2nd amendment opposition largely put to rest

[Xavier_Onassis]

Of course people play with guns. Target shooting, skeet shooting, even shooting rats in the dump: that is playing people do it to amuse themselves, and get thrilled when they score more hits, or baskets or holes or whatever, just as they play golf or tennis. It is a sport: people play at sports.

Go ahead, buy that howitzer. I imagine it is a tad expensive and/or difficult to get ammo for it. Just do not aim it at me.

[Plane]

I have had a daydream , years now.

If I owned several classic cannon and a valley .

I could rent artillery by the hour to people who wouod fire at junk cars downrange ,

could I charge enough to buy the valley and make the payments on the surplus artillery?


Could I get insured?

[sirs]

Of course people play with guns. Target shooting, skeet shooting, even shooting rats in the dump: that is playing people do it to amuse themselves, and get thrilled when they score more hits, or baskets or holes or whatever, just as they play golf or tennis. It is a sport: people play at sports.  Go ahead, buy that howitzer. I imagine it is a tad expensive and/or difficult to get ammo for it. Just do not aim it at me.

 

[Amianthus]

I said, it is fine with me is people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them.

If we don't use them, then how do we practice to make sure that when we need them, we know how to use them?

[Amianthus]

The fact is that some group like a rightwing militia or a bunch of incensed teabaggers are more likely to try to rebel against the government than, say, the Black Panthers or some anarchist group.

How do we know this is a "fact" - other than it being your esteemed word, that is?

[Xavier_Onassis]

If we don't use them, then how do we practice to make sure that when we need them, we know how to use them?

=============================================
I would suggest a target range, cans and bottles on fence posts and for the experts, the elusive skeet and of course, rats in a small-town dump. I would check with the dump keepers. There was no problem in Randal, Washington, because the local cop (actually the local State Patrolman) was a local and frequent participant. I would NOT recommend shooting into the air from your porch, which some of my halfwitted neighbors do to celebrate July 4 and New Year's Eve. What goes up, must come down.

[Amianthus]

I would suggest a target range, cans and bottles on fence posts and for the experts, the elusive skeet and of course, rats in a small-town dump.

Well, wouldn't all of those require us to "use" the firearms? What you said was "it is fine with me is [sic] people own their stupid guns so long as they do not use them."

[Xavier_Onassis]

"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously, "use" as shoot them off for no reason in public, "use" as in shoot into the air from their front porch.

[sirs]

Those "uses" are by a fringe minority of irresponsible gun owners.  So why the need to paintbrush gunowers with some massive derogatory gunnuts label sounds pretty biased & prejudicial on the surface

[Universe Prince]

"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously,

How about a modest hip holster?

[Plane]

"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously,

How about a modest hip holster?

If he is proposeing conceiled carry I agree with him.

Most effectiveness at crime prevention comes from criminals being unable to know who has sting.

[sirs]

Most effectiveness at crime prevention comes from criminals being unable to know who has sting.

BINGO!

[sirs]

If BT gets a chance, perhaps he can point you to a link, where I wrote a nice summation for PiC, regarding this issue, which will further attempt to educate you and the 4 other current Supreme Court Justices, as it relates to the Bill of Rights, with the emphasis both the individual nature of those rights and the rationale for those rights against that of a REGULATED & oppressive government. 

Courtesy of Bt

And here's the pertinent excerpt to the piece, as it relates to the tact, Xo was trying to apply:

Now, to "me", it?s quite evident that the "militia" in question is basically the "people of the U.S." It stands to reason, when you read for content what Madison and Hamilton are espousing to, in regards to the protection of the U.S. beyond that of the Military. So what is the "militia" then? Well, according to definitions provided by Cornell, there are 2 forms, or "classes".

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are -

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the "well regulated militia" named in the Second Amendment. "The Militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females with the Guard established as only its "organized" element. This seems to make perfect sense, since the militia can be "both" organized (National Guard) AND unorganized (Individual citizens) elements. One can also understand gun control advocates who impress the wording of "Militia" to mean the National Guard only, while conveniently ignoring the much larger portion that would make up the rest of the Militia, and how consistent that falls in line with the Constitutional Framers, and their clear intentions. OK, I got that partisan rant out of the way.

Which takes us back to the Bill of Rights, itself. Clearly, when read in context, these 1st 10 rights are ALL geared towards individuals of this country, and their protection from an oppressive governing body. Every one of the 10, has wording that references individuals, including the 2nd. It is wholly illogical for 9 of the 10 Bill of Rights to be completely focused on "individual rights", yet somehow the 2nd most important right the Founders deemed vital, is somehow, a "collective right".