Skip to content

On The Second Amendment…

Comments


…and lines in the sand. At what point do you draw yours?

My buddy Mule Breath posts a musing on the meaning and application of the Second Amendment. In it, he opines:

There are wing nuts on both ends of the gun issue, who make it difficult to conduct a reasonable debate on the subject; but I would like to try. I’ll start by posting the following. A friend sent this little ditty this morning by email, and I wanted to see if anyone is interested in commenting.

Go RTWT. You’ve probably seen the story in your e-mail inbox in recent days, anyway.

My comment was as follows:

Yet another example of the place where Great Britain used to be.

For me, the 2nd Amendment is the citizen’s defense against government tyranny, and should be defended vigorously.

And while you say that you are not totally opposed to gun control legislation, what legislation in your eyes would be reasonable?

Keep in mind, now, that many citizens (or is it subjects?) of Great Britain probably felt as you do, that some reasonable control of weapons was a good thing. Only now, they’re seeing, much to their dismay, how much incrementalism has eroded their rights.

It starts with registration. Then it expands to outright bans. They target the weapons the Average Joe or Nigel neither owns nor understands. “That sounds reasonable,” they’ll muse. “Why would any normal person want one of those weapons?”

And they support the ban.

And then comes the expanded registration. Then the ban is expanded to include guns that aren’t so unfamiliar or scary.

Only now, the government has legal precedent behind them, and a generation of children has been raised without handguns, and hence even granddaddy’s fowling piece or stag rifle looks scary to them. So naturally, they support the banning of those weapons. “After all,” they muse, “what would any reasonable person want with those weapons?”

And so it goes, on and on, until one day they wake up and discover that not only aren’t they allowed to possess any weapons, but they aren’t even allowed to defend themselves, period.

That’s the place where (formerly) Great Britain finds itself today. And I’ll die before I see the same thing happen in the United States – probably at the hand of my government.

That’s what the politicians do, Mule Breath. When the original assault weapons ban was proposed, it would have outlawed such guns as my daddy’s Browning A5 or a Remington 1100. Whether you believe such lunacy was intentional on the part of those who drafted the legislation or you believe it was an accident resulting from people too stupid to understand what they’re trying to legislate, doesn’t matter. Your rights are stripped, just the same.

I’ve heard you say before that the only difference between liberals and conservatives is what part of the Constitution they’re willing to piss on, and I agree.

But the reason I largely vote Republican and not Democrat is because the Republicans seem less likely to deny me the one Constitutional right I can use to defend all the others.

I know most of my readers are 2A supporters, but there are also a fair number of the medical readers who favor some level of gun control legislation. Some read from overseas, and don’t understand the American gun culture. What they don’t understand is that it’s not necessarily a gun culture. It’s a rights culture, and they’re used to not having any.

So go over there, read, and leave your comments, pro or con. Keep in mind now that Mule Breath is a friend of mine, and owner of a sizable arsenal of his own. Moreover, he’s a Texas gentleman, and I’d ask that you keep your comments/arguments civil and courteous when you visit his blog.

It would piss me off if Mule Breath welcomed my readers into his home, only to discover that they shit on the carpet while they were there.

Posted by Ambulance Driver on February 4, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized
  • Erica
    Mr. Reynolds - < />< />I do have to apologize here, as I see you're a medical professional who sees the aftermath of violence and does get in physical altercations in the course of your work. < />< />Obviously you very much know what you're talking about. Please accept my prior statement as directed at those who don't have your experience.
  • Erica
    Hi there AD commenters. I'm a member of a rare breed - the female California gun owner who recognizes the original intent of the 2A. I think both posts by AD and Mule Breath are excellent. < />< />My bottom line is that my guns are only secondarily for self defense. Their primary purpose is to be a constant reminder to the elected officials in this country of who, exactly, they work for.< />< />On another point, I believe Mr. Reynolds is showing an example of a misunderstanding that most people have of violent events:< />< />"Personally I like the idea of not having guns around the place, partly because if someone wants to kill me I'd rather have them come up and fight me hand to hand..."< />< />Criminals are stupid like foxes. They are stupid, which is why they are criminals instead of investment bankers (or do I repeat myself?), but they are smart in that most of them, no matter how crazed, will not enter into a situation where they perceive the outcome to clearly not be in their favor. They will use whatever leverage they have. < />< />A criminal is very unlikely to come up and fight you hand to hand. They will have a knife, they will have a crowbar, they will have a gun, or some other implement that puts them at a tactical advantage over you that lowers the risk to them. They already do not care about the law, they don't care about your rights, they don't care about you you feel or what you think, there's no reason to believe they'd let anything that could tip the field in their favor pass. < />< />You're not going to have a gentlemanly duel here. I see this kind of thinking a lot with women of my age group, who simply cannot process the fact that someone would use more force or more brutal force on them than they'd be willing to imagine using on someone else. < />< />The problem is that we end up with people being simply afraid to bring a gun to a knife fight, because they think the other fighter will have the decency to forgo their knife.
  • Tom Reynolds
    Cheers for all the replies, definitely some food for thought there.< />< /> I think I will stick to the idea that having everyone in the UK armed wouldn't work because of the different culture here. After all, all our young criminals are immortal and invulnerable - at least that's what they tell me when I pick them up after being stabbed.< />< />And, to be honest, if I lived alone in America I'd probably own a gun myself. If I had children, probably not.< />< />(And that's only because I know how sneaky I was as a child, and some of that has got to be genetic...)
  • Rogue Medic
    to prohibitions.
  • Mule Breath
    is such a bad idea. I posted some on this over on my blog, if anyone is interested.< />< />http://muledungandash.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-prohibition-doesnt-work.html
  • Robert C.
    To follow up more with Tom Reynolds remarks...< />< />< />Accidental gun deaths in the United States are extremely low, at around ~700-800 a year (789 as of 2005). You have a greater chance of dieing while crossing the street (6,047 deaths in 2005) or riding your bicycle (927 deaths). Hell, you have a greater chance of killing yourself while falling off furniture (899 deaths). < />< />http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx< />< />< />The vast majority of gun deaths in the United States involve suicides, being responsible for about 17,000 or so deaths a year. Suicides are unfortunately not at all effected by removing the tool used. For instance, in Japan, which has an overall suicide rate that is far higher than the US and bans guns fairly completely, stepping in front of a moving train is one of the more popular methods. As is taking a plunge from a tall structure.< />< />Of the other 11-12,000 or so deaths involving firearms each year, most involve the black market drug trade or the gangs that have taken advantage of the drug trade. This has led to speculation by some that legalizing drugs could significantly reduce the violent crime experienced in this country.
  • Anonymous
    If you justifiably use lethal force to defend you or your family why would you turn yourself in to a government you know will persecute you and imprison you for it?< />< />I'll say it again, Martin shouldn't have called the police. He should have cleaned up the mess and lived his life in the knowledge that he saved his family and his government sucks.< />< />Sorry if the language has offended some delicate sensibilities.
  • Ambulance Driver
    the homeowner has a weapon and knows how to use it.< />< />There's a lesson to be learned there.
  • Rogue Medic
    Tom Reynolds,< />< />Isn't an arrest for drunk driving after the fact? The driver has to be in the car, with the engine running, or it isn't considered drunk driving. < />< />The person who is pulled over, because of driving erratically while intoxicated, should be charged and deprived of his vehicle. It isn't only when they crash into someone. Will most unintentional crashes, by drunks, kill anyone?< />< />The person, who is using a gun erratically while intoxicated, should also be charged and deprived of his gun. It isn't only when they fire the gun. Will most unintentional shootings, by drunks, kill anyone?
  • Ambulance Driver
    is a futile exercise, if you take my point.< />< />You see media reports of drunks firing off rounds or accidental shootings involving legally owned guns, yes, but they comprise less than a single percentage point of the legal gun owners in America. < />< />In other words, a statistically insignificant amount. Yet the media reports it like it is commonplace because it serves their biased agenda - much like the biased internet agenda that neglected to report that Mr. Martin shot a fleeing criminal in the back as he was leaving the house.< />< />And yes, if that had happened in the US, Mr. Martin would also be facing prosecution.
  • FeuerTeufel
    I don't think that there's anything more then I can add that hasn't already been stated in one form or another here ...< />< />I think most of you are the smartest people that I've found on the internet.
  • Tom Reynolds
    - it's all to do with the culture.< />< />Of course, we don't have a constitution so we can't go defending it...< />< />And to be honest, there are much worse things happening to turn us into 'formerly Great Britain' than gun control - there are politicians trying to pass a law that makes it illegal to photograph a police officer for instance.< />< />Anyway - all the above is written with respect, as I love going to the US for visits and holidays, and I feel quite safe there.
  • Anonymous
    Confiscation(s) ALWAYS follows registration of weapons. Every time. It is the only practical reason for it. Serves no other purpose. Happens here in the US. Might be the reason that CA's last attempt at registration went so badly. The DOJ indicated that they only got maybe 5% or LESS of the expected regs. Hmmm, might be it had something to do with the widely reported demand that owners of a particular type rifle immediately turn them in to local police? Happened after the first registration law. New York pulled the same stunt. You know the old saying about ignoring history....< />< />Will
  • Rogue Medic
    . It was the best seller if the 18th Century, the Harry Potter of sales of its day. It is what convinced the colonists to fight.< />< />Oppressive governments have relinquished control because of peaceful opposition, maybe as much as they have over violent insurrection, maybe even more. After a while the military realizes that they do not want to follow orders to kill their countrymen.
  • TOTWTYTR
    Mule Breath, it was by force of arms, not quill of pen, that we wrested control of our country and our destiny from Britain. < />< />It was the "shot heard 'round the world", not the "pamphlet read 'round the world". < />< />Or as Al Capone is reputed to have said, "You get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." < />< />The Revolution started not all that far from where I sit typing this. It started over an attempt by British forces to confiscate firearms from colonials. They didn't march there to take away pens or printing presses because they knew that words might be inspirational, but firearms are power. < />< />A note to those of you who will go to Mule Breath's blog to debate. Be well prepared, because you're in for a lively debate. As I've said about my friend before, he's "Wicked Smaht".
  • Mule Breath
    AD, I'd like to thank you and your regular contributors for the fine visit we've had over at my place. Everyone was scrupulously polite. While at least a couple of your folks appeared like they would like to have started kicking ass, they didn’t, and for that I am grateful. < />< />The reason I like such debates is that it exposes folks to ideas they may not otherwise entertain. When a “pro gun nut” starts slamming an anti-gunner, calling names and verbally assaulting, the mind closes. Bless Farm Dad in particular for holding back, for I could see he wanted badly to pound at least one commenter. I understand that, and have been guilty of it in the past. He and others held fire and negotiated, and maybe… just maybe we opened an eye or two. At worst we showed that we could logically debate without being abusive. < />< />You, AD, and TOTWTYTR (both of you good friends) challenge my assertion that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, and I accept both of you for your sincere beliefs, but please consider this. In the days of the American Revolution, guns were plentiful. The law was British, and we were the King’s subjects. Subjects of the Crown were accustomed to being trod upon. It took a handful of thinkers, schooled in French revolutionary ideology, to foment revolution on these shores. Their tool was not the sword… it was the pen.< />< />In the end, the sword enforced the will of the people, but it took the pen to forge that will. If the people had resisted as individuals, they would have been destroyed and this Union would never have existed. It was the pen, incarnate in the form of a Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, a Constitution and Bill of Rights, which has ensured and guaranteed our natural rights. It is the pen, incarnate in these blogs that help continue that tradition.< />< />For all who participated over on my blog, I would say that you shouldn’t be strangers. If you don’t like what I say, challenge me. I’ll challenge back. Maybe we’ll both have an opportunity to learn something. I’ve made a couple posts since the one we’ve been debating, related to the initial topic. One of them points to a possible controversy. If you haven’t already, you might enjoy reading them.
  • Rogue Medic
    , is there to serve the People.
  • Rogue Medic
    . I do not believe it is a coincidence. His observations on the British method of government are not less relevant today.< />< />On the other hand, Paine is not very politically correct. :-)
  • Crucis
    Mark, when you come here, you won't be among strangers long. There are many here among the bloggers who will welcome you. You will find many like minded folks who will guard your back as you were guard theirs.
  • TOTWTYTR
    crime. < />< />Look at the crime statistics in any Commonwealth nation that has banned guns. < />< />Enhancing penalties for the unlawful use of firearms is the only thing that might work.
  • Anonymous
    < /> < />The last thing a politician wants to see is an ARMED, pissed-off constituent. Emails, letters, angry phone calls, and talk radio they can ignore. They also hope those of us that took the oath in the military have forgotten the part about "...all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC".< />< />Bob in VA
  • Farm.Dad
    Hey folk i will opinionate a bit more on the comments here , or on one of my boards than i might elsewhere . However come on .. get real .. the solution of the " gun problem " lies between the bradys and the 3%ers . " . We all have both a president and a congress who seem to lean towards the control end ( guns or otherwise ). Yall who did not like what " W " did well stand back and watch what happens now . folks ill tell ya this , i keep a shotgun just to shoot my unicorn before he/she leaves my yard . Other than the pointed pony i dont beleve a bit ( nor do i see how anyone could ) of what is being sold to me . All i can say is watch Ebay because i will be putting a genuine unicorn horn on there any day ( and i hear they taste a lot like spotted owl which is a plus for the hamburger ) .
  • Mark
    To respond to Crucis's very accurate comment: "Brits are nor free men."< />< />Most British men worry me. This is one major reason I'm leaving the country (albeit by fits and starts).< />< />I've lived here (the UK, where Great Britain used to be) for 32 years of my 34. And I realised last year that the vast majority of my friends would rather watch me die than get in trouble with the law. That just flipped the switch for me. Seems like I'd be better amongst strangers in the US than "friends" like that.
  • Vinnie
    Well I said this:< />Peter said:"So, what makes the Second Amendment so different? Nothing in the text of the amendments would suggest the second is more absolute than the first that I'm aware of.< />"< />< />"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.< />"< />The fact that the constitution was written for mostly self educated people and now has to be interpreted by by people with masters degrees should be a warning call.< />As for keeping guns away from criminals, the people have been sold a bill of goods. Why are dangerous criminal on the street? These laws mollify people into thinking that it is ok to release dangerous criminal because they can't get weapons. I want judges, juries and parole boards to be certain that the person in front of them can get a gun and act accordingly.
  • LL
    Oh, oh, and another thing!< />< />The most telling interview I ever saw in my life was about 10, 12 years ago. Bill Richardson. You know, the NM guy. The one who was originally pegged for Commerce. Matt Lauer on the Today show asks him why he has always fought for gun rights while he was Governor of NM but when he was serving under Clinton, he supported gun control.< />< />Richardson's response was along the lines of "I should never have listened to my constituents and I should have done what I thought was right and that's why I'm supporting Clinton's gun control initiatives."< />< />Something along those lines. The whole "constituents are wrong" thing enraged me.< />< />I will NEVER forget that interview because it is that exact hubris that gets us in the spot where we are now...always checking over our shoulders to make sure more rights haven't been taken away, especially gun rights.< />< />Amazingly, I never heard a peep out of any news organization after that interview about the fundamental problem with thinking his constituents, WHO ELECTED HIM, were wrong.
  • tgtsmom
    "Chairborne ranger" - - OMG - I LOVE this place!!< />< />To Anon - you are a minion of Sumdood. Get thee behind me.
  • Farm.Dad
    Bad ME i did not read all the comments , and once i posted i saw this gem < />< /> Anonymous Anonymous said...< />< /> The mistake Martin made was calling the police in a country where there is no right to self defense.< />< /> Instead of letting the criminals kill him right away he chose to let the government kill him slowly in prison.< />< /> He should have made sure neither criminal left the house. Using the trunk of his car he should buried the bodies where they wouldn't be found. " < />< />You Sir or Mam make all of us look bad . Granted i dont post by my real name , but neither does mule or ad . We however dont post as " Anon" . It takes a great deal of moral fortitude to second guess any issue as an chariborne ranger from the safety of anon . You sir/mam are the folk who " shit on the rug " that ad mentioned . You set at home playing some first person shooter and think that is how the world works in the sense that someone can change a scene and make it " all ok for them " . Well hand ill tell ya what , the next time a doritos sack attacks ya in mom's basement you just shoot it , and then take it out and bury it . That is as close to reality of a shooting as you are likely to get . < />< />Sorry for the carpet AD, delete the post if ya need/want to to keep a neat house .
  • Farm.Dad
    Cant add so AD be happy , I only shit on a throw rug , not the carpet LOL
  • Farm.Dad
    I went , I commented , I was ( in my view ) polite . I also however said it like i see it , and now most likely just need to read and lurk . I will say that it is one of the better threads i have seen on the issue , its just that i see the issue as rather black and white , and no amount of well intentioned verbiage is going to budge me from my stance on any civil right , much less the linchpin of them all . With due respect to Mule and his sensibility on the issue it is time for more articulate folk than I to discuss .
  • Anonymous
    The mistake Martin made was calling the police in a country where there is no right to self defense. < />< />Instead of letting the criminals kill him right away he chose to let the government kill him slowly in prison.< />< />He should have made sure neither criminal left the house. Using the trunk of his car he should buried the bodies where they wouldn't be found.
  • tgtsmom
    The last portion of my comment to MB:< />< />Of far greater concern to me than efforts to pass legislation that would curtail our rights is the growing belief from larger and larger segments of our population that their individual desires are more pertinent than these rights. So many seem to feel that, so long as they still get their gravy, what does it matter that some schmo elsewhere has his rights trampled on. My only hope lies in this simple chain of discussions here, and others like them. I believe, so long as you are all here, talking to each other, there is still a chance to avoid the downfall both fringe elements (left and right) prophesy. < />< />I am, likewise, very please to see such a civil discussion.
  • Crucis
    The events described on Mule Breath's blog are lamentable. However, one important facet continues to be overlooked. Brits are nor free men. They may think that their Parliament makes them free but they're wrong. Brits, collectively all within the United Kingdom, are subjects of the Crown--a concept going back to the feudal era. The liberties enjoyed by the British subjects are only those granted to them by their government.< />< />As with any privilege granted by a government, that privilege can also be restricted or removed. Pity them their misconceptions. Pray that one day they will realize what they are and stand up like a free man.< />< />Then---contrast the British Subject with the American Citizen and marvel at the crucial differences. We could be like them. And, may yet if we allow it.
  • #1 Dinosaur
    : how about regulating the "where" instead of the "who" or the "what."
  • Mule Breath
    < />< />Indeed you hit the nail on the head, but I would posit that a 2A debate is not the only place where civility, and even truth, may be lost. Without stirring too much merda, let me refer you to a discussion in which you participated over on my blog last December, regarding the use of the term “swiftboating”. < />< />My intention now in defending 2A is the same as it was then. Truth is more important than winning.
  • Old NFO
    Civil discussion over 2A is hard... Many want to cling to their perceptions/points and get shrill/loud when someone counters them with facts...
  • Maeve
    "It would piss me off if Mule Breath welcomed my readers into his home, only to discover that they shit on the carpet while they were there"< />< />I find it sad that you even have to post that. People never cease to amaze me with how they act.
  • Herbie
    As someone who used to be the typical Brooklyn Democrat, I hated guns growing up, and believed in gun control.....until I moved to PA.< />< />I met friends with guns. I learned about them, about being safe around them and all. Then after 9/11, I switched parties, and actually now own a rifle, which I keep loaded (and locked up when there are kids at my house). I work in the town I live in, and made it a point to talk to all the cops to let them know I have one, and to learn the laws about them.< />< />< />Guns don't kill people; the person pulling the trigger is the one who kills people by making a conscious decision to do so.< />< />I'm not afraid to use it to protect my life, or the life of my family. < />< />P.S. It's good to see the discussion remain mature. Keep it up.
  • LL
    Guns make me happy in my pants.< />< />Kinda like you, AD. *grin*< />< />Meh, the way I feel is that we are on a juggernaut of Big Government and as much as we squeal out here in the Real World, those in DC are going to do as they please. There was an article online about how the phone lines are being flooded with calls about the Stimulus Plan. How much you want to bet they're gonna push through whatever they damn well please? Pelosi said outright: I didn't come here to be partisan. I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be< />nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."< />< />Note she didn't say she went to DC to do what her voters want her to do. It's what's in "their interest" as she defines it.< />< />We're all fucked.
  • Mule Breath
    < />< />Yes, I certainly understand. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in various countries outside the States, and I full well understand.< />< />If you haven’t already, please come over to my blog to add your comments.< />< />http://muledungandash.blogspot.com/
  • Anonymous
    Too right, my friend. I am one of those despised Europeans who do not understand your gun culture. Only problem is: I do. I have a fair amount of guns myself. Most of them airguns, but I own an 8x57 Mauser, a 12 gauge over-under and an Europellet gun (Taurus PT24/7). All licensed. I used to own a 1911 Colt, but alas: that one is not allowed anymore. Too scary, I think.< />Oh, BTW: for any of my fellow Europeans who read this and think I'm crazy: so far (and I am over 60) I managed to not have shot anybody. Not that nobody didn't deserve it, but it comes with teh territory: most gun owners are of the law-abiding kind. < />At the moment you can own any type of airgun here, so I have a Dragon Slayer in .50 and a 9 mm Career. So what happens? the media are banging the drum so that anything over .177 will be illegal. "You can order a 5.5 mm gun in Germany which will shoot pellets at 110 m/sec" (cue scary music here). That's a lousy underwhelmed 350 ft/sec for those who do not understand the metric system. And then we are talking about a .22 pellet weighing in at 14 grains...< />You see what is going to happen, don't you? "why would anybody in his right mind own a .50?" So we ban that one. Next on the list is the 9 mm. And-so-on. Until the only legal airgun in this country is a .177. We can look at not-so-great-Britain-anymore for our future. We already have problems importing FAC (fire arms certificate) guns from England. Not beause the gun is illegal here, but nobody wants to transport it outside Britain for fear of prosecution. The net effect is that I cannot order arms from Britain anymore.< />Just keep heading them off at the pass, or you *will* end up at the same position. And yes, this is an anonymous post. For obvious reasons. I hope people will understand that.
  • MiniKat
    There is nothing wrong or difficult with being respectful. I believe it shows a high level of intelligence and character to befriend someone with views that differ from one's own.
  • medicblog999
    Really interesting post, thank you!< />As a Brit myself, I have to be honest and tell you that when I read your posts which are about your guns etc, I did often question my thoughts on them and think it a bit odd to appear to be so "fanatical". However, this post has really given me something to think about.< />Thank you for your thoughts.
  • David J.
    Long time reader, first time commenter. I am a sophmore in high school, and currently an expert in rifle, and marksman 1st class in bullseye pistol. Through my time working with my Boy Scout riflery team, shooting with my dad, and enjoying your blog, as well as Xavier's and Lawdog's, I have come to understand firearms, and the laws surrounding them, rather well. Through that, I have gained a reputation as a right wing fanatic in my very liberal hometown, as well as my school community. They refuse to acknowledge my principle arguments, and patently ignore such evidence as we see in 'Great' Britain. I am not a fanatic. I am an American, with all that that entails. I know my rights (I keep a copy of the Constitution in my wallet) and I am prepared to fight for them. Yet I am labeled as extreme. Why is this? If I knew, I wouldn't have this problem. But I can say that a man serving life in prison in an attempt to save his own life is a fundamental miscarriage of justice.< />< />I think that few people would be so quick to surrender their rights if they were more aware of where that leads. And so, I must thank the entire gun-blogger community, for endeavoring to do just that, while at the same time showing yourselves to be funny, interesting, good people, not the insane psychopaths portrayed by those who would give up our fundamental right to bear arms. Thank you for providing reasonable, clear-headed analysis of these issues. You have helped me to form my own opinions of guns, and the control of the same. You have helped me to sway some of the most anti-gun people I have known. It's people like you who can keep the citizens of The United States of America free from the inevitable increase of government. This message goes out to all those in the gun-blogging community. Thank you.< />~A Young Shooter
  • Rogue Medic
    C. S. P. Schofield,< />< />That doesn't seem unreasonable.
  • C. S. P. Schofield
    For some reason, I can't seem to comment on Mule Breath's Blog (I'm not a techie, I just married one), so I'll do it here if you don't mind.< />< />I guess I'm an extremist. I believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written, in English. That means I see no Constitutional way to prevent the publication of Pornography, no matter how gross. No exceptions ate written into the 1st Amendment, so none exist, Period, stop.< />< />For the same reason, I read the Second Amendment as putting beyond the pale all bans, license schemes, registrations, waiting periods, and taxes on weapons and ammunition. "Shall not be infringed" covers one hell of a lot.< />< />Is this a good idea? I think that's open to debate (though I have strong opinions unlikely to please my Gun Grabber In-Laws). But to GET to that debate, the Gun Control twerps need to Amend the Constitution.< />< />I, personally, would be willing to entertain a Law that restricts the public to those arms which may legally be carried by Federal, State, or Local Law Enforcement, with a codicil severely restricting the use of the Military within the borders.< />< />If they want to ban something, they can do without it themselves.< />< />I can hear the squeals of outrage now.< />< />I own no guns. I am far more interested in keeping the government from changing the rules on a whim.
  • Mule Breath
    friends out when they do that.
  • fuzzys dad
    We need to be respectful of other points of view.Then politely point out where they are wrong.Then if need be just agree to disagree. You and disagree without out being nasty.
blog comments powered by Disqus