of militarily proficient citizens that can be depended on. They are loyal to the state of Montana and to the President, but most especially to their neighbors and friends. I am lucky to be among them.
Hey can you pick me up a slightly used M1 Garrand? Or maybe an Ruger mini 14..
Of course! History is full of such things. Not just guns, swords, spears, knives and just plain meanness!
Well, Gato, I admit I am grasping at straws here, but just seeing it in writing (and from Congress, no less!) cheers me up.
If I remember correctly, two federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled that the 2nd Amendment is referring to individual rights while another (the 9th Circuit, I believe) has said that the 2nd is about a collective right. When a case has been before the SCOTUS they always seems to tiptoe around the 2nd and even when ruling in favor of gun owners, they cite some other reason for their decision.
In conclusion, I'm repeating the following because it gives me some hope, especially since here in California the state constitution has no mention of the right to keep and bear arms. ;^)
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
More likely he just wanted to make his point controversially, so as to start a good discussion. He succeeded, didn't he?
Gotta a bunch of mounted DUCKS "to prove it!".........:>)
We don't need a national servitude amendment.
I didn't propose servitude. Here's what I wrote:
The USA is long overdue in passing such a 'rite of citizenship' amendment.
A short voluntary course in basic defense tactics and the obligations of constitutional citizenship could be offered to all would be voters at 18..
They would graduate with the right to vote and a surplus rifle, after taking the:
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No commitment to our republic, - no oath, - no vote.
Use your own best judgement and don't let anyone pressure you.
Sorry. Just got back home, and there were plenty of both there. Seems everyone knows what everything is worth at this show. If you're looking to "steal" one below market price, your best bet is to survey and attend small-town/rural estate auctions. But then again if you figure in your time and a few tanks of gas, maybe it is better to buy from CMP or pay full rippin retail at the corner gun store.
I put a sign in my yard once which read,
My neighbor asked me to take it down as she didn't "feel" safe.
The terrorists would have been hit with so many frangible rounds that they would have been pulverized. Pun intended.
Actually if the passengers were armed, we would have shown that terrorism is a losing proposition against Americans.
Which is why I don't like the disarming of Americans who fly.
I would accept some type of licence requirement for a person to be allowed on the plane armed: say documented training in firearm use, no felony convictions, no crimes of violence (not sure if there are no non-felonious ones).
Right on! I would have to open the safe and count them. What only one safe? Afraid so. Wifey says the safe is full. Guess that means safe #2 coming soon!
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.