It’s Time to Accept Gun Limits

In a recent letter to ldnews.com, William Kautz of South Lebanon, PA, makes the case that “we should accept some gun limits.” It may come as a surprise to people who know my feelings on the subject of civil rights, but I actually agree with Bill. Everybody, across the country should accept whatever limits on gun ownership make them comfortable. Personally, I would set my gun limits as follows . .

  1. I can’t buy more than one gun a day (so 365 or fewer annually (except on leap years)).
  2. I can’t spend more on a gun than I ever spent on a car (so $30,000 per gun is the upper limit).
  3. I can’t order more ammo until I’ve stored the last container-load.

But that’s just me. Bill may have other ideas so take it away Bill:

At the risk of angering many of my gun-owning friends and neighbors, I say there should be a ban on assault weapon sales and ownership except for the U.S. Armed Forces and police departments.

So Bill doesn’t mean we should accept limits, he means that our lords and masters should impose limits and the rest of us peasants and serfs should just roll over and expose our bellies. I think not, Bill. Besides, what are these so-called assault weapons and what’s so horrible about them?

They are called “assault weapons” for a good reason. Their sole intent is to assault and kill as many people in as short a time as possible.

I’ve been involved in this civil rights movement for about a decade now, and I have heard that same statement made over and over, and I have never gotten a satisfactory answer (or any answer) to my big question on that subject. But first some background.

Back when the Clinton AWB was set to expire, the Brady Campaign sent their “Halt the Assault” Big Pink Rig across the country, trying to drum up support for a renewal of the ban. They made a stop at the capitol building in Saint Paul, MN, and the local astroturf anti group arranged a meeting with their mouthpiece, Rep. Betty McCollum, then Hennepin County Prosecutor (now Senator) Amy Klobuchar and Allerhöchsten Oberster Chief Scott Knight of Chaska, MN.

Despite the minimal notice and inconvenient scheduling (10:00AM on a Tuesday morning) I managed to get time off work to attend and listened to all three of them explain how the sole purpose for these weapons was to kill the most people in the shortest time. My question to the three of them (and I have followed up individually with each of the three at least a dozen times apiece since) was this:

Given the fact that the City of Cloquet, MN recently purchased M-4 Law Enforcement Carbines with which to equip their squad cars, please explain to me the circumstances under which a patrol officer in Cloquet would find it necessary to “kill the most people in the shortest time possible.”

I have never received an answer from any of the three. In fact I have asked that question dozens of times over the ensuing decade and have never gotten an answer from anyone. But it never seems to fail; whenever the subject comes up, you’ll hear the antis stating that modern sporting rifles are horrible killing machines and therefore only should be employed by the police.

But Bill continues to demonstrate his ignorance with almost every word:

… They aren’t being used for hunting, (except maybe by ivory and rhino-horn poachers in Africa) …

Actually Bill, setting aside the fact that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility, the AR-15 has been used as a varmint rifle for years. And .223 is now being accepted more and more for larger game like white-tails, pronghorns and bighorn sheep. Couple that with the fact that DiFi’s listed guns include as “assault weapons” (among others) the AR-10 and FN-FAL in .308 and the Saiga 12 ga. shotgun, yeah people do use them for hunting.

… and they are not used in normal target-shooting competitions.

Do you mean “normal” as in 3-gun competition matches with tens of thousands of dollars in prizes and professional shooters with corporate sponsorships from companies like FNH, Ruger, Leupold and Brownells? Or do you mean “normal” as in the Camp Perry National Rifle Matches, service rifles division?

But setting aside the ignorance already on display, does Bill have any other arguments to offer? Indeed he does:

As has been pointed out many times recently, the framers of the Constitution meant the amendment to allow for the maintaining of “a well regulated Militia” for the security of a free State.

Bill’s correct as far as he goes, but methinks he has no clue who comprises the militia and what “well regulated” actually means. Bill and his ilk would have us believe that “well regulated” means thoroughly bound by laws and strictures, but that’s a more recent interpretation of the phrase.

To find out what it meant in the 18th century we turn to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (published in 1755). Johnson’s dictionary was considered by most to be the pre-eminent English language dictionary until the publication of the Oxford English Dictionary some 175 years later. Johnson defines regulate as:

  1. To adjust by rule or method
  2. To direct

If we look up adjust we find:

  1. To regulate; to put in order
  2. To make accurate
  3. To make conformable

And the definition of direct is given as:

  1. To aim in a straight line
  2. To point against as a mark
  3. To regulate; to adjust

Finally the Oxford English Dictionary itself defines regulated as:

  1. Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard.
  2. Of troops: properly disciplined (Obsolete rare).[A-HA!]

and gives the following example of its use in that sense:

1690 London Gazette No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great allarm in in Daupine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 men of regulated troops on that side.

Now that we’ve determined that “well regulated” means the militia should be properly disciplined and well-functioning, where can we look to find out who makes up the militia? The antis want us to believe the militia is merely an obsolete term for the National Guard, Hence the Second Amendment only applies to National Guardsmen and uniformed soldiers.

Fortunately there are numerous sources available to refute this. During the debates in Virginia on whether to ratify or reject the new Constitution which had come out of Philadelphia, George Mason (sometimes called the Father of the Bill of Rights) said:

A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

During those same debates Founder Richard Henry Lee (writing as M.T. Cicero to “The Citizens of America”) explained quite explicitly just who and what constituted the well-regulated militia:

No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

In addition to these writings there is also legislative history, some contemporary to the Founding and some more recent, stating who is in the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 defined militia in Section 1:

 That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

In fact current U.S. Code contains a definition of the militia in Title 10-A Chapter 13 § 311:

a)     The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

b)     The classes of the militia are—

  1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Which means that, well, pretty much everybody is in the militia, which in turn means that, in order to protect the country pretty much everybody should have military weaponry. But Bill has an answer to that too:

When that was written the world was a far different place than it is now, and the Founding Fathers could never have forseen[sic] how far the development of firearms would come in the future.

After all, their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and many generations before that had never seen anything but old, slow-to-load, inaccurate muzzle-loading pistols and long guns.

Ah yes, the classic “the Founders were unimaginative morons” argument. The only problem is that we have many things which were not around when the Bill of Rights was written, like television, radio, high speed printing presses, the internet, cell phones, video cell phones, Mormonism and Reform Judaism. Is Bill seriously going to try and argue that none of these are protected under the First Amendment because the Founders were too stupid to imagine their existence? Of course not! These things are all protected because the core right involved (freedom of the press and religion) is not affected by the instruments used to exercise it. Likewise the core right of keeping and bearing arms is not changed by changes in what constitute arms.

But even if we were to allow such limits, the fact of the matter is that people had access to far more than “old, slow-to-load, inaccurate muzzle-loading” single shot weapons in the 1780s. There were six-shot handguns like the pepper-box revolver made by London-based firearms manufacturer Henry Nock (inventor of the Nock volley gun capable of firing simultaneously from its 7 barrels) or the Continental firm of Segallas.

The Founders had access to 9-shot handguns like this one, sold by Christie’s for a little over $30,000 in December of 2006. It is described as:

A rare nine-shot flintlock repeating magazine pistol on the Lorenzoni principle, by H.W. Mortimer & Co., London, gun makers to his majesty, circa 1799-1806

Weapons using the “Lorenzoni System” (as described by ForgottenWeapons.com in a video here) first appeared in Europe around 1680 (while 7 of James Madison’s 8 great-grandparents were still alive). The mechanism worked by loading several shots worth of powder and ball in the frame. The operating lever loaded a ball and a set amount of powder into the chamber and cocked the locking mechanism. Obviously the machining on these weapons had to be fine enough to seal the combustion away from the remaining powder, but the design was successful enough that it appeared in long guns as well, specifically the 7 shot Cookson flintlock rifle.

Moving away from firearms, the Austrian army fielded a 22 ball capacity air rifle good for 40 shots before the air reservoir needed changing or recharging. Many historians partially credit the survival of the Lewis and Clark expedition to the fact that they carried such a Girandoni air rifle (purchased by Lewis out of his own pocket) which they demonstrated whenever they met a new Indian tribe. With ballistics comparable to a modern day .45 ACP (according to Phil Schreier (senior curator of the National Firearms Museum) it could very accurately fire its ball through a 1-inch pine board at 100 yards), its virtually silent operation and its ability to fire many shots without reloading it would have been extremely intimidating even to people who were familiar with black powder weapons, much less those who had never so much as seen a firearm.

So it is obvious that the Founders, being highly intelligent and well-educated men, must have been aware of the many sorts of “high powered” and “high capacity” weapons available at that time. In addition, they were aware of the progress science had made in the previous few centuries and fully expected invention and innovation to continue, as demonstrated by the Constitution’s Copyright Clause:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

So I maintain that it is downright insulting to claim that the Founders would have been unable to predict that there would be changes and developments in weapons, which probably explains why they used the general term “arms” instead of specifying particular weapons that were to be protected.

And then Bill drags out the bloody shirt, claiming:

I think the framers of the Constitution would recoil in horror were they to see the carnage now being wreaked on the people of the United States in the name of the Second Amendment, most especially the tragedy in Newtown.

I think it is far more likely that Bill would recoil in horror at the 25 – 50% infant mortality rate in the mid-1700s than that the Founders would so recoil at the “carnage” of 3.97 CGHs per 100,000.

But wait! Bill’s a gunny too!

Having said that, let me add that I see nothing wrong with owning a firearm. I haven’t owned one in more than 50 years, but I used to do some hunting, and I was also a member of the NRA. Rifles, pistols and shotguns, any one of which should be sufficient to protect one’s family, self, and property, should be enough.

No Bill, you don’t get to decide what is sufficient to protect my family. And you know what? Neither does the DHS (regardless of their recent AR-15 epiphany), the DoJ, the ATF, MAIG, VPC or any other smegging alphabetic group.

My loved ones, my responsibility, my choice of weapons. Deal with it.

avatar

About Bruce W. Krafft

I am a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the civil rights (firearms flavor) movement, having not really gotten involved until after I hit 40. I am not really a "gun guy"; I can generally hit what I aim at, but I'm not a competitive shooter. I enjoy the craftsmanship of a fine pistol or rifle, but I am not particularly knowledgeable about firearms in general nor am I a Glock guy, or 1911 guy, I'm just a guy. What I am is passionate about civil rights, especially those of the firearm flavor.

52 Responses to It’s Time to Accept Gun Limits

  1. avatarJAS says:

    This is a well intended post and I agree with all of it. The problem is that it goes for too long. The bottom line, at least for me, is that ANY weapon is EITHER an assault weapon, or a DEFENSIVE weapon, depending on how it is used.

    It is as simple as that! Everything else is just SEMANTICS and POLITICS.

    • avatarRon says:

      The bottom line, at least for me, is that EVERY weapon is BOTH an assault weapon AND a defensive weapon, depending on WHY it is used.

  2. avatarLance says:

    So another letter buy a man who owns a hunting rifle but doesn’t know squat about guns period. Why bother posting it. Tell self proclaimed know it all like this man to shut up.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      I guess you don’t know how to read but, if you do, please read American history! Most Americans whose are against our 2nd Amendment’s right, never read our history, except for what they got told on school, and by others like them! It’s shameful to see some Americans giving up on our constitutional rights, little by little, because of their ignorance which is what anti-gun politicians feast on!

  3. avatarAccur81 says:

    Looks like a good post, but I didn’t get through the whole thing.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      It’s worth it even if you have to read it in parts. (I also lacked the attention span on a Friday evening to read it all in one go.)

  4. avatarBob says:

    Wikipedia is your friend. Wiki “Assault Rifle” and compare it to the “Assault Weapon” page. You’ll see that assault rifle has a specific meaning, assault weapon is a political term, therefore, meaningless.

    • avatarCarrymagnum says:

      I’m sorry. I don’t know much. But Wikipedia is not any serious writer’/ journalist/ whateverthehellyouare’s best friend. It’s a quick way to get written off as using less than adequate sources. That being said I love this guy and wish I had his eloquence.

  5. avatarMatt Anthony says:

    great post.

  6. avatarOkieRim says:

    Good read, TY

  7. avatarDerrick says:

    I read up to the point where Bill says “I haven’t owned one in more than 50 years…”, after that I stopped reading. Bill is not one of us, and I do not think Bill should have a say in how I exercise my rights!

  8. avatarDisThunder says:

    I’m going to slap the ever-loving Christ out of the next guy who ends his case for disarming me with “oh, it’s okay. I used to go hunting, and stuff, you know?”

  9. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    These so called pro Gun people DO NOT have a clue about what is going on….So let me tell them and you what all the ASW bans are in fact about…….. THIS is a POWER GRAB : they want all your RIGHTS , just a little here and a little there …. POWER, CONTROL and more big government = POLICE STATE + no liberty or freedoms,,, WAKE UP and see the real world ………all gun control is pure distraction … it,s not about hunting or self defense , if the SHEEPLE can not see that ,,, than give them chains and leave America now…….. they mess their pants(they stink) like i said in the first ASW BAN …. GIVE me ONE REAL MAN and send the males to ENGLAND to be safe…

  10. avatarHimself says:

    Well, I got through the whole thing. Kudos. Great job. And I doubt that any, or even all, of it would convince the Bills of this world, who are simply afraid of freedom.

  11. Great article! It may be a little long but I really enjoyed reading it, a lot of cool historical info.

    I really liked the video of the 9 shot flintlock, very cool.

  12. avatarML says:

    Good post with a well-thought-out, historical demolition of his points.

    I think some folks here are getting a little worn out reading the same “singing to the choir” point-of-view articles. But this is going to be a long battle, and it’s good to stay sharp on the fundamentals.

  13. To your friend’s point about the founders recoiling in horror at Newtown, I think they would not.

    “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
    wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
    they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
    it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
    warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
    resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
    to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
    in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure.”

    People died due to what Jefferson termed as a, “misunderstanding.” This quote is not only about people dying to protect our rights, but those that die because of our rights.

  14. avatarFred says:

    What he meant by “assault rifles are not used in shooting competitions” is that they do not use them at his country club.

    • avatarCarrymagnum says:

      I believe I read a post here or maybe it was a link here that I followed but it said that there were 1200 Olympic shooters in the competition, and not one of them used anything other than a modern sporting rifle. So this asshat hasn’t followed the sport in a long, long while. I find it shameful when the ignorant people discuss repealing my rights when they have no idea what they are talking about. To them I say, “your voice does not sound as nice as you think it does. My two year old displays more rational than you. Before you try arguing with me, spend some time studying our founding fathers and take their words as law, because it is. And it’s called the constitution.

  15. avatar1911A1 says:

    I accepted gun limits 33 years ago, when I met my beautiful wife. We came to an understanding. I buy guns, when I can, as many as I can, until she tells me to stop, that I have enough. I’m OK with that, I truly am.

    You didn’t believe any of that bullshit, did you?

  16. avatarDirk Diggler says:

    Under Missouri law, the militia consists of the national guard (organized) and able-bodied men and women age 64 and under (unorganized) and technically, the MO Governor can place the state militia under federal control. Hence, yes, I am a member of the militia.

  17. avatarJack in the Crack says:

    MOLON LABE

  18. avatarLarry says:

    I am sorry but who TF is this guy and why should I care what he has to say?

  19. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Bruce you had me worried there with the title, but I knew better! Always a pleasure to read..

  20. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    These experts should all have to go through a one week gun course run by Gunny & Massod Ayoob. Aparently there is something wrong with taking down “multiple” criminals. Oh sure, it’s ok to shoot one criminal but when faced with a gang of thugs I guess you are supposed to just pick off the meanest looking one. Randy

  21. avatarchris says:

    Charles Darwin, “yes lets give only ‘assault weapons’ to police officers and watch how that turns out.” With the number of IGOTD being law enforcement officers with “assault weapons” I think we all know how that would go.

  22. avatarSilver says:

    Gotta admire someone who comes right out and says our tyrannical overlords (who have killed more innocents than civilians ever could) should own the means to oppress us.

    Wait, admire’s not the word. What is it? Ah, yes…loathe.

    He can be a sub-human slave all he wants. I’ll choose to remain a free man, thank you.

  23. avatarZM 1306 says:

    Truly we will be living in America again when I can walk down the street with a Glock 18 (the only one I would buy) and a claymore (sword) on my back. That is true bearing of arms.

  24. avatar4strokes says:

    Bruce, I love you man!
    I have additional ammo I use for the old “The Founding Fathers could never have fore seen” canard:
    Our Founding Father not only allowed, but encouraged the private ownership of artillery and war ships. Our entire Navy was privateer. A huge number of the combatants during the Revolution carried their own mortors. Personnal cannons were kept at many wealthy farm houses.
    So whenever the antis start with this nonsense I ask: Why can’t I just run down to Bob’s Tackle and Guns and fetch a nice Howitzer? Because the Founding Fathers damn well knew what those were and they were proud that the members of their citizen army not only owned them, but knew how to use them effectively.

  25. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I’ll again add the first source I can find of a “well regulated militia” that was probably read by the Founding Fathers:

    http://openlibrary.org/books/OL25199424M/A_discourse_of_government_with_relation_to_militia's

  26. avatarDerek says:

    “… and they are not used in normal target-shooting competitions.”

    I stopped after that. He’s obviously full o’ shit. No point in going further. Bruce’s points aside, if you’ve so much as been NEAR a range in the last 20 years, you’ve seen ARs and/or AKs all over the damn place. People shooting bulls-eye from bench rest, rapid fire while moving, from the shoulder, cross legged, curving bullets etc. Saying that people don’t use ARs/AKs for “normal target-shooting competitions” is screaming that he hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Hi Derek, I think you misread his post. The centered paragraphs in cursive are a recall from what Bill said, and what the laws he researched stated. The rest is Bruce’s point of view. Hope you read it again till the end. Thanks.

  27. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    These no good COMMIES are going to try and “LIMIT” us out of all our guns. They’ll start with the so called “assault weapons ban” which doesn’t ban a single real assault weapon, but only takes away our right to own modern sporting rifles. Then they’ll come for the killer semiauto pistols that only the police should have because citizens don’t need more than six rounds in a revolver. Then they take the “SNIPER HUNTING RIFLES” because no citizen needs a rifle that can shoot somthing hundreds of yards away without a problem. Then they’ll come for all the evil shotguns, because they make really big holes in people. Then they’ll take the 22′s because no really needs a 22 to protect themselves, and they’re only good for hunting small harmless animals. You can’t give into the COMMIES because they limit you out of your rights one gun at a time.

    • avatarthe last Marine out says:

      You are starting to get the point, the Swiss have Full-auto MILITARY rifles in their homes………that is just what our founders wanted ……..2A is all about a balance of the powers that be… that is why we have courts , congress, the white house and the full bill of rights. all are limits to total POWER / TOTAL CONTROL…….. NEVER EVER give up any RIGHTS or ANY GUNS!!!!!!!!!

      • avatarSamAdams1776 says:

        Indeed. I assume you’re an Oathkeeper as am I-the tipping point is increasingly getting near. Are you ready? Are you all ready. We must not dishonor the founders and the many who have died trying to preserve the liberty that our so-called “representatives,” and the slothful electorate who put them in office, are trying to destroy. They are looters & destroyers.
        How long will we stand by and tolerate this? How long?

  28. avatarRich says:

    Its even more simple than that:
    Not be infringed: To not encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
    Keep: I own it
    Bare: Its right here with me and its loaded

  29. avatarjwm says:

    I have accepted limits on my guns. My safe is full, either I have to buy another safe or stop buying guns. I guess that comes under the heading of self imposed limits. Which are probably the only limits the constitution allows.

  30. avatarJohn D. says:

    I say: Dianne F., Charles S., Michael B., and George S., are creepy people that should be shunned and contained. Anyone else to add to the creepy list?

  31. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    “I would rather die on my feet for something than live on my knee’s for nothing”!!
    My right to own, carry and shoot any weapon I can legally purchase in this day and age!!

  32. avatarKermut says:

    I own a s&w m&p 15. I will be keeping it if a ban passes even though I am a liberal and support the ban, because the rest of yall are crazy and scare the shit out of me

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Why aren’t you scared of criminals, terrorists, dictators and tyrants? So far I know, we are defending a constitutional right, a right you just happen to exercise by keeping your S&W pistol! Isn’t that hypocritical?

      • avatarKermut says:

        William,

        The M&P 15 is an AR-15 model, not the pistol line.
        I am far more scared of someone like user SamAdams1776,

        “I am ok with killing gun grabbers. If they pass the laws and the courts fail us, are you willing? If not deal with living under despotism. I will not. You can on a single twitter mobilized every willing gunowner in every State to take control of the state capitols and DC.”

        Than I am of my government deciding that there is no rational need for citizens to own semi-automatic combat rifles.

        I have a Beretta 92a1 for home defense, but in all likelihood it’s more probable for someone to break into my house while I’m gone and steal it from my nightstand.

        • avatarScot says:

          1) There is no such thing as a ‘semi-automatic combat rifle’. Either they’re semi-automatic, or they’re combat rifles.
          2) Leaving any valuable item, such as your Beretta, out where it can be stolen is foolish. Take it with you, or if not feasible, lock it up.

        • avatarRon says:

          “There is no such thing as a semi-automatic combat rifle.”
          M1 Garand
          M1 Carbine

  33. avatarJonathan says:

    I’m forever astounded by full grown adults’ easy acquiescence to government power. It’s always struck me as a telltale sign of grievously stunted emotional maturity and intellectual development. I’m on board with inalienable rights and governments being instituted to secure them; but the inclination to grant to government overlords open ended oversight is utterly abominable to me. It smacks of kindergarten debates whereby one know-nothing five year old seeks to counter your point by conferring with another know-nothing five year old who readily concurs. “See? I’m right! Charley says so, too!”

    Who the hell is Charley? 10 minutes ago he was eating worms and picking his nose and pissed off at you because you wouldn’t let him cut in front of you in line for the slide. Those credentials confer no official, authoritative, unbiased status. Yet, kids and many adults still adhere to the idea that simply checking with some outside entity and submitting to their will is enough not only to settle debates, but to establish the underlying reality. Seriously? Fast forward to adulthood, and we find these same men-children running around proclaiming that AR-15′s are the bane of humanity; all because some know-nothing in high office with a prestigious title and an ulterior motive says so. Who the hell is Chuck Schumer?

  34. avatarWilliam says:

    Thank you Bruce, for your knowledgeable post! It’s very rich and remind us to keep arming ourselves, not just with guns, but with fact driven knowledges that can allow us to defeat every argument some ignorant Americans and their prophets may throw at us!

    It’s amazing how our freedom allows, our own domestic enemies, to use the our constitutional rights for their own advantage, while in other countries it’s, only reserved to the ones in power. Our enemies, will always, look for ways to diminish our democratic system, so we have to be physically, mentally and spiritually stronger to take them out in any battlefield!

  35. avatarSamAdams1776 says:

    I am ok with killing gun grabbers. If they pass the laws and the courts fail us, are you willing? If not deal with living under despotism. I will not. You can on a single twitter mobilized every willing gunowner in every State to take control of the state capitols and DC.
    Want to communicate securely by email: gpg, which is a free version of pgp.

    I pray we don’t need to do this, but you all need to be willing to kill and die for liberty as our founders did.

    We will try to first stop the law from occurring, if that fails then the courts; if that fails; it is time for action–no if’s and’s or buts.

    Remember this though!

    No Fort Sumters!

    MOLON LABE
    Si Vis Pacem Parabellum

  36. avatarMosstrooper says:

    I love how the anti-gun nuts embrace a revisionist attempt to redefine “militia” by ignoring the historical and cultural influences that shaped the Anglo-American use of the word. The use of the word grew from the common law notion that all men aged 16-60 were eligible for service. Throw the Statute of Winchester on top of it, and you have a legal requirement for all men to possess arms and armour according to their station:

    “Moreover, it is commanded that every man shall
    have in his house arms for keeping the peace
    according to the ancient assize…. ”

    The statute recognized the precedent of common law (which actually was an ancient codified Anglo-Norman law that was never reissued but culturally subsumed) and protected the practice by statute. The Statute was reissued continually from 1285 through the 17th century, until the House of Hannover decided it didn’t like the thought of a potentially hostile, well-armed Scottish Highlander roving the glens. Despite this, the notion of universal obligation held fast into the 19th century, long enough to directly influence the political gestalt of the Constitutional Convention.

    So there’s your militia. It’s you, your neighbor and everybody else.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.