Guns...For the Children

Sierra Times ^ | Lewis J. Goldberg

[Sir Gawain]

±

[KentuckyWoman]

There was a line of common decency when once crossed, got one of the parties killed or injured.

EXCELLENT POST Sir Gawain!! An armed society is a polite society!!

[KentuckyWoman]

Second amendment bump!!

[Atsilvquodi]

BTTT!

[Freebird Forever]

A bit over the top, but I like the way Goldberg thinks.

Gotta run now. Promised my little nephew I'd buy him some more BBs today.

[Redcloak]

Going off on a tangent for just a moment...

To be consistent, we may have to include nuclear...can't figure out how to stay true to the Constitution while banning government's ultimate weapon.

There is a rational for allowing one to exercise the right to own military weapons, such as true assault rifles, while not allowing nukes. Thornwell Simons posted this essay, The Mystic Nuclear Weapons Exception to the RKBA, which explains why indescriminant weapons like nukes are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. In a nutshell, the right to keep and bear arms implies the right to actually use those arms. But the exercise of one's rights assumes that no one else is denied their rights as a result of your actions. Thus while you have the right to defende "hearth and home" from criminals, you haven't the right to blow up your neighbor's home in the process. Nuclear weapons cannot be used, either in self defense or as part of one's duty to the militia, without harming innocents and depriving them of their rights.

[goodieD]

excellent article!

[Sir Gawain]

There's also another argument that uses the fact that "arms" (rifles, pistols, etc) was defined separately from ordinance (cannons, etc) in colonial times, and extending that logic to today, large ordinance type weapons would not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

[A2J]

An armed society is a polite society!!

Or else!!!

[Jimmy Valentine]

Oh Great! Thanks a lot!

Now what am I supposed to do with all these........ah,.....er.......,well, nevermind

Regards,

[elbucko]

That's profound.

[elbucko]

I wholeheartedly agree with your post. While most anti-RKBA's interpret "well regulated" as "well controlled", in the context of the 2nd. amendment, this is a non sequitur. However, in the military terminology of the 18th. century, regulated meant "Regulars", as in "Regular Soldiers vs Militia", and implies well equiped and trained.

However, regular soldiers do not have possession of nuclear weapons. In this country, the ONLY person allowed a CCW for nukes is the president.

[Tony in Hawaii]

The advovates of sex education in school justify themselves by saying "They're gonna do it anyway."

We could justify firearms education in school in much the same way.

[elbucko]

..."arms" (rifles, pistols, etc) was defined separately from ordinance (cannons, etc) in colonial times, and extending that logic to today.."

Very astute. As a former artilleryman that is the exact context. The anti gun crowd have ignored their military dictionaries.

[Redbob]

"Convicted Felons - If a man cannot be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't let him out of prison."

I'm glad someone's finally said this.

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

You Bet cha !! !!

[wardaddy]

Bump!

[Destructor]

Good article. However, I don't agree with the ideas of letting convicted Felons, and children have firearms. Convicted Felons have a high rate of repeat offenses. This is in effect arming them for the next offense.

Children of today are largely lacking parental guidance, and have no business having firearms without adult supervision. Flame me if you will, but that's how I feel about it.

[wardaddy]

Flame me if you will

Consider yourself doused in high octane fuel and lit...

No hard feelings?

;>)