Toy Guns
My grandfather was given a toy cannon when he was a child. I say “toy” because that’s how both he and his parents and even my father thought of it, but this was a working, albeit small, brass cannon. You could (and we did) load it with real gun powder and set it off quite dramatically. I suppose it is probably technically illegal just about everywhere save Texas, but it now sits as a decorative object on the hearth in my oldest daughter’s Virginia home. I would hope no one is foolhardy enough to load it up with black powder again (especially as my nephews put chewing gum down the barrel).
We also had a percussion cap rifle and a set of dress swords handed down from some Civil War relative. My older sister made use of the rifle to scare away an intruder one summer day; I imagine that our local police thought that was smart thinking on her part; today she’d probably have to see a probation officer for her “crime” (and my parents would be pariahs for having such things in the home). Actually, I don’t know why she didn’t grab the loaded .22 pistol that we all knew was in a cupboard drawer – perhaps she felt that was too small to be intimidating.
I currently don’t own any guns. Frankly, guns scare me and since I’m not a hunter, that’s the end of any thought process that starts with the idea of acquiring such. Besides, they cost too much: I’m too cheap to own a gun.
I bring all this up because the Supreme Court is about to consider whether or not the Second Amendment prevents States from interfering with gun ownership. Those of you who know me as a whacko ACLU liberal will no doubt be shocked to learn that I hope that the Court does tell the States to go pound sand. I want to have the right to own a gun without anyone standing in my way. Well, more accurately, I want my neighbors to be able to own guns – I’m still cheap and scared.
Our founding fathers understood that military governments can control the populace very easily if we are all weak and defenseless. Yes, I understand all the arguments against guns, all the terrible statistics and honestly, I don’t care: for the protection of our liberty, we need to retain the right to bear arms.
Of course I don’t think that should be without limits. I don’t want my neighbors owning nuclear rocket launchers. However, I don’t think it’s the business of States to set such limits or to restrict felons, the mentally incompetent and so on from brandishing firearms. Anything like that should be Federal – we should ALL live by the same rules.
That’s just my opinion, of course, and I’ll live with whatever the Court rules. I’m just hoping for the “pound sand” result.
Themocracy
The basis behind the Second was if the experiment failed. What would be the recourse? Traditionally governments in the east and west limited weapons to the masses. This was clearly recognized by the founders.
Actually, that was my great-grandfather – boy, that brass is old
The experiment can still fail
I’m also in favor of gun ownership as constitutional right with some protections to prevent JiltedBoyfriend from buying a gun right now dammit to wreak who knows what havoc.
It is my understanding that the second amendment is a constitutional right, not a state mandate.
If you outlaw guns then only the criminal will have guns, not the law abiding citizens.
Therefore all law abiding citizens will be easy prey for the criminals who chose to do harm. I do not believe we should make it any easier for criminals. Let them know that if they invade your home and threaten your family they may run into someone who is armed.
This is an ongoing issue and one that is very important. I just renewed my membership in the NRA, and will continue to support every citizens right to bear arms!
There is a reason it is the 2nd amendment, the founding fathers thought this was very important.
Another great organization for 2nd amendment rights is GOAL, the Gun Owners Action League.
their focus is on Massachusetts.
As Thomas Jefferson said “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”.
Well, the interesting thing about that is that conservatives tend to read most everything else in the Constitution as things States can make up their own minds about and this as a flat prohibition. Liberals tend to see it the other way, so honestly it’s a burr under the saddle of both sides: it’s really hard for a conservative to argue against States controlling this while remaining true to other States rights issues and it seems equally disingenuous for liberals to argue for controls while not wanting to let States have free reign elsewhere.