It's dead, without a shot being fired...
Posted on 09/08/2004 11:45:17 PM PDT by risk
It's dead, without a shot being fired...
How DARE they make LEGAL WEAPONS!?
Dogpacks.
Not quite. What they're really working at is to get a patchwork of differing state laws, usually more restrictive than the previous federal infringement, into place in those areas where they enjoy political dominance.
About the state-laws bit, the gungrabbers have been working on that approach for a couple of years now. We've been playing it for about fifteen, and they are getting beaten more often than they win, as I see it.
But the battle is never over, and we have to always keep that in mind. It is a battle in which we must not yeild; in which we can never surrender.
Haven't seen dogpacks here, just the occasional coyote, and they don't dare be so bold.
Gun control, like socialism, works - for those in charge.
Welcome back brother!
Since 1987, almost half of the states have opened up to install a CCW permit system for handguns. Now the AWB will expire. Some good people are doing some good work out there. Keep it up!
You're right, gun grabbers love to haul out their straw man argument of tanks, howitzers, bazookas, flame throwers, satchel charges, whenever we defenders of the constitution reference the type of modern day INDIVIDUAL military small arm protected by Amendment #2.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
Now let's address the gun grabber straw man. We need to make those type of CREW SERVED weapons available at some level to the well regulated (meaning well trained, organized and disciplined) militia that is formed as a military unit to meet whatever threat that it is appropriate for them to use such weapons as a unit. These weapons would be maintained and stored by such units as a body.
Well put. It's good that you mention the Swiss, as well. According to Dave Kopel in an article at nro.com called On Guns and Switzerland,
American Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Patrick Henry greatly admired the Swiss militia, which helped inspire the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the preference for a "well regulated militia" as "necessary for the security of a free state," and the guarantee of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Late in the 19th century, the American military sent observers to Switzerland in hopes of emulating the Swiss shooting culture.
The NRO's Dave Kopel goes on to say that in 1998 a ban was enacted in Switzerland on full-auto weapons for people not in the militia; so adult males who qualify can evidently still obtain them through the traditional household armament process. I lament this acceptance of regulation in Switzerland, and I predict a greater erosion of firearms rights there in the future. We know that regulations are usually intended to be incrementalist modifications toward complete disarmament. One would hope that the Swiss would remember their history and stand strong.
Will we regain ours? I hope so.
Dave Kopel has some statistics that show Switzerland to relatively safe considering its still widely available select-fire weapons. We know Switzerland is legendary for its peace and quiet. That is except for the crack crack crack of Swiss enjoying their Creator-given right to keep, bear, and use arms nation-wide.
Today, I see a chance for America to return to its Swiss-inspired self-armed roots, the nature of which defended Switzerland in medieval times from outside invaders, as well as in the second world war during the 20th century. Haven't our arms protected us, as well?
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.