Virtual Soap Box

[Cambo5150]

Been reading about the upcoming D.C. gun ban/Supreme Court Case.
My point of view just doen't seem to be represented in any of the amicus briefs....go figure..

People talk a lot about the individual vs. collective right to keep and bare arms. As well as a well regulated militia.

Here's what seems to be lost to those making the decisions.

The founding fathers put this little tid bit in there based on recent history in our country. An oppressive government, taxation, no freedom of religion, etc. Because this government had gotten out of control, the only way to solve their problems and declare independence was through revolution.

The only way to take on the government was good old fashioned combat. Luckily we had roughly the same rifles the Brits did. I'm no revolutionary war guru but, minus some artillery, the only reason we had a fighting chance, was because we HAD THE SAME RIFLES.

Flash forward to today. I'm not saying our government is totally oppressive or out of control, BUT, If it ever gets that way, if anti-gun legislation continues the way it is, it will be bolt action hunting rifle John Q. Public against state of the art, assault weapon troops. I THINK THIS IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE TRYING TO AVOID. Just like having the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, a well armed citizenry is part of the "checks and balances" concept.

I guess this is too scary of a concept to bring up when debating gun control at the Supreme Court, but I think it's the heart of the issue at hand. Thanks for hearing my rant. I'm surrounded by bleeding heart liberals and this is the only place I could vent without being strung up for being a "gun nut". Cambo

[aileron]

I'm no revolutionary war guru but, minus some artillery, the only reason we had a fighting chance, was because we HAD THE SAME RIFLES.

Actually, we had rifles and muskets they only had muskets. In affect we were better armed then they were. You couldn't hit the side of a barn door at a 100 yards with a musket but most militia men with rifles could hit guys out to 200 yards. Now this doesn't mean every guy owned a Kentucky rifle, but they were out there in numbers. Also most Americans knew how to shoot, because they were brought up that way, so they aimed their shots. Versus the Brits, who didn't grow up hunting, so couldn't shoot well, so were taught to shoot in salvos at close range to make up for it.

Bit of an advantage if you ask me.

Oh and welcome to calguns!

[hoffmang]

1. More of that thought made it into the briefs than an untrained in the law eye can easily see. Heck, GOA threatened the Supreme Court Justices if you read closely enough.

2. The best way forward from where we sit today to where we have the rest of the world understand the safety that the right to arms creates against tyranny is to be a bit more circumspect for now.

-Gene

[aileron]

From GOA brief.

According to its text, context, and historic setting,
the Second Amendment protects an individual right to
private possession and use of handguns in one’s own
home. The individual right to keep and bear arms is
essential to a “well regulated militia” — a self-bodying,
self-governing association of people privately trained
to arms, modeled after the colonial militia that took up
their privately-owned firearms to defeat a tyrannical
effort to confiscate their arms. In turn, a “well
regulated militia” ensures the preservation of a “free
state” by allowing all members of the American polity
to exercise, if necessary, the sovereign right of the
“people” to reconstitute their government.

Link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...sofamerica.pdf

Enjoy the read.

[Forever-A-Soldier]

Just like having the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, a well armed citizenry is part of the "checks and balances" concept.

Cambo

Excellent point on the "checks and balances" theme throughout our early history and the Constitution. Well put and welcome to Calguns!

F.A.S. Out

[Cambo5150]

Aileron and Hoffmang, guess your right, some of my train of thought WAS in there...thanks. Cambo

[Piper]

According to its text, context, and historic setting, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to private possession and use of handguns in one’s own home. The individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to a “well regulated militia” — a self-bodying, self-governing association of people privately trained to arms, modeled after the colonial militia that took up
their privately-owned firearms to defeat a tyrannical effort to confiscate their arms. In turn, a “well regulated militia” ensures the preservation of a “free state” by allowing all members of the American polity to exercise, if necessary, the sovereign right of the “people” to reconstitute their government.

I really hate this statement. I don't recall the second amendment saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms "in ones own home" shall not be infringed."

I spend most of my time outside and away from home. I know that Heller is about having a working handgun in the home, but those that are pro-gun emphasize this dribble as much as the anti's and I wish we would stop. The second amendment is about WE THE PEOPLE carrying our firearms anytime, anywhere, where it's legal for us to be. That includes government buildings as well as places with public access. And what's up with airports having special consideration when it comes to security? I don't recall hearing about airports being highjacked. I think Arizona and Utah have some pretty common sense approaches to firearms and that's where I would like to see California eventually.

[M. Sage]

Actually, we had rifles and muskets they only had muskets. In affect we were better armed then they were. You couldn't hit the side of a barn door at a 100 yards with a musket but most militia men with rifles could hit guys out to 200 yards. Now this doesn't mean every guy owned a Kentucky rifle, but they were out there in numbers. Also most Americans knew how to shoot, because they were brought up that way, so they aimed their shots. Versus the Brits, who didn't grow up hunting, so couldn't shoot well, so were taught to shoot in salvos at close range to make up for it.

Bit of an advantage if you ask me.

Oh and welcome to calguns!

Exactly. The Brown Bess didn't even have any kind of sight (at that time, anyway.)

[hoffmang]

Ah. But the strategic reason to focus on keep and "in the home" is that you have a right to keep even obscenity in your home that isn't protected by the First Amendment. Very few arguments can get more stark than that.

-Gene

[Librarian]

Ah. But the strategic reason to focus on keep and "in the home" is that you have a right to keep even obscenity in your home that isn't protected by the First Amendment. Very few arguments can get more stark than that.

-Gene

AND the specifics of Heller are for 'in the home' possession and ability to use.

Have to keep the actual case in view.