Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
t...
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Criminal acts are another matter, you might deter a burgular
or mugger if he or she thought they would be facing an armed
victim. That I
can buy.

But that has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia' does it?

Nothing, in fact, but other than hunting and sport shooting that's
about all guns are good for except personal protection and that
falls into the same category.
It's only my own opinion but I just don't think Americans are ready
enough to pull the trigger on recognized authority figures for there
to be much of a deterrent effect. I can't help but remember the NG
troops in all of our airports right after 9/11. Another terrorist
attack right away and they might even have been allowed to load
their weapon.


In any event, our constitution guarantees us all the right to bear
arms and rather than pussy footing around, anyone wanting to change
that ought to make the effort to try and amend the constitution.

(In the mood for risky behavior tonight, Huntress unwarily says...)
Well, it asserts that the federal government is not to infringe that
right. As history tells us, and as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in
the Barron v. Baltimore case in the 1830s, the Bill of Rights was
never intended to be a restriction upon the states -- and logic tells
us that the states would never have ratified a group of limitations
upon their own power. The Bill of Rights was the fulfillment of a
promise by the Federalists to the Anti-federalists that they would
include some positive guarentees that the federal government would
not usurp certain rights.

As for what the states could do, the ball remains in the air.
Originalist readings of the 14th Amendment would not allow
incorporation of the 2nd -- not that they won't find a way to manage
it. The Emerson case decided by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals a
few years ago shows one way to do it: Ignore the question. d8-)

You aren't at any risk from me Ed - LOL - and I'd like to clear that up.
I doubt that I know anyone who has had a deeper immersion in gun laws or the
issues surrounding them, and that includes the basis for those laws, and the
many sides of this issue.
My own general feeling is that had the proposed federal authority not been
constituted in such a manner as to protect the states ability to remain
soveriegn, we wouldn't have a USA today. I also believe that our
constitution and the acts of Congress that are our laws are at risk.
Particular risk. We have touched on this before and I am still firmly of the
opinion that what has allowed America to lead the world in so many ways is
the combined success of our legal and financial system and the protections
that our constitution provides them both. Keeping the former vital and
healthy takes serious and studious effort and we need to refocus some of the
resources that are currently being utilized in much less productive ways on
the task. I see nothing now and little on the horizon that any such effort
will be forthcoming absent a catastrophy but sooner or later our nation will
be visited by exactly that. We'll become the fourth failed first world
country in 300 years if we don't wake up.

In other words, by the time gun ownership becomes gun use it'll be to way
late and then some.
It is also worth considering that a well fed and prosperous society rarely
revolts. It is only when the gap between the haves and the have nots becomes
sufficiently wide that there is trouble in River City.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com