Theodore's World

Took my German in-laws to the USMC Commandants Friday evening USMC Tatoo Ceremony and 8th & I Barracks in the Washington DC 'HOOD'...they loved the ceremony but realized the vicinity was a disgraceful dangerous crime-ridden asphalt jungle war zone! A few righteous handgun possessors would have made us feel SAFER!

It's beginning to SMELL a lot like Thanksgiving! GOD bless and thank Him for our blessings, freedoms and cornbread stuffing!

I guess old age is finally setting in on me!!!! According to an article in Wikipedia on the 2nd Amendment, Washington DC passed the now controversial Firearms Control Regulations Act (1976) "that bans residents from owning handguns, and that requires permitted firearms be disassembled and locked with a trigger guard". No wonder the crime rate and deaths from gun shots is so high there!!!! By the time you reassemble your gun and take the trigger guard off......YOU'RE DEAD!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!! And can anyone explain to me why a place like DC can have such a high crime and death rate when they have such a strict gun control law in place?!?!?!?! Double DUH!!!!! Damn criminals......they don't play by the rules do they!?!?!?! This should be a clear signal that stupid gun control laws don't work. Just an aside thought.....if I lose my right to "keep and bear arms" does that mean I have to have my arms removed and wear long sleeve shirts from now on???? Our Forefathers must be rolling in their graves!!!!! God help us all!!!!! Oh, by the way....I hope WT and everyone else has a very wonderful "Thanksgiving" tomorrow and that we all remember to be Thankful for all the good we have and enjoy and preserved for you by the U.S. Military. God Bless Them All!!!!!!!!!!

I do not own a gun, but I will fight to the death anyone's right to own one.

I don't like noise. I prefer a "silent means" to disposing of a "problem" situation, if you know what I mean.

Besides I have four Great Pyrennes (125 lbs.+), and dog food prices being what they are ... well ... you get my drift. My Shetland Polar Bears are partial to Mooselimb, but will eat dark and white meat, as well.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the way I have always read the 2nd Amendment. It says, the righ of the , "people", not that of an entity or government run entity, the people to 'keep and bear arms'.

The People, the whole constitution is about the People, us, the common person who works everyday has the inherant right to self-defense.

If the SCOTUS decides as some are predicting and the Right to keep and bear Arms is infringed, then I think that will be the last straw.

I truly believe people are totally frustrated with a non-responsive government, a government that ignores the will of the people, when it comes to protection, from terrorists, invaders of the border or home invasion.

This was proven this week in Texas, when a neighbor witnessed a robbery of his neighbor's home and called 911 and the cops told the guy to do nothing and wait,... However, he did something, he went outside with his shot gun, warned the robbers to 'stop or you're dead', they didn't stop, and killed the two burglars on the spot.

I think we have reached the point of no return, if we don't do something our country will be gone.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating what to have for dinner. Freedom is a well-armed sheep ready to contest the vote!....Ben Franklin

The said Constitution (shall) be never construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own
arms....Samuel Adams; Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

The Bill of Rights is the People's Rights, not the govenment's rights. The Bill of Rights was enacted to limit the government's power and protect the People against tyranny. There are many statements from the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights clarifying and stressing that the People not only have the right, but the moral obligation to be armed.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
--Thomas Jefferson

Maybe it's time to act.

Darth, that is so neat that you went to that. And you are so right about Washington.

drstrangeloveb52isok, yippee cornbread.

John, great comment, I agree.

"Thankful for all the good we have and enjoy and preserved for you by the U.S. Military."

Amen!

SSgt Steve (USMC Die Hard), love hearing about your dogs. That is so great.

Mark thank you for telling about what happened in Texas. That is so awful.

Bob thank you for that quote that is excelent.

Cornbread too? How about Sweet Potato Pie with a little Jack Daniels and melted marshmellows? Or Sweet Potato biscuits? Happy Thanksgiving and remember the Soviets told us when THE WALL came down they would have to nuke us to conquer us since we had soooooo many 2nd Amendment advocates and gun owners! ...x KGB X...!

Tom, .....the moral obligation to be armed"...... Yessssss, thank you.

Jack that is a great quote, thank you so much.

Darth, yummmy Sweet Potato Pie.

People misread that bit about the "well regulated militia" because they don't understand what a militia is. If you say the word "militia" to most people these days, they think either of Klansmen, or of silly guys marching around in the woods with paintball guns. Historically, the militia consisted of two groups. There were the active militia, who were self-organized into standing units and deployed at the request of either the state governor or the President (quite a few militia units fought in all American-involved wars up through the Spanish-American War). And then there was the "unorganized" militia, the militia's reserves as it were. If you were a male between the ages of 18 and 45, you were automatically a member of the unorganized militia. The word "unorganized" should be read in this context as "ad hoc"; it had no standing command structure, but rather organized and re-arranged itself as needed. The organized militia was formalized into the National Guard by the Dick Act (no, I'm not making that up) in the early 1900s. The unorganized militia is not currently defined in statute law, but I have heard it opinied by defense scholars that Todd Beamer and his compatriots were acting as members of the unorganized militia when they foiled the hijacking of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania on 9/11.

The second key thing is that at the time the United States was founded, people did not draw a sharp line between police and military functions as we do today. It wasn't until the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 that the Regular Army was forbidden from acting in a law enforcement capacity. In the early 19th century, most towns had no standing police force, and milita members were frequently called upon to assist the town sheriff in performing any number of law enforcement functions. Policing and defense were, well not quite identical, but very closely related.

So, reading the Second Amendment with these two things in mind: (1) Defense included the entire range of activities for which controlled violence is required to preserve civil order and the integrity of the nation, from national defense through town and area defense all the way down to individual defense. (2) All able-bodied adults (men, anyway) were not only permitted but expected to perform these functions, whether they belonged to a formalized military structure or not. Being that a militiaman could be called upon at any instant, clearly it was necessary for them to keep and bear arms in order to be continuously at the ready.

So how does this translate to today? I think it's clear that fighting off a home invader or rapist qualifies as "defense" in the Founder's context, and that anyone capable was not only allowed but expected to do so. And clearly the keeping and bearing of arms is still required in order to carry out this responsibility; after all, the police can't be everywhere at once. What's that I hear someone say, that the idea of an unorganized milita performing a defense function in today's world is ludicrous? Try telling Todd Beamer's widow that. In fact, you could sorta kinda make an argument that the Second Amendment not only permits, but *requires* all able-bodied people to keep and bear arms.

A couple of other arguments that are easy to shoot down: (1) The argument that the Second Amendment only permits the military to bear arms. Well, besides all of what I wrote above, there's the matter that Article 1 had already provided for the common defense and the raising of armies before the Bill of Rights was adopted. Why would the Second Amendment be written to just duplicate what Article 1 had already specified? (2) The argument that the Second Amendment only constrains the federal government, not the state or local governments. If this is in fact true of the Second Amendment, it's also true of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, in fact the entire Bill of Rights except the 10th Amendment. However, courts in the 20th century have very consistently held that the 14th Amendment applies the entire Bill of Rights to all govermental units in the U.S. If this were not true, it would be an enormous setback to civil rights -- your state government could censor your speech, your local government could conduct warrantless searches, etc. There is nothing in the wording of the Second Amendment that specifies that it should be treated any differently than the rest of the Bill of Rights in this respect.

So don't fret about the Supreme Court taking tha case. Regardless of what they may individially think of gun control, the current Supremes know that to uphold the D.C. gun ban would create a gaping, irrepairable hole in the Constitution, in effect nullifying both the Second and the 14th Amendments. No SC Justice is going to put the 14th Amendment in jeopardy. They know that the judicial branch created this mess, and that the judicial branch has to be the one to clean it up. The appeals court decision which overturned the D.C. ban will be affirmed. It will be a 5-4 vote because that's the way the SC works these days, but the gun ban will be overturned. Mark my words.

It's abhorrent that civilians can own handguns.
Tell me, is there one recorded case of someone actually successfully protecting their family against a rapist or murderer? Most of those 29000 deaths per year that you rack up seem to be suicides, kids finding daddy's gun in a drawer and jealous husbands losing their minds.