Ditto on that.

One problem, as I see it, is that things have changed since 1776. At the time people feared "standing armies" so the people themselves were the army. The Miltia Acts of 1792 and 1793 required by law that every able bodied man have a suitable rifle or musket. So, maybe the miltia was "well regulated" in the respect that the junior officers were voted in by the local townsmen and the senior officers were appointed by the governor but that has nothing to do with the historical fact that the firearms came out of people's homes and were required by law. So a well regulated militia was the citizen coming forth with his privated owned and legally required firearm into a militia that consisted of officiers, etc. and operated in a legal manner to enforce laws, repell invasion, etc. A lynch mob isn't a militia. A group of guys out in the woods armed and wearing uniforms are not a militia- in the historical American sense. They have a right to be there but they're not militia IMHO.
What about if you are all alone and the Russians or Chinese invade America? Do you have a legal right to repel? Sure. If government derives it's just powers from the people then the power of the government to act is no more that what the people have any way.
What about this "assualt weapon" business? Clearly, the intent of the Second Amendment is that the private citizen is armed with a "suitable rifle or musket" Suitable for defending freedom. Clearly there is a military application involved. In today's world an assualt type rifle is pretty much mandatory to defend home and hearth. IMHO.
Even in ancient England, militias always consisted of citizens coming forth with their own arms. The aspect of private firearm ownership is inseperable from the concept of militia. You cannot have one without another.
Historically, in the War of 1812 some American units didn't feel they had to follow the British into Canada- militia can repell foreign invasion but can't be deployed outside the country. The War with Mexico introduced volunteer militia units that took their duties more seriously and trained harder than mandated by Congress. By 1903 the idea of a militia had lost favor. Congress officially put everyone under Title 10 into the "inactive militia" and you didn't have to drill any more. Under the same act the National Guard was created.
The writings of Jefferson Davis have some of the best writings I've ever read on the subject. Davis was brillant, a U.S. Senator, Hero in the Mexican War, Secretary of War for the US, and 16th President of the Southern half of the country. He claimed a militia unit called forth into Federal service keeps it's identity and serves briefly. The idea is the Federal government doesn't want the obligation to cloth, train and arm people- there is a temporary situation where the locals can be used and sent home. Thus, according to Davis, if the Federal government needs more permanent recruits they draft the indivual and not call forth a militia.
In any event, a right once recognized needs a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to prohibit- that's how I see it. I know liberals are liberals but doesn't everyone want to be free? I have never been able to understand why there is not total and complete support for the Second Amendment. One of our great freedoms.
I'm told in Massachusetts it is illegal to have a screwdriver in a car without a valid reason as it is viewed as a "potential weapon".
Well....just some of my thoughts on the issue.

lots of other discussions, but this still seems to be unanswerable.

Most if not all things that LE can buy you can too so there goes that. As far as tanks and guided missels that the military has I think youre gonna be out of luck as it should be.

Ahh, but the Democrat liberals are working feverishly everywhere they can to insure you can't buy things LE has. Not long ago magazines that held 15 rds were stamped LE only. Thanks to slick willie, so there goes that.

I agree with that but as of now we all can still buy everything. I dont want to live in a country that people walk around with AKs and RPGs...but hey thats just me.

Why? Do I not have the right to defend myself with the same tools the government uses? How is this an even playing field? If it is not an even playing field then we are not practicing the intent of the 2nd amendment. Do I believe in ordinances stating I can't cruise around town in my tank? Yes. Can I cruise it around my own property or during a hostile government take over? Damn skippy.

I think- as far as the 2nd Ad. is concerned that we have to back peddle a little. The Declaration of Independence spoke of man being endowed by a Creator with rights (God Given) NOW if you are not a believer- that's okay just stick with me a second. This "God-Given" concept implies responsible application. God would not give a right to do bad (You might have freewill to do bad but you don't have the right to do it- otherwise there would be no 10 Commandments) So...Freedom of Speech- the right doesn't extent to slander, perjury, fraud/misrepresentation, versal threats, etc because freedom of speech is God-Given and the right doesn't extend that far. It is a practical way to work into liberties responsible application. So you are going to the range or hunting- okay to have a gun, you are in a run-down area of town - IMHO the right of concealed carry is automatic- you shouldn't need a license. let's say a riot broke out in town and the police are under manned so the mayor calls out the town folk and for them to be armed and ready to do some sort of militia service in supressing insurrection. All okay. Brandishing a weapon in a drunken state- ungodly and not okay. The Constitution allows rights to be reduced through due process of law so if you have been convicted by a jury of your peers- then restrictions on felons okay- because of due process of law.
So even if you don't believe in a creator the concept of a God-Given right can be pretty handy in establishing how far the right ought to extend. It seems a practical solution.

I totally agree. I think it's a damn shame that a man had to jump through a million hoops and drop a big stack of cash to buy a full auto too.

But you can still buy one or 1000 if you want. For that matter if you want to live in a land full of people with RPGs and AKS walking around I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

Years ago there was a well thought out and objectively conducted study about violence and gun control. Several countries were examined. "Low Crime" countries were England- with lots of gun control and Switzerland with just about no gun control at that time. "High Crime" countries were (I forget exactly) Philappines and Mexico? It was the same, one with lots of gun control and the other with no gun control.
The study concluded that gun control had no effect on crime levels. If a society was lawless to begin with then crime existed across all levels, murders, stealing, etc and if the society was law abiding then crime was lower across all levels.
It wasn't what the folks in DC wanted to hear. The report was tossed out and never discussed further.
We are living during times when the exigencies of the day are all important. Emotions not reason dictate law. The Connecticut school shooting a year or so past is a PERFECT example. Let's review: After the Kennedy shooting- no more buying guns through the mail. Then it was no more "Saturday Night Specials", then it was background checks. In Connecticut we have a very well, upscale, suburban community with the mother an attorney (?) and the father a VP of a major US Corporation. Neither with a criminal back ground. The firearms were some of the most expensive made, there was the back ground checks, waiting periods, EVERYTHING. Apparently their child was an accident waiting to happen. When I was in High School a year ahead of me was a kid with straight A's (Those high school grades are supposed to be important on figuring out if someone will be a criminal or not- why I never could figure out). In any event this kid must have figured his best days were over, once he got out in the real world those straight A's might not matter. He drove his car at 130 miles an hour straight into a tree and instantly died. An acident waiting to happen.
And, he had 3 other kids in the car that also died. No one argued to "Take cars out of the hands of children" or better "Car Control". I'm sure if he had killed himself and the other three with a gun the outcry would have been different.
As I said, the first year Clinton's background checks went into effect he gloated about 600,000 "would be" handgun purchases denied. I checked to see if there was any correlation- if there were 600,000 less crimes. Nope.

Exactly.

WOW

Excellent observation Dave Scott.

Because "Emotions not reason dictate law" it is imperative that gun owners not exacerbate the situation by the open carry of intimidating long guns in places where they do nothing more than make the general public nervous about all things concerning firearms. A recent case in point is the man in Bell county with a CHL walking down the road with an AR15 AND the concealed pistol because "wild hogs had been seen in the area" and he "needed" the protection. Keep this up and we there will be legislation to outlaw even the PICTURE of a rifle... Be smart...

I think I jus changed my opinion on open carry protestors. My wife called me in a panic today because 2 guys walked into chipotle with AR-15s strapped to their chest. I was pro open carry demonstration for a long time, but when I heard to panic in her voice, and my wife is a competent shooter and lover of guns and the 2nd amendment, I realized they amount of damage they are doing to our image as gun owners. If my wife reacted that way, I can't imagine the way people who dont understand guns feel when they see it. She truly thought she was about to be killed. She had no idea they were demonstrators until she got back other car, booked it out of there, and called the cops.

I had a vehicle breakdown at night while I was driving home from college for Christmas break. This was when I still made fun of people with cell phones (long time ago) and had a long walk through the dark to get to a phone. I had my 870 with me (I used to check it at the campus police station) and slung it over my shoulder with a full magazine, empty chamber, bolt slightly open. That would have been a pretty creepy walk otherwise and, really, I think that's the sort of thing that the provision of Texas law for long-gun open carry contemplates. You can't openly carry a long gun in a manner calculated to alarm, which is pretty gray, but a shotgun with a closed bolt held in a ready position in a coffee shop would alarm the **** out of me. If I recognize the print of your glock under your sweater, that doesn't alarm me at all... Makes me think you're one of the good guys.

Another business has said no to guns.... when will these guys learn to quit trying to drag businesses into their cause?

Chipotle bans guns

Man, sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Coincidence? Not likely.

Even Texas Open Carry is distancing itself from the Tarrant County group...

Split in Texas Open Carry

My question in all these open carry demonstrations is when do you feel the need to react? If you walk into a place where I am with a gun loaded and chambered I am definelty aware. But what happens if they accidently muzzle someone? I would be really bothered... What would you do?


Sorry I didn't read the whole thread. . Just chiming in

Maybe they are getting smarter...

No more long guns in businesses

For those of y'all who think those idjits should have their guns taken away, they're having a rally in Burk Burnett this weekend to protest the land grab. It would be a perfect time and place for y'all to put on some anti-shirts and protest against gun rights.

I'm all for it. That's what the right to open carry is all about.

I don't think anyone here thinks they should have their guns taken away, just that they are doing more harm than good. It appears that the leadership of the movement agrees. How many more businesses have to ask you to leave the guns at home before you get the picture? Not to mention that carrying a rifle does nothing to promote open carry of a handgun. And the veiled threat in your post also does not help the OC movement either. Makes you look like a bully with a gun, just like the picture the Moms group paints...