To: elbucko
I think you sell yourself short. Part of marksmanship is kinda "Zen". Therefore, knowing ones self is a big step.
Well, I don't think myself a hopeless cause. If I were to seek gun ownership, however, I would first make sure that I knew how to keep my temper in check AND I would attend gun safety and marksmanship courses.
Firearms are a right protected by the Constitution. Until the 2nd. is repealed, I will avail myself of this right.
I've been meaning to ask someone about this. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to keep and bear arms', but 'arms' is not defined. I certainly don't buy into the liberal bull about 'arms' referring only to flintlock pistols and muskets, but I am curious as to whether there is a large consensus on the limitations of 'arms'. Certainly I wouldn't expect many here to attempt justification of an individual's right to keep and bear nuclear arms, but what of military-grade munitions? I don't mean to start a fight, as I'm not about to argue with any answers to the question, but I'm curious as to what kind of 'arms' most people think are protected under the 2nd?
26 posted on
12/30/2002 11:44:26 AM PST by
Dimensio
To: Dimensio
My opinion is that the right to keep and bear arms coupled with various writings of the founders is that we, the people, are to make up the armed forces without actual enlistment in any sort of government agency...a militia by definition.
As such we should keep and maintain most up to date military weaponry available as we are the armed force of record. Doing so would serve a dual purpose. Defense of the nation from foriegn invasion/aggression. And opposition to tyranny. Both purposes are well documented as the intentions of the founders.
EBUCK
28 posted on
12/30/2002 11:59:13 AM PST by
EBUCK
To: Dimensio
all of them!!!!!
To: Dimensio
one more thing...
'[a] well regulated' used to have nothing to do with the government...is was used in reference to the mainaining of equipment..or in this case, in todays words, it would read
'a well maintained and equipped militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
EBUCK
32 posted on
12/30/2002 12:22:13 PM PST by
EBUCK
To: Dimensio
military-grade munitions The arms should be suitable for overthrowing tyranny from within over a period of time. Small concealable weapons and sniper rifles might be the best for that. Its not useful to have bazookas and large battlefield weapons since there probably is no way to organize a besieged citizen force large enough to use brute force.
36 posted on
12/30/2002 1:07:45 PM PST by
Reeses
To: Dimensio
but 'arms' is not definedIt is because its modified by the word bear which means to wear. And since you cant wear a cannon its hard to imagine the framers had anything much larger than a firearm, knife, ax
in mind.
To: Dimensio
Well, I don't think myself a hopeless cause. If I were to seek gun ownership, however, I would first make sure that I knew how to keep my temper in check AND I would attend gun safety and marksmanship courses.I would recommend that you enroll yourself in Massad Ayoob's course, Judicious Use of Deadly Force. It is a thorough examination of the legal, moral, and ethical aspects of deadly force in self-defense. Let me know if you'd like me to shoot you a copy of my notes.
I think this course would be a very good venue for you to come to a better understanding of yourself with respect to this issue.
Also, you should check out Eric S. Raymond's excellent piece, "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life."
51 posted on
12/30/2002 3:56:23 PM PST by
mvpel
To: Dimensio
I've been meaning to ask someone about this. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to keep and bear arms', but 'arms' is not defined.... The first part of the Second Amendment makes abundantly clear that it isn't about "hunting weapons". That being said, it might allow for restriction of certain types of especially-concealable weapons (when's the last time you heard of soldiers or officers carrying a cane gun or even a Kel-Tec P-32?) but not if the government simultaneously restricts (de facto if not de jure) the bearing of larger weapons.
On the other hand, I'm curious: do criminals actually have the same desire for smaller, more concealable weapons that Brady et al. keep alleging? I've never heard of gang-bangers going after each other with NAA mini-revolvers, for example.
60 posted on
12/30/2002 5:59:33 PM PST by
supercat
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson