By Cliff Heseltine
When debating with people who oppose Second Amendment freedoms, no matter what they say or what red herring they introduce, the responses should be as follows:
- Can you define the English term “well regulated” as it was used and understood in the 18th century?
- Can you define the English term, “the people” as it was used and understood in the 18th century?
- Can you define the English term, “bear arms” as it was used and understood in the 18th century?
- Can you definite the English word “infringed?”
All arguments in favor of gun control or against the Second Amendment are essentially moot, since the amendment itself indicates that the government is in fact prohibited from infringing on this natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. That being the case . . .
the government has no authority to alter, modify, amend or repeal the right to keep and bear arms by legislative action, executive order, or judicial review. End of discussion.
Talk all night if you must, the fact remains that the only legal recourse for those who oppose the RKBA is to use Article V of the Constitution to amend the Constitution itself. Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has proposed that the Second Amendment be amended as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
It’s a shame Justice Stevens doesn’t know his history. During the debates leading up to the adoption of the Second Amendment, similarly intended wording was suggested. On September 9, 1789, it was proposed that “for the common defense (sic)” be inserted following “bear arms”, but that modification was defeated. Instead, the Senate passed: “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Then there’s this: the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. And in the 222 years since there have been only 17 additional amendments, not one of which alters any of the original ten, much less repeals them. Realistically, since these are natural rights, even a successful effort to repeal their Constitutional protection wouldn’t repeal or revoke the right itself, only its Constitutional protection.
Here are the Amendments that followed the Bill of Rights:
11. Suits against states
12. Election of the President
13. Abolishment of Slavery
14. Due Process, Equal Protection
15. Voting Rights
16. Income Tax
17. Direct Election of Senators
18. Prohibition of Alcohol
20. Women’s Voting Rights
20. Terms of Office
21. Repeal of Prohibition
22. Term Limits
23. Appointment of Electors
24. Abolishment of Poll Tax
25. Succession to Office
26. Voting Age
27. Compensation of Legislators
So in all these years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution and of those only one — the 18th Amendment prohibiting the production of alco — has been subsequently repealed. By coincidence this is the only amendment ever ratified with the intention of the federal government telling the American people something they were prohibited from doing. (The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery can hardly be viewed in the same light as a prohibition against alcohol.)
Considering that the intention of the Constitution itself was for the people to tell the federal government what it was authorized to do (Article I, Section 8), and in the Bill of Rights to tell the federal government what it was NOT authorized to do, the existence of the 18th Amendment was in itself anachronistic. It’s no wonder that this is the one amendment that it was later repealed.
So all of the amendments — other than the 18th and 21st (prohibition and repeal) — were alterations, adjustments, or additions to the establishment and operating instructions granted by the people to the federal government. Therefore, any attempt to modify or repeal any of the Bill of Rights must be considered as a major precedent in Constitutional modification. While Article V gives instructions on the amendment process and doesn’t limit what may be amended, it does set a high bar for ratification (two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of the states).
While it seems highly unlikely that any attempt to modify or repeal the Second Amendment could meet this high standard, it must be understood that even the attempt to change one of the rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution would be an admission that all of those enumerated rights were subject to modification at the whim of the majority, a dangerous precedent indeed. So perhaps a new amendment really does need to be proposed:
An enumeration of certain inalienable natural rights being necessary to the continued liberty of a free people, no branch of government nor any government agency may modify, restrict, tax or attempt to repeal any of the first ten amendments to this Constitution.
How can one expect this to be a rational argument against those who eschew rationality and the foundational principle of this nation, LIBERTY?
How do you expect to convince those who see Liberty as, “icky”?
I realize this comment is not far removed from jumping into a pit full of rabid dogs while wearing a meat suit, but someday, someone will bring reason to this circle jerk. The concept of weapons ownership was a well established Natural Right under the English Common Law the Second Amendment codified that, yes, but that Natural Right was never unrestricted, hence the reference to regulation (hint, hint “well regulated”). Could you own a musket in 1791? Of course, and you did not need to be part of the militia to do so. Could you own Field Artillery? Grapeshot? Enough cavalry sabres to fit out a brigade? Fit out a privateer to raid British commerce? That was all regulated and subordinated to the rules that applied to state militia, and those rules, by the way, are subject to Federal oversight under everything from the Commerce Clause to Equal Protection, so regulation of state militia is not limited to state law. But of course, you guys don’t want to hear any of that and will denounce it as shameless restriction on natural freedom based on semi literate claptrap that the ignorant fact ignoring bozo that wrote this article shared with the (well armed) sheep like you that are so secure in their ignorance that they like to talk about shooting those folks that disagree because they are…evil I guess. The Natural Right of gun ownership that arose in England carried over to all English speaking countries. How many of them have carried it to the extreme you guys profess? None other than the US…everyone else thinks we are a load of lunatics. And the sad truth is that while you think you are the holders of some holy true flame, children and innocent people are dying every day because of lunatics like you. You want to pretend the language about “well regulated militia” can be ignored and argue that the right to bear arms is unassailable. If it was unassailable you could go out and buy an M1 tank or a full military grade M16. You can’t, and you could not have done so had they existed in 1776 or 1791. It is exactly the same reason you should not be able to own an AR 15 with a bump stock. Clowns.
I’m not going to lie, even if by some chance the 2nd A was rewritten or repealed, I would not stand down.
Oh shit, looks like the Buddha got reincarnated as a F-22 Raptor this time… and he’s pissed.
The first known time anyone said the phrase “hold my beer and watch this”
The very fact that anyone would propose a significant rewording of the Second Amendment is proof that they concede that that the present wording DOES acknowledge the RKBA.
Indeed.
Don’t really know what to expect.
Personally, I don’t think CT has the money to enforce the laws. That’s an AWFUL lot of gun owners to prosecute, with an AWFUL lot of court cases…
not real sure if that will stop them, however.
lacking firearms but not spirit men of the 1st Indian expeditionary force tried a courageous bluff with a sewer pipe on an improvised stand. the brave gun crew were buried where they fell.
To cut down on the celebratory firing of weapons, Col. Akbar ordered that all machine guns be permanently attached to the ground. I guess this’ll show him.
The globalists are going to de their very best to sabotage the 2A in any Constitutional Convention. While the average “conscious” citizen will be looking to reinforce individual rights, the evil empire will only be looking for Pandora’s Box to open up and then steal it.
Think not? Why did Ron Paul state that, during every election, people keep voting for change yet the agenda always stays the same?
(Checks calendar)
(Not April 1st)
Woot!
Get a bead on the head goose, he’s headed right towards Chesly Sullenberger’s plane!
If you are part of a well regulated militia today, you are watched by the .gov and put on their special “we don’t like you” list. Additionally they will try to infiltrate agents into your group and attempt to get you to conduct “domestic terrorist” attacks. When you don’t fall for that they will sneak into your house at night and cut your shotgun barrels to 17.9 inches and your rifles down to 15.9 inches and call the ATF. (Yeah it’s a joke, kind of.)
Dumbo’s magic feather will soon be ours!
A few crates of AKs and a few dozen of ammo with notes saying ‘You’re welcome’.
Problem solved.
Sanjay: “You have hit the Zeppelin, well and truly!”
Rajiv : “Oh, the turbanity!”
Babylon Redux.
So what happens if the white house says , do to the emergency that we have , we will put all the Bill of Rights on hold and follow my E.O. , we will return once the emergency is over… History says this works , It did for Hitler in Germany . (lies are used to do anything they want). How about what is going on now with Russia (only Russia and China are stopping the NEW WORLD ORDER), and a EMP attack would kill in the end about 80% of Americans, just as Bill Gates and Ted Turner want to get the NEW WORLD ORDER. We are only 1 lie away from SLAVERY .. WAKE UP AMERICA…………..
Short of declaring coast to coast martial law in the name of some purported national emergency, and perhaps even then, the natural and civil rights outlined in the Bill of Rights cannot be rescinded, even temporarily. To attempt to do so would violate the very concept of the United States as a Constitutional Republic.
Natural rights may be denied, given sufficient government tyranny, but they cannot be revoked or put on hold.
Let’s hope they will not try it, but FDR did it in WW2 to the American born Japs. So it’s been done already……..
Tl:dr?
Abridged version: you dont.
“Any wind moves any bullet on any day” I would suggest you join the NBRSA even if you don’t intend to compete you will be amazed at the wind flag array at one of these matches.
Sincere condolences to the kinfolks.
I note, with interest, that Kalispell, MT is the location of the importer of a CZ-75 that I bought in 1985 as a (then) FFL. It never sold, so I transferred it to my personal inventory when I surrendered my license.
The Kalispell CZ-75s are a fine piece of pre-Soviet meltdown Slovakian workmanship!
Charlie
That pillow trick ACTUALLY worked???
I’m shocked lol. But I DID enjoy the explanation as well.
If you pick your favorite characters based on how good their trigger discipline is, you might be part of the Armed Intelligentsia.
If you can quote, from memory, Dirty Harry’s “Do you feel lucky?” speech, explain how it is often misquoted, and then explain categorically how the “most powerful handgun in the world” quote is false, you might be part of the Armed Intelligentsia.
Love my 640 pro, I replaced the springs with an “apex tactical trigger kit” purchased from Brownell’s for about $30.00. Includes a rebound block spring, main trigger spring and a new firing pin with it’s own little spring. I replaced these parts myself in 1/2 hour. While having the revolver apart I also stoned/ smoothed out some of the moving parts with a ceramic stone and lubricated those parts with some Brownell’s action lube. The trigger pull was reduced noticeably and it is very smooth and consistent. I used information from a gun smithing book “Pistols and Revolvers” by Patrick Sweeney as guidance for this project and everything worked out great. I like this piece a lot, especially that it is all stainless steel, I guess you could get a lemon in any product but I think I got a good one. As far as shooting and accuracy, get some tips from an experienced shooter and practice. Dry fire with some snap caps and practice with live rounds at your favorite shooting spot. Nothing can take the place of that. Safety first and have fun.
Great issues altogether, you simply won a logo new reader. What would you suggest in regards to your submit that you simply made some days ago? Any certain?
Angry@Birds
Świetnie Wielce serdecznie, że finanse pożyczane w Lokalnej Wartościowej Wierzytelności pozwalają realizowanie imaginowań.
Ja spośród kolejki mateczki kredyt hipoteczny na nabycie
domu tudzież podobnie siebie go chwalę. Ma interesujące
oprocentowanie, niesporą pańszczyznę porządkową, w sumie wychodzi znacznie taniej, aniżeli rzeczonego osobniku debet
w przyjezdnym banku.
I interpret the phrasing “a free State” as a kind of double entendre because it refers both to the naturally free State of The People and to the Polity which The People established by “Consenting” to the framework of Government Codified in the Constitution.
The use of the phrasing ..”.the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is an absolute reference to a right that existed prior to and independent of the Constitution. The right could not be granted or conferred because it existed whether the Constitution ever existed or not.
Although The Declaration of Independence is not The Law of the Land, as is the Constitution, it is important to remember the Founders saw it as the philosophical statement of their beliefs. For that reason the first draft of the Constitution did not enumerate or mention the rights of The People because it was thought unnecessary being that the rights of The People were thought to be inalienable and “self-evident” as stated in The Declaration of Independence. Fortunately, not everyone involved in ratifying the new Constitution was so trusting and the First Ten Amendments, a.k.a. Bill of Rights, was added to both enumerate and guarantee the rights of The People.
The Supreme Court of the United States has long been remiss in its duties by refusing to rule definitively on The Second Amendment and its meaning.
The archaic meaning of “shall not be infringed” originates with the Latin infringere, to break, and by 1760, recorded as, to encroach.
The 14th amendment altered the bill of rights, via incorporation (at least it has been used to incorporate the bill of rights)
FWIW, the 27th amendment was part of the proposed bill of rights, but was ratified only in 1992.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/03/01/official-ct-state-police-spokesman-says-that-state-police-would-participate-in-door-to-door-gun-confiscations/
Conversation between woman and Lt. Vance on video.
I’m the master mam ( near very end of video )
Duck…duck…GOOSE!
I bought a pt111 pro used and I’ve fired a few hundred rounds thru it. With the exception of two FTF (probably due to cheap ammo ) the gun has been a gem. Good quality and exceptional value.
I disagree, I can operate a slide release/stop better than racking while achieving my sight picture and placing my grip. Using two hands to release the slide takes longer to get from unloaded to sight picture and depending on the weapon, the slide can be even more slippery. Look at the Glock Gen 3. The slippery finish is just awful on them.
1. Here is how the term “a well regulated Militia” was used and understood in the Eighteenth Century. “A well regulated Militia” refers to the Organized State Militia that is today known as the National Guard and not to individuals who are proficient in the use of weapons or to the entire population. The National Guard is the same entity as the Organized State Militia of 1789 with a modern name. Only in the colloquial sense does “Militia” have multiple meanings based on context. In the legal and statutory sense, the “Militia”, which was originally codified in 1792 and has been modified by subsequent statutes that have been adopted in place of the original one, is defined by the United States Code.
In the Eighteenth Century, “A well regulated Militia” was repeatedly used in The Federalist Papers (Number 29), the Anti-Federalist Papers (“John DeWitt V” and “Aristides”), and Luther Martin’s “Genuine Information” to refer to the Constitution’s Article I Militia. And although the National Guard was not codified until 1903, it is the statutory definition of the Organized State Militia, an entity that is older than even the Second Amendment itself. In accordance with Congress’s Article I power to organize the Militia, 10 U.S.C. 101 and 32 U.S.C. 101 explicitly state that the National Guard is the Article I Militia. Therefore, using the mathematical principle that if A equals B and C equals B, then A equals C, if “A well regulated Militia” equals the Article I Militia and the National Guard equals the Article I Militia, then “A well regulated Militia” must equal the National Guard.
Although individual-right proponents point to 10 U.S.C. 311, which defines the Militia as “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”, any connection made between such definition of the Militia and a supposed Second Amendment individual right to possess and carry weapons makes for a very limited right, indeed. Such definition describes a minority of the population, excluding all females except those who serve in the National Guard, all of those who have turned 45 years old, and those who become handicapped to the point at which they are no longer classified as “able-bodied”. No other right is limited to such a minority of the population, expires upon turning 45, or is forfeited upon becoming handicapped.
Since 1916, the National Guard has been part of the Army only when it is in federal service. When it is not in federal service, it is the Organized State Militia under the auspices of the state. This point was affirmed in both Dukakis v. United States Department of Defense (1988-1989), which was denied a hearing by the Supreme Court, and Perpich v. Department of Defense (1987-1990), which was heard and affirmed by the Supreme Court in a case that it actually got right.
There are frequent references to the Organized Milita, as well as the Unorganized Milita. The National Guard or any analog is clearly not the Unorganized Militia, and as such the populace itself constitutes that body, giving them the right to keep and bear arms.
There is also no logical reason to restrict non able-bodied males of certain age from owning weapons, if the implication is for the common defense; we know that women are as physically capable with a firearm as men and that age does not necessarily make one infirm. There must also be teachers, those with many years of knowledge, and those being taught, the young.
I happen to like the comparison of voting rights and education. Should there be a phrase that read: “A well-educated electorate being necessary to an efficient State, the right of the people to keep and read literature, shall not be infringed”, no one would argue that only active adult members of the electorate who have been duly interviewed and licensed should be allowed to own, carry, or use books.
2. Here’s how “people” was used and understood in the Eighteenth Century. The term “people” refers to the general populace and not to individuals.
In the unamended Constitution, the original amendments, and the modern amendments, the Framers used “people” to describe the general populace, “persons” to describe individuals, and “person” to describe an individual. The unamended Constitution uses “people” 2 times, “persons” 4 times, and “person” 16 times. Although “persons” is the plural of “person”, “people” means something different than “persons”, or the Founders would not have used both terms. For example, in the Constitution, the right of electing House members is that of the people (the general populace). Election by the people means by the general populace. After all, not every individual votes for the winner of the election, not every individual votes in the election, and not every individual is even eligible to vote in the election to begin with.
The evolution of the First Amendment reveals that James Madison evidently incorrectly cast the rights of free speech and freedom to write as rights of the people (the general populace). The First Congress recast these rights as general rights and not as rights of the people (the general populace) specifically but kept the rights of assembly and petition as rights of the people (the general populace). It is impossible for a person to assemble. An assembly, by definition, cannot be an individual. (Although it is quite feasible for “individuals” to assemble, such connotation is not in accordance with the rest of the Constitution and would be a gross aberration in usage.) A look at predecessor provisions in the state constitutions and proposed amendments reveals that the right of assembly was for the purpose of petitioning the government. (The right of one person to petition can be easily satisfied by free speech and free press, which are general, and therefore, individual, rights.)
The Fourth Amendment uses “people” to refer to the general populace and “persons” to refer to individuals. The Framers would not have used “persons” twice to mean “individuals” after having used “people” to mean “individuals”. That is why the Fifth Amendment, which encompasses the rights of an accused individual, uses “person” twice but does not use “people” at all.
3. Here’s how “bear arms” was used and understood in the Eighteenth Century.
Although “bear Arms” means “carry weapons” to Twenty-First Century Americans, it meant “render military service” to the Founders. Conclusive evidence of this term’s true meaning comes from The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, and early state constitutions that were adopted before the Constitution. In The Federalist 46, Madison, the original author of the Second Amendment, clearly states that one-quarter of the population is “able to bear arms” (stating that the 25,000-30,000 persons (“one hundredth part of the whole number of souls”) in a regular army are “one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms”). This makes sense only when it means that one quarter of the population is “able to render military service” and can indicate only that one quarter of the population — those who were able-bodied males, since they were the ones who were “able to bear arms” (“able to render military service”) — is “able to bear arms”, as in “able to render military service”. If “able to bear arms” meant “able to carry weapons”, then Madison would be saying that only one quarter of the population is “able to carry weapons”. That connotation would make for a population in which three quarters are so physically handicapped that they are not “able to carry weapons”. Even the three quarters of the population (women, children, and the aged) that are not “able to bear arms” (“able to render military service”) would be “able to carry weapons” as long as they have the mere ability to grip and transport a gun (that is, anyone who had hands that could grip and was able to walk would have been “able to carry weapons”). It is simply not plausible that three quarters of Americans were that severely handicapped in 1787 or 1788.
In addition, as only one example of many, the Virginia Proposed Declaration of Rights (June 27, 1788), which was intended to be an amendment to the United States Constitution, stated, “That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.” Since it would be absurd for the government to require a person to pay another person to carry weapons for the personal use of the former in the former’s stead, the only plausible definition of “bear arms” in Virginia, the land of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, was “render military service”.
Kentucky H.B. 351: Common sense gun legislation that will save lives.
Sandy Hook, Colorado Theater and other mass shootings did not happen with AR’s!!!!!!!! Sandy Hook was with pistols and Colorado was with a shotgun! Get your damned facts straight! The gov’t will claim a drive bye BB gun shot was an AR.
Never thought I’d live in a time in my beloved country when I would start to wonder when another democrat crazy would start offing dem politicians.
And misquoting Mark Twain “I have never been to a funeral I enjoyed but there are a few I would approve of”.
The Second Amendment is an example of what is meant by the phrase, “res ipsa loquitur”. No “interpretation” is necessary as merely reading the Amendment should be sufficient to a person of ordinary intelligence and comprehension.
Well, with the current DoD cutbacks and downsizing of the US Armed Forces, all of the “non-interventionists” have little to worry about. Come 2015 or so, the US military will be little more than a paper tiger.
Having personally been involved in overseas nation building both in uniform and as a contractor, I can say such overseas adventurism isn’t pretty, but if America wants to remain a shining light and beacon of freedom to the oppressed subjects of Terra, it behooves us as a nation to support the down trodden people who live in places most cannot pronounce. I don’t personally agree with the foreign policy of the last 12 years, but my disagreement is based on practice not purpose. America is (was) a great nation because she never balked at fixing what was morally wrong and opposing tyranny in the world whenever and however possible. Sadly, this no longer seems to be the case, it seems that our current leaders would rather take lessons from foreign despots on how to implement tyrannical rule at home than oppose it militarily abroad. Shame really. Just my $0.02.
I’m not sure whether those comments are directed at what I wrote, but I answered Cliff Heseltine’s questions. You may not like the answers, but they are the correct answers, and they are in accordance with documentary evidence.
I’m little rough and worn around the edges, not too pretty but utterly reliable and still packing a punch even after all those years. I guess Mosin.
Wonder how Shannon Watts feels about this since the Brady Campaign called her out as a dumb ass for her damp FB squib?
Liberals hate the first amendment almost as much as they hate the second amendment. They only want “free speech” when it’s falling inline with their ideology. When you disagree they want to silence you so no one can hear what you have to say. Liberals are tyrants, through and through.
Corporations hiring cops has been happening since the invention of corporations and cops. It’s nothing new. In NYC today, NYPD cops in unis stand guard at many Manhattan banks. It’s the most boring job in the world and the cops doing it are happy to talk to someone, anyone — I usually converse with them about guns.
There’s no issue of divided loyalties. Cops are for themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let’s not paint that brush too broadly, please. Not all lawyers are exclusively out for themselves. I gave an LA defense attorney an attack of conscience after she said some ridiculous things about an attempted murder case.
I find it ironic that the “anti cop” type on here are the first to say “I’m de-assing the area with a quickness. Let the cops take care of it. All those people are on their own.”
After all this “we are the first responder” chatter. You should amend that to “I’m the first responder, for me but you are on your own”…..
Ya might want reassess your beliefs.
I know the hate responses are coming.
Seriously. These were airsoft guns. Barely even hurt. Middle school kids play with these in Tshirts. Either these teachers are soft or the BBs were going 400+fps. Anything less is like a rubber band snapping you. It could be worse, these could be paint ball guns, or even simulation paint rounds. How old are we here? Opt out or don’t complain.
Yeah, no crossfit for me either. Here in the heart of the OC, the crossfit demo is bros, more bros, broettes, and MMeatheads. The parking lot looks like a monster truck rally.
i am young and can run a sub 5 min mile, can bench press more than my own body weight, and work out for 40+min a day for 5 or 6 days a week. now i just need to practice shooting more than once every month.
As a former Illinois State weightlifting champion (1977!) perhaps I can shed a little light on Crossfit. No way I would use overheard exercises(snatch,clean&jerk,puhpress,etc. as the core of fitness. I wrecked my elbow,back,knees etc. I do like strong capable women though. I still workout & see various lunatics doing Crossfit in my gym(with bad form). I do think fears of permanent muscle damage (rhabdosis) are WAY overblown. The human body is remarkably adaptable. Whatever…you’re only going to keep up crazy intensity for so long. I could still lift enormous weights at 50 but not at 60.
People this dumb should be allow to teach children.
Bump if you agree.
Slide and barrel are 4140 steel, frame is 7075 aluminum. Grip, slide cover, trigger, mag release, and safety levers are glass reinforced Nylon (Zytel). Kel-Tec website.
Not as much plastic (Nylon) as the review makes it seem.
This is very good news, I just moved to Wa last year in October from Commiefornia, and I have so many options to convert, but I think for my first Stamp im going to do my Kriss Vector;)
Comment moderated
I have a Washington permit and carry concealed in the back country when solo hiking where retreat and evading an assailant is most likely next to impossible. With that said I don’t feel the need in Seattle. The disadvantages of carrying in the city outweigh the advantages for me – Worrying about going into gun free zones such as work’s no guns on the premises policy, having to disarm when I want a beer after work and I don’t like leaving it in the car, If you print I think it can make you as much if not more of a target for some thieves as it might be a deterrent for others. Basically, I ‘m situationaly aware and feel secure without one in my day to day life and carrying a gun on me most of the time in the city would actually make me feel less safe. With that said, it’s locked and loaded at home since I’m much more likely to be the victim of a home invasion than an assault when I’m out and about.
I like the dissenter’s above stated strategy, though I agree we should reserve the right to confront violent tyranny with force of arms as a last resort.
But I think we are a lot farther from that point than RF seems to think. I think that some of the postings here assume that a confiscation order would be generally followed by the rank-and-file law enforcement of CT. As a member of law enforcement, I think such an order would be more likely to cause an internal organizational meltdown due to officers refusing to enforce unconstitutional orders, thereby debilitating the CT leadership from mounting any real offense in the first place. Cops just aren’t willing, in my experience, to go out and pick fights with their neighbors to enforce unjust laws just to risk getting shot by someone they know isn’t really a bad guy. If such an order comes down, I think we may see a lot of police disobeying and siding with their neighbors instead of the disconnected State leaders, thereby preventing violence from occurring.
I may be idealistic and wrong, but that’s at least how a confiscation order would probably play out in Texas. I admit I don’t know anything about the institutional cultures of CT police forces though.
Definitely a work of art and a testament to the gunsmith’s skill and ability.
But not for me a functional firearm. Typical modern German product. They lost sight of the original functional requirement and kept needlessly tinkering.
I have seen more than a few modern German sporting firearms outperformed in competition by an ersatz creation of a 1890s designed, and 1900s-1940s made receiver, and an off-the-shelf medium profile barrel in a classic service caliber (6.5×55, 7mm Mauser, 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.62 NATO, .30-06, or 7.62x54r). At least you can reload a Mauser, Lee-Enfield, or Mosin-Nagant on the go. The new guns ONLY feed from the magazine, and the magazine cannot be topped up between target exposures.
Newer is not necessarily better.
Isn’t Italy a socialist or communist state? Which would explain why they sue scientists over earthquakes.
hi, I check your blog namesd “%title%”regularly. your humoristics style is witty, keep doin wht you’re doing! And you can look our website about %anchor%