What you said reminded me of this poem:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

-Pastor Martin Niemoeller

Not really the same context, but the idea is similar. The loss of a few rights can, one day, lead to the loss of all rights.

Delete this if you want, but...

Every time I hear about DC's strict gun control laws, it always makes me wonder if they weren't created to protect the politicians. Do they think that people might have reasons to be PO'd at them, and pop a few caps in their direction?

Sue

Quite right, and bear in mind that not only do all the politicians have armed guards escorting them anywhere anytime, but most also have special permits allowing them to arm themselves while in the district as well. Yet another example of a double standard.

I've heard from a lot of folks who don't think that gun ownership is a big concern to them. In their case, I have to agree, within a narrow context, but consider how such thinking then flows into other aspects of our culture.

For instance, much of what happened to African Americans prior to the civil rights movement and the passage of certain amendments really had no effect on me or people like me. I am caucasian and never really experienced discrimination or prejudice firsthand, nor did my parents or grandparents. To their way of thinking, why would it then be so important to impose such a limitation on our government that would only directly influence the lives of other people they did not know and would never likely have need of? Still, because of people like my parents and grandparents, the laws were changed, and no longer can people be legally oppressed or denied equal opportunity in this country based on their race, religion, sex, creed etc. It just so happened, then, that one of those African Americans who's life was changed by the civil rights laws ended up saving the life of one of my relatives, thereby justifying the efforts my ancestors made to secure the rights of others though they would receive no direct benefit themselves.

I could cite many more such similar examples of how preserving the rights of others whether we realize the benefit directly ourselves or not is a prudent action. If we don't agree that all the rights defined in our consitution ought to be preserved or changed for the better, then we risk the same ambivalence with respect to our own rights by others to whom we hold no direct accountability otherwise.

You're confusing practicality of implementation of a law with its likelihood of being passed. They mostly aren't connected.

DC, and the gun law being ruled upon, ironically, is a good example of this. Crime was supposed to go down when this law was passed. It didn't. The folks who want to ban guns don't care that it didn't.



I hope for full "incorporation" in the ruling. But I expect to be bitterly disappointed.

Don't forget that part of the reason that people were expected to be able to form a militia was to help keep the US Government in check. That National Guard was actually a State Guard.

The writing of the founding documents never addresses hunting, it’s written from the point of fear that the government would become too powerful and that we the people should overthrow it and install new government if it were to become too powerful. They wanted the real power within each state, not the federal government. Over the last 200-years power has shifted away from the states to the federal government. Giving us this all powerful hammer that will pound you into the ground at a moments notice.

Hunting with a gun was not an issue to them at all. Fear of governments power over it’s people was. As it was with the King of England. And actually you could say the King of America as they were all English subjects up to the time of the revolution. They were very much concerned that the new government they were creating not become tyrannical like King George was.


From a survival point of view I don’t know that an assault rifle is needed. But we should be able to have one if a person wanted to.


For survival I think a bolt action or a combo gun (like a Savage24) is a good choice. I don’t know that I buy into the idea that Hollywood puts into movies that people will be running around shooting everyone in site (Mad Max type of movie.)

That may happen some in big cities, but I think in small towns will pull together and work to have as normal a life as they can under the given conditions. And a Bolt action rifle fits into that well to provide food from hunting.

Thereto, if you want to get more perspective about the intent of the 2nd amendment, look to what the people that wrote it said elsewhere, and other powerful politicians also said at the time it was being written. I think you'll find that the common view was in support of the individual's right as a means of personal as well as communal security and safety. Hunting had nothing to do with the intent of the amendment. Being able to protect the lives of yourself and your loved ones, either individually or as a member of a community, was the paramount concern.

Here, here! Amen (to both of the last 2 posts)