Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[badshot]

"Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with."

Or Ammo¿

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

Shall not be infringed would mean things like unnecessary burdens placed on the citizens to be able to keep and bear arms.
Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a requirement to have 8 hours of training to own a firearm.
Should we say you can only post on the Internet if you only have passed a class on political correctness so that you don't offend someone?

I've come to realize that the infringement clause really means I am allowed to do whatever I want without any personal responsibility, because everything is an "unnecessary burden".

The founding fathers were visionaries not forecasters. They also seemed to have faith in future generations that we could figure out the changes that go along with progress. As much as I laugh at the youtube videos of people who can't correctly discharge weapons I still think knowing proper technique is a good idea if just for those around.

I wonder how life would be if "shall not be infringed" had been the word choice in the other Amendments especially 1,4 and 5.

Originally Posted by badshot

"Perhaps we can get an explanation of how someone becomes well regulated without a weapon to train with. Or Ammo?

don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.

Along with liability insurance and mandatory locking, what do you consider "well-regulated"?

In my mind as well as, I would hope, in the minds of other Americans, the responsibility rests with the owner of the gun. The security measures, safety in use, where the bullets go, what's behind the target-everything on the range briefing, basically-is a job for the owner, and not a governmental regulator.

The primary duty of the gun owner is to make sure that the only person who uses the weapon is one he personally authorizes to use it, or himself. Secondarily, it has to be used safely. He needs to keep his firearm out of the hands of someone who would use it in a manner in which it shouldn't be used. Same as a knife, black powder, castor beans, gasoline and spider spray-anything potentially lethal to other humans.

The reason libs want regulation is because further restrictions get them closer to their ultimate goal-confiscation. Then, they don't have to worry about insurrection.

[Peregrino]

A minor modification to Dusty's post:

Along with liability insurance and mandatory locking, what other requirements would you impose on law-abiding citizens in order to meet your "well-regulated" criterion?

Given that the rest of us understand "shall not be infringed" to mean precisely that.
Given that the Supreme Court has already recognized "unnecessary burden" as a detriment/deterrent to the free exercise of guaranteed rights.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I've come to realize that the infringement clause really means I am allowed to do whatever I want without any personal responsibility, because everything is an "unnecessary burden".

The founding fathers were visionaries not forecasters. They also seemed to have faith in future generations that we could figure out the changes that go along with progress. As much as I laugh at the youtube videos of people who can't correctly discharge weapons I still think knowing proper technique is a good idea if just for those around.

I wonder how life would be if "shall not be infringed" had been the word choice in the other Amendments especially 1,4 and 5.

don't look at me. I'm for allowing any weapon you want as long as its use is well-regulated for proper use.

You mean like they do in "gun free zone" Chicago.....

[MR2]

This weeks Huffington Magazine has several articles focusing on Guns & Politics.

CLOSE TO THE HEART: The debate that's still too sensitive to touch.
By SAM STEIN, HOWARD FINIMAN, CHRISTINA WILKE & EMILY SWANSON

As well as the usual political bigotry.

Found on discriminatory Books Shelf's everywhere...

[MR2]

VFW Post sign in Lincoln, NE.

[orion5]

How I Evolved on Guns During the #BostonPoliceScanner Manhunt

by Paula Bolyard
April 22, 2013 - 3:00 pm


In the wee hours of Friday morning, April 19th, I evolved on guns.

First, a confession: I’ve never owned a gun. I never wanted one in my home and, like a lot of moms, I wanted to raise non-violent children and thought keeping guns out of our home was one way to do that. When my kids were young, I didn’t want them to play with toy guns — in fact, I was rather insistent about it. Eventually, I realized that little boys will make guns out of just about anything — bananas, sticks, the dog’s paw, their fingers — nothing is safe from their imaginative minds. So I compromised and allowed squirt guns and non-gun-looking Nerf guns, but nothing that resembled a “real” gun.

My sensible (ex-military) husband indulged me in this when they were toddlers, but as they grew, he convinced me that our boys needed to learn firearms safety. He took them to firing ranges where they learned to fire weapons and even to enjoy them. Our 21 year old couldn’t wait to get his concealed-carry permit the minute he reached the legal age. I’m thankful now for my husband’s insistence that our children not be raised to fear guns.

But I never wanted a gun in my home.

[snip]

But all that changed early Friday morning. Along with 80,000 others around the world, I found myself glued to the live-action police drama being played out online. I first noticed the tweets with the hashtag #BostonPoliceScanner late Thursday evening and was soon engrossed in the manhunt, listening to the officers on the ground in Watertown and Cambridge and simultaneously following the tweets from the worldwide audience.

Throughout the night, a community of sorts formed as I began to recognize Twitter handles and together we “watched” law enforcement officers create a perimeter and lay down a grid so they could search the neighborhoods of Watertown. We listened as they responded to calls from residents who “heard something” in their sheds or thought they saw a “guy with a backpack” walking down the street. This was repeated dozens of times throughout the night. When police broadcast their location, many listeners typed the address into Google Street View and so could see the streets and even houses they were responding to.

It was both surreal and very real at the same time. It was a strange combination of social media and reality show with the knowledge that life and death were on the line. At one point, someone tweeted this: "I’m halfway across the country but if someone knocked on my door right now I’d pee my pants."

A moment of levity during a very serious, very scary night.

It was the moment I evolved on guns — the moment my support for the 2nd Amendment went from abstract to concrete.

Boston-area residents were told to “shelter-in-place.”

"We’re asking people to shelter in place. In other words, to stay indoors with their doors locked and not to open their door for anyone other than a properly identified law enforcement officer,” said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in a press conference in Watertown. “Please understand we have an armed and dangerous person(s) still at large and police actively pursuing every lead in this active emergency event. Please be patient and use common sense until this person(s) are apprehended."

I realized at that moment that the police cannot protect me from the Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs of the world.

The best they can do is tell me to lock myself in my home while they search for the bad guy. Though the residents of Watertown (and the surrounding greater-Boston area) were held in a state of near-martial law, the best most of them could do was huddle in their homes, hoping the police would take their 3 a.m. call and come running to rescue them before the terrorist killed them.

Chris Wallace interviewed Dianne Feinstein on Fox News Sunday about the Boston lockdown and asked her if the million people locked in their homes in Boston might have felt safer with guns.

“Some may have [wanted guns], yes,” Feinstein said. “But if where you’re going is ‘do they need an assault weapon?’ I don’t think so.”

Wallace pressed Feinstien on whether citizens should be able to decide the best way to protect themselves in their homes:

“How about a machine gun then?” Feinstein asked. “We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they’re used…you can use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect and there’s the element of surprise.”

“Now you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so I don’t really think this is applicable. I think there are people who want to make this argument,” she added.

As I listened to the police scanner during the Boston manhunt, I wasn’t thinking about “police all over the place” in the “personal security guard” sense that Feinstein seemed to be implying.

Instead, I imagined a mother huddled in the nursery with her baby. Her husband is out of town and she is also listening to the police scanner, praying the terrorist doesn’t burst through her back door.

I imagined an 85-year-old World War II veteran living alone. He fought the Nazis on foot across Europe and his government just instructed him to “shelter-in-place.” He turns out the lights in his home and hunches over his radio waiting for updates though the long night.

I wondered if they could protect themselves if the worst happened.

In the middle of that night listening to the Boston police scanner, I evolved.

I realized right then that if I were holed up in my house while a cold-blooded terrorist roamed my neighborhood, I wouldn’t want to be a sitting duck with only a deadbolt lock between me and an armed intruder. There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me. I knew at that instant if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev showed up at my door while I was “sheltered-in-place” and aimed a gun at my head and only one of us would live, I could pull the trigger.

I’m shopping for guns this week. I’ve been told a 12-gauge shotgun is a good choice for home protection, but I’m open to suggestions.


[LINK]

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by orion5

How I Evolved on Guns During the #BostonPoliceScanner Manhunt

by Paula Bolyard
April 22, 2013 - 3:00 pm

In the wee hours of Friday morning, April 19th, I evolved on guns.
********************************
I’m shopping for guns this week. I’ve been told a 12-gauge shotgun is a good choice for home protection, but I’m open to suggestions.

[LINK]

Nothing like having your nose forceably rubbed in the fact that the individual really is the person ultimately responsible for their own safety. Add a bit of responsibility for children or others who cannot defend themselves effectively and suddenly its a wake-up call.

And then there's Ms. Feinstein and everyone like her who advocates citizen disarmament. Here's an interesting read sent to me by a friend: http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/04/...y-jason-h.html. Thought provoking? Makes me wonder how long it'll be before Paula Bolyard is demonized as "reactionary" by the "opinion shapers".

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by MR2

VFW Post sign in Lincoln, NE.

That is so rich gotta, love them Huskers!

RE: orion5 Post 428, it reminds me of the old saying "A Democrat is a Republican Who Hasn’t Been Mugged Yet." this is a great read, the light has gone on in this womans head "There are not enough police and they cannot come to my rescue quickly enough. They carry guns to protect themselves, not me." You can bet she is not the only one in the area with a shopping list. I will not live in fear in my own home.

[MR2]

From Guns Magazine, September 1955

[tonyz]

Like another presentation of tinea cruris...

Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control

By JEREMY W. PETERS
NYT
Published: April 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week’s collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country’s gun laws in 20 years.

Next week when Congress is in recess, gun control groups coordinating with the Obama committee Organizing for Action will be fanning out across the country in dozens of demonstrations at the offices of senators who voted down the background check bill.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us...rol.html?_r=2&

[MR2]

From Guns Magazine, September 1957

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by MR2

From Guns Magazine, September 1957

Interesting article - as was the previous one you posted above - from 1955. The advertisements appearing in the mags were also particularly interesting.

Seems in some respects, the more things change the more they remain the same - wish the same could be said of prices.

Thanks for posting these old articles.


From the subject 1957 article:

"Recently proposed Treasury regulations came close to this ideal; they could have destroyed the firearms industry and the shooting sport. Under the guise of protecting the people, these makers of rules who push anti-gun bills such all these are forging weapons, not into plough shares, but into an iron collar of restraint, worthy of a fascist state.

Year by year more anti-gun laws are proposed. Meanwhile, pro-gun collectors and shooters are mollified by the excuse "these laws are thought up by well meaning, innocent do gooders."

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by MR2

From Guns Magazine, September 1957

Great find, thank you.