Handgun Control
Have something to say? ADD A NEW POST!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The Supreme Court struck down the Washington DC ban on handguns as one of its last acts this term. It was a 5-4 ruling, with the conservatives in the majority and Anthony Kennedy wielding the usual swing vote.
The article I read quoted a very profound statement from my least favorite Justice, Antonin Scalia, who wrote for the majority: “Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
In my youth, I was against handguns. I felt they had no purpose other than to kill people. I felt the Second Amendment pertained to state militias and not to individual handgun ownership rights. I thought that meat-hunting rifles were the limit for individuals.
In my doddering old age, I’ve become very distrustful of the government as a whole. I believe that our rights are slowly being eroded in the name of national security, under the guise of protecting ourselves from other citizens, and sometimes, just inappropriately protecting ourselves from ourselves.
I am now pro-handguns. Pro ALL kinds of guns. I truly believe we should be allowed to own them, because criminals most certainly will have them, they don’t care about what limitations the law has put on the rest of us.
Furthermore, I also seriously dislike the idea of gun registration. If the government has a record of who has the guns, it can round them up and prevent an armed rebellion (or more probable, an armed defense against its usurpation of individual rights).
This being said, I don’t own any kind of gun, myself. Haven’t even shot one since the 30.30 I went hunting with some 35 years ago.
So, what is your position on the intent of the Second Amendment? Would you ban handguns? Automatic weapons or assault rifles? Would you register them?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Excellent post Nemesis! I think this one will get a much better response than your last one. But as you know, I have no room to talk…. I have certainly written some rather lame ones myself. Lest we forget my last disaster….”Did we really land on the moon” post. LOL I still laugh at myself over that one. (although I still have my doubts) 
I agree with both you and Mr. Eagle. I’m all for private gun ownership. I also agree that we’re losing our freedoms at an alarming rate in this nation, all in the name of “national secutiry” and I personally think it’s a travesty. For those of you that are all for gun ownership but don’t currently own one, I would urge you go out and purchase one if not for any other reason than to just have one locked away for safe keeping. After all, who knows for how long we’ll still have this right?
Thanks again for a great article Nemesis….I look foward to hearing others views.
Vote:
0 0 Wow this is a good topic. I totaly agree our rights are being desolved right before our eyes. If you give up your right to bare arms the government can easily take the rest of our rights away. We have the right to form a militia to defend our nation and our constitution. Taking away a persons right to bare arms for any reason gives the government the right to take away other rights. It is so easy to get a felony in todays law bounded country. You do not have the right to vote and do not have the right to bare arms if convicted of a felony. I think that needs over turned. There should be no way to take gun rights away from anyone. Owning a gun is how America was won. To allow felons to lose constitutional rights in America is totaly unamerican. We are land of the free. Our forefathers did not ask men joining the militia if they had a felony. I truly believe every person on earth at one time was innocent and a good person. I believe in a second chance for most people except murderers and child molesters. We need to protect our rights because the truth is they are limited right now and will disapear with the rest of the worlds freedom someday if we all do not rethink our current cituation. There is a dark showdow casting over our country and guns are the only thing that can save us from our own selves. I am pro gun and believe all residents should possess and own a gun. We all need to demand our constitutional rights stay unchanged because that document was never ment to be changed its how our country is governed. If Americans stand there and act like sheep and let uncle sam do what they want they sure as hell will. God bless America and all of my fellow country men. I hope for a brighter future where we all have our society back and our sense of purpose.
Vote:
0 0 History lesson, Quest…
The Constitution was adopted in 1787, and the first 10 amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were ratified 4 years later. They were introduced to allay fears that the Constitution itself did not do enough to protect the individual, and give us basic rights separate from those of the government.
Those amendments to the original document include #2 which is the right to keep and BEAR arms.
So we do amend the original constitution as we see the need, and I’m glad they had the foresight to do this.
As far as your concern about felons losing their rights, I am of mixed feelings about that and would have to give it more thought. Remember that we each have our own candidates for the people we’d like to see lose their rights, so your ideas and mine may not be the same…
Vote:
0 0 Excellent topic Nemesis! I have pondered this and still don’t quite know how I feel. On the one hand, I would not want to be a cop in today’s world knowing that every traffic stop could kill me, although they probably do or should think that way regardless. I’m not sure I like the idea of those with road rage carrying guns. Most of the scare me already. And what about the fight with your spouse? I guess one of the reasons guns bother me is that it’s all too easy to pick it up in a fit of anger. Then of course, the little kids wth the careless parents who don’t keep the guns under lock and key.
In doing a little research, I found that; the United States actually has a higher per capita murder rate than those countries without the strict gun control laws. This surprised me. Are we as a country simply more violent than most? Or is it that if a criminal here is intent on shooting his/her victim, he has a pretty good idea that they’re defenseless and therefore, he’s got the upper hand? In other countries, maybe those criminals aren’t so sure that they will come out unscathed?
Or maybe we as a society are simply more violent than most and therefore, it’s a good idea to have gun control laws? We seem to have one of the highest murder rates per capita regardless of the weapon used. So I guess I’m still stumped. 
Vote:
0 0 I think one thing to keep in mind is that interpretation of the law is always tough: one point I always keep in mind is that the law evolves over time and can be interpreted differently depending on the era and on the forces brought to bear by different special interest groups: the 2nd amendment was created in a different time and place than where we now reside figuratively. I am one of those old dinosaurs who read the clause regarding “maintenance of a militia” as bearing directly on the framer’s intent as to what followed: the right to bear arms. I don’t believe the 2nd amendment ever was intended to give every individual the right to bear arms, personally.
Just one opinion of many.
The bigger problem, however, has very little to do with one’s “right” to bear arms, but rather the overriding problem of illegal, unregistered weapons and the harm caused by the same.
Great topic, Nemesis.
Vote:
0 0 And so as we were discussing in chat, Nemesis and I started googling some information.
In Kennesaw, GA (March 1982) it became a requirement to own a gun. Not a single victim has been involved in a single shooting as victim, attacker or defender.
In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:
60% of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.”
57% of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
74% of felons polled agreed that “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”
And so, I need to rethink my issue on this subject.
Vote:
0 0 Amazing that 4 Justices actually voted to prohibit gun ownership. Can you imagine the outcry if they had their way? Would this be one of the decisions that the President would tell the Court he was not going to enforce? I can’t even fathom what a can of worms that would have opened up. This really puts a spotlight on the presidential contest and how important it is that the next President may have at least one, maybe two appointments to make to the bench.
It is also interesting to see Obama flip-flop on the gun argument when he initially supported the District of Columbia ban on weapons…..and then changed his position stating it was an individual right to have guns when the decision came out. I don’t believe that he really supports gun owners rights and probably has never been hunting a day in his life.
Vote:
0 0 I read this article from Politico. It is pretty balanced and points out Obama’s stances when he was a State Senator to try and have strict gun control laws. It also points out that Obama refused to sign the Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court on the Heller case talked about here (which 54 other senators, including McCain, did sign).
When asked about whether the DC Handgun ban was constitutional, Obama said that it was. And yet, his spokesmen are trying to spin it that Obama was in favor of the recent Supreme Court decision. Does it seem like Obama is acting more like the same old politicians and riding the fence on everything? He is all about change all-right…….he is changing into the weasel politicians that we all can’t stand.
I wonder when his supporters will wake up and smell the coffee about his hypocrisy. I didn’t agree with him much during the primaries, but I respected the fact that he took some positions that were controversial and seemed to be held on principle. Obama has lost that begruding respect on the gun issue and others when he now appears to be just another power hungry politician seeking the highest office in the land.
Vote:
0 0 Sorry, I forgot the link:
Vote:
0 0 Hey Bundy; I read that too. It was dissapointing for sure. But, the reality is that they all lie. I’m not an Obama fan and have stated many times that I am not voting FOR anyone. But I will say that I ran across an article about 2 months ago, that listed the top ten latest lies told by all three front runners, McCain, Obama and Clinton. It was interesting to note that none told more or less, bigger or better, just that they all had the most recent top ten. That said, I tend to think that most all politicians are ummm…full of it?
Vote:
0 0 My question to you all is ‘ What is a bad felon?’ 90% of all felonies arent even violent. why should a felon that is non violent nore a rapist or sex offender have thier right to vote and bear arms removed?
Vote:
0 0 hmmmm, good points, but one interesting point is that Obama and his supporters have painted him as this honest, moral person who tells the truth; now he has flip flopped on so many issues, big ones (campaign finance), small ones (Jeremiah Wright), that I am puzzled as to why they keep promoting him as more scrupulous and honest than say, Hilary Clinton….
Vote:
0 0 I’ve decided that in order to run for president, a prerequisite is that you must be a pathological liar, regardless of what supporters make you out to be. They want to please the public to win the votes and I think they just all believe they’re above the rest and will never be caught.
Vote:
0 0 Hmm is correct. McCain flip flopped, Mit Romney flip flopped, Hillary flipped, Bush flipped, Obama flipped, THEY ALL do it.
Politicians. Seems like there ain’t a one of them you’d trust to do the right thing, and I think Hmm said it before, she doesn’t vote FOR someone.
It tends to be, decide who is worse, and vote against them.
Vote:
0 0 ..or who, at least, is the most charismatic, from a foreign relations standpoint, anyway…..
I think being a narcissist is also helpful…..to be a politician, I mean.
Vote:
0 0 And it wouldn’t hurt if they had a few brains, which at least the latest crop seems to be okay on.
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis, Easterner, are we asking a bit much? 
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis, Easterner; Are we asking a bit much?
Vote:
0 0 Well, considering what we get, we are probably asking too much.
Mike asked me in the chatbox, once, why I didn’t run for President. He said he’d vote for me (probably because at the time he hadn’t yet gotten fried about my comments!) but I said that although of course I think I could do a good job at running the country, there’s no way I could run for prez because I have too many skeletons in my closet.
He said he himself did not (wow, hard to believe there are real people out there without skeletons, but I’m sure there are) but he didn’t have the money.
So there you have it. Lots of good people (I think I am one, even though I’ve made some poor choices in my younger days) and lots of poor people, (who are probably good, too, but unknowns) have a slim to none shot at successfully running for office.
So, we just take what we can get, and hope the ones we vote in aren’t too awful. I know this last one was a real stinker. I’m hoping the next one won’t be quite as nasty.
Vote:
0 0 I’d agree with that (hoping the next one isn’t too nasty). Is Mike under 16? If yes, he may not have any skeletons. If not, wow, I’m impressed.
Vote:
0 0 “Professor” Mike? I’d guess in his 40s, possibly late 30s. But apparently he has led an exemplary life, which I do not have the ability to say.
But I’m not doubting his word on that, as I don’t know him but I believe lots of folks have had really good lives.
Now, if they could just get the money or the fame, they could present their case to the rest of the country and we’d STILL reject them as we have done countless good people (oops, my cynicism is showing again!)
After all, we voted W in, TWICE. ON PURPOSE THE SECOND TIME. We deserve everything we get.
Vote:
0 0 I find it hard to believe anyone in their 30’s, let alone 40’s have no skeletons in their closets, I know I sure have a few. (although nothing too major) But hey, if so than he’s a better man than me. And having enjoyed “professor Mike’s” intelligent comments over the years, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I for one sure miss having him around. He could debate with the best of us! (& often times with half his brain tied behind his back!) ((sorry, had to throw a little Rush analogy in there))
Vote:
0 0 Hey Nemesis, I did NOT vote for that man. I take no responsibility whatsoever.
CR67, I hear ya there. I was a good child and I think I do okay as an adult, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t done a few things I wish I hadn’t. We live, we learn.
Vote:
0 0 I wish Mike would come back, too…….
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis, this is a well-written article, and I am happy to offer my perhaps uninformed views on this topic. (I don’t profess to be very informed on anything, as I’ve found I can never know enough to avoid somebody rolling their eyes and sighing!)
As I understand it, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to provide citizens a means to prevent a tyrannical ruler from suppressing political opponents, by disarming those who opposed that unlawful tyranny. The Second Amendment is to ensure the continued right to keep and bear armament for the public safety of the citizens; someting mankind may have started doing since Cain slew Abel.
My position is to continue to uphold this important right to possess and carry armament (weapons.) There are two points I wish to address with this:
In Comment #6, “I am one of those old dinosaurs who read the clause regarding “maintenance of a militia” as bearing directly on the framer’s intent as to what followed: the right to bear arms. I don’t believe the 2nd amendment ever was intended to give every individual the right to bear arms, personally.” My interpretation differed in that where the framers did not specifically exclude individuals from bearing arms, they protected those rights for them. Since the amendment concept may have some tracing to the Assize of Arms (1181,) and intended for only males of certain age to qualify for militia duty, one might think only enlisted men were to bear arms, yet I do not see where women or older children are excluded, in times of need. Also, in remote areas, the militia may not have been readily available in time, and civilian citizens should not be afraid to defend themselves.
The second point is that the article and excerpt is focused on handguns. To me, the right to keep and bear armament is not a handgun issue. Armament is weapons and covers a far broader potential for the government to interfere into our personal lives. As Nemesis wrote, “….I’ve become very distrustful of the government as a whole. I believe that our rights are slowly being eroded in the name of national security, under the guise of protecting ourselves from other citizens, and sometimes, just inappropriately protecting ourselves from ourselves. If the right to keep and bear weapons is removed, at what point are we nitpicking with the government at the definition of a weapon? Already we have normal everyday tools that have double uses: pocket knives, baseball bats, plumbing pipes, automotive wrenches, chains, a long list. A look into Okinawan history shows how even farmers with no right to formal battle armament converted their farm implements into weapons for defense: the b?, tonfa (modern police baton,) nunchaku, kama, kuwa, et al.) Oooh, I can’t wait for the day they come seize my rake and hoe ‘weapons’…no more yardwork! Woo hoo! I’d hate to give up my little pocketknife though, I’d be stuck using a stick to clean my fingernails. 
Automatic weapons, assault weapons, coilguns, deathrays, manta rays……Everything that has come into existence has its place in this world; for many things it is up to us as individuals whether it is used for good or used for evil. As far as registering guns, if there is a law that says we must register them, then we should register them. It isn’t a matter if I like it or not. It’s the law. Registering them has both good and bad sides, depending on how you see it. Recovered evidence from crime scenes sometimes includes registered guns. I always appreciate a case solved from something like that.
Vote:
0 0 Find Humor (or 439.2 or…?) you made very good case points in your comment #24.
I do agree that registration is the law, and hence must be followed as long as it is the law. But the concept, while useful for law enforcement, worries me in the larger sense that now the government has ready-made lists from which to pry those guns from our cold, dead hands. (Gosh, and I am just NOT a fan of the NRA, so this feels ickey to use their phrase…)
I like opinions, not all of mine are very well informed, either, but I certainly still have them, and offer them freely! Thanks for doing the same.
Vote:
0 0 I’m impressed with Find 439.2’s comments as well.
I also don’t believe in the “handgun only” issue and believe ALL firearms from derringers to Uzi’s should remain availabe to the public. After all, the “bad guys” have access to all sorts of weapons, why shouldn’t John Q Public be able to as well, in order to protect his family and property?
Remember that shoot out in California a few years back where the bad guys were all decked out in full body armor and had fully automatic AK47’s? (or were they uzi’s….i don’t recall, but you get the point)
I don’t remember how long the shoot out lasted between these guys and the police, but if I recall it was close to an hour and the officers only had standard issue 9MM’s and shotguns. They were helpless against these mainacs, but eventually took them out with head shots.
The point is, any and all weapons should be (and are) available to the public and thats the way it should remain. Granted it’s against the law to convert your weapon to fully automatic, but again, laws like these don’t stop the bad guys from doing it.
I think the day we loose our right to bear arms, is the day when we’ll be in real trouble. We should all pray (or for the aethists…”hope”) that day never comes!
On a lighter note….I couldn’t help but chuckle with Find Humor mentioned the “nunchaku”! it reminded me of the Alltell commercial when the one guys pipes up, “he brought the chucks”!
Great discussion guys….keep up the good work!
Vote:
0 0 Nemesis, regarding Comment #25 excerpt, “….now the government has ready-made lists from which to pry those guns from our cold, dead hands.”
A dead person is no longer concerned about it. But even if the second amendment does ever fall and the government ‘comes to get’ your registered gun, many people may pretend not to have those guns any longer, or may have claimed it in advance that they no longer have them. Plus, there are always those who will not have ever registered them. It may be in future that to purchase one you must register it at the same time, who knows? If guns are taken away, other weapons will replace them. Render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s. For centuries, people and the government that is over them have had ways of balancing things out with each other. As CR67 said, have faith…or hope. It’s not the worst thing that could happen.
Vote:
0 0 Plus, don’t you find it interesting that you only have to “register” handguns and not other firearms? I guess since it can be easily concealed and most people aren’t going to tote around a shotgun or rifle as their concealed weapon of choice.
Vote:
0 0 This is a very interesting discussion and good comments. Here is my 2 cents worth:
The Constitution is to protect us from the govt. not the other way around. I also hold little trust in this current system of so-called govt. and realize why they would not wish to have an armed populace. Since the media is controlled, stories are often about tragedies related to guns and criminals or mentally disturbed people killing others. What is not reported are the many instances, people prevent killings or other crimes due to possession of a gun.
At one time, I denigrated the NRA, but no longer. This organization stands for the entire constitution and does not sort through for the politically expedient portions. So glad to have the NRA holding up the 2nd Amendment when others pander to whatever group they pander to.
Obama - he is like the others. An open election means we decide who runs. But this is not the case, the candidates are selected for us and then we can pick their choice of A or B. I will not vote since it is not an election but a selection of their candidates. And absolutely nothing will change, just the appearance of doing so with an iron hand or velvet glove. War making will continue - it is how they make the really big money.
Vote:
0 0 Good point MC2010! I like your last comment in particular. That’s why I refuse to vote as well. Until a popular vote is enacted to vote who “the people” want to run this country, then I won’t waste my time.
Vote:
0 0 I have a son in law who turns 28 in August and he has never registered or voted, either. He sees no point.
I am sorry to hear that but I respect the viewpoint.
Vote:
0 0 yea voting is a joke anymore are we all going to take that crap or start sending letters and marching on the streets protesting the violation to our constitutional rights?
Vote:
0 0 I usually end up voting for the “lesser of two evils” myself, but I do always vote. By voting, I figure I have the right to complain. If I don’t vote, then I don’t (IMO) have the right to cuss the politicians, and isn’t that the American way, to cuss politicians, dislike your boss and try to cheat on income taxes?
Vote:
0 0 I vote for city and state officials, but voting for the President is a waste of time IMO.
BTW, I like my boos and I don’t cheat on my taxes.
Vote:
0 0 this is my first post on this site and I’m hoping there will be many more.
This is a topic that I’ve been very interested in since the Heller case was decided. I even went so far as to read the the majority opinion of Justice Scalia and the dissenting opinions of both Stevens and Breyer. And while i respect the brilliance of Justice Scalia, i find his argument convoluted and ultimately unpersuasive.
First, lets go over what the Heller case decieded.
1. the ban on handguns in D.C. is unconstitutional
2. the requirement of having to disassemble or bind guns with a trigger lock in the home makes it impossible to defend oneself in the home, making it unconstitutional.
I disagree with this for a few key reasons.
1. the ban does not restrict all “arms”. It only bans a class of arms that overwhelmingly contribute to crime in urban areas like the District of Columbia. Personally, if the day does come when we need to overthrow the government, I would rather have a rifle as my primary weapon.
2. the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow for protection from the government, not from other individuals within society. Don’t misunderstand me, I believe in the right to own guns, and to use them for personal self-defense when the situation calls for it, but the 2nd amendment wasn’t made to allow for that specific right. The state and local governments, being closer to the unique situation of their communities, need to decide what “arms” are too dangerous to be had.
For the Court to say that the 2nd Amendment provides for you to have the ability to quickly and efficiently shoot someone in your home while disregarding actual wording in the amendment(see the part of the Court opinions regarding the prefatory and operative clauses) is a complete distortion and perversion of the intent of the founding fathers. you have such a right to self-protection, but it is not to be found in the 2nd Amendment. The amendment is designed only to allow you a means to resist the government, not burglars.
thats the gist of what I have to say. I wish that I could go more in depth here, but I’ve already written quite a bit and I don’t really want to refer to my notes for specific statistics and case law.
I urge you all to read the opinions from this case, they are actually not that bad.
and to finish, here are some pertinent facts.
1. “the militia” referred to all able bodied men able to act in concert for the common defense.
2. the people of D.C. still had the right to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and other recreational purposes.
I may address the other points about politics and such in another post, but right now I’m all typed out.
I apologize for any mistakes in spelling or grammar and would gladly welcome any criticism, this seems like a good place for a discussion of the issues.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent comment Justinian and welcome to the site! I look forward to reading your views and opinions on many of our other topics.
Vote:
0 0 This decision will be analyzed to death from here to eternity. Pro-gunners will love it, anti-gunners will decry it. Fence sitters will attempt to parse it to their individual viewpoints, and few will see the decision for what it was and is: the Supreme Court holding that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is Constitutional.
Now, of course, we will have the endless parade of debates, tinkering, lobbying and law-mongering to determine what exactly “firearms” are and what their purpose should be. As for me, I feel pretty damn good knowing that my home has “firearms” as our Founding Fathers intended.
Vote:
0 0 Good comment, #37 Uncle Bumpy. Your analysis is right on the money.
Your last sentence gives me pause…I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended that homes be armed as a requirement, but instead, as a right.
I see those as different things.
Vote:
0 0 Re: Comment # 38 by Nemesis on July 10, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Howdy Nemesis, good to see ya.
It is my opinion that the original purpose, and therefore intent of the Second Amendment was not to grant, but rather to preserve and guarantee the already existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. I also do not believe that being a member of any milita was required in order to exercise one’s right to keep and bear arms.
Again, in my opinon, the Second Amendment’s use of the term militia was to define a purpose for preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms. This was achieved, again in my opinion, with the term … a well-regulated militia being necessary… .
I have yet to find any evidence in the writings of the Founding Fathers that would give me reason to believe that the Second Amendment was intended to apply only to the militia and its membership. There is, however, evidence from as early as 1803 that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to bestow individual rights. St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
[quote ]This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. … [end quote]
We must remember that the original Constitution had no Bill of Rights, Hamilton and the federalists felt there was no need for such enumerated individual rights, as the Constitution in its initial form granted rights to all citizens. Madison said no - there must be enumerated rights attached to the Constitution to limit government abuse. Not until doubt was cast on whether the new Constitution would be ratified would the Bill of Rights as we know it become attached to the Constitution.
Long story short, I stand by my comment … just as the Founding Fathers intended … Had the Founding Fathers not enumerated the 2nd Amendment in the original Bill of Rights, we can only guess the quagmire we would be in today with government trampling rights, let alone debating exactly what “firearms” are.
Vote:
0 0 The problem with that whole “forming a militia” business is, just try to pull something like that in today’s society and the FBI, CIA and every other government agency we have would move in and lock everyone up for attempting to overthrough a corrupt government. (which we’ve had for some time now. corrupt govt that is) Anyone even mildly seen as being a threat to our govt in this day and age is delt with swiftly and forcefully, making the forming of any said “militia” a moot point.
“We the people” are afraid of our government which is the way they like it and also why no real changes ever come about in our country. At least no real changes for the good of it’s people.
imo
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religion.idahofallstoday.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
Great article, Nemesis!
I am pro-gun ownership. It’s part of our constitution. Today we still live in a relatively safe environment, but it could change in the future (20 years, 50, years, 100 years from now) and when that happens, it’ll be nice to be able to protect ones-self.
I don’t own a gun, but I have been hunting with friends a few times. (I kept and ate the meat from the hunt - but still bracing myself for the PETA fanatics - shhh, I even like a good steak once in a while…)
I agree - the outlaws will have guns, we can be certain of that. If I were traveling in an unsafe area in the US, I’d want to be able to carry a handgun with me.
For those who think that eliminating guns will eliminate violence, I think they’re dead wrong. Look at Rwanda - they killed hundreds of thousands in 3 months with machetes. If people want to hurt or kill they’ll find a way - whether guns are available or not.
“people kill people…”