I got an email today about another possible gun regulation move our new government is contemplating, it's called HR 45. It calls for finger printing, social security numbers, mental exams all kinds of beautiful red tape. I'm not the usual suspect when it comes to being scared that they're going to take away our right to bear arms, (if they take it too far there will definitely be anarchy and I believe most of the military will be on the 2nd amendment side). BUT, I'm getting a little tired of the fact that some politicians in Washington are making it their life's work to do just that. What the (hell word), is so important to them about taking our guns away? I know that a lot of guns these days are for uses other than hunting, uh hello the 2nd amendment was originally discussed in the context as keep and bear them for protection, so most of the guns manufactured today are for protection, I don't see the problem. If the sorry politicians would do the right things (their jobs) pass some laws like our enemies have, and whack off some hands and heads, we wouldn't need to own an arsenal to protect ourselves. I guess the other part of the 2nd is what really bugs them, the part that suggests that the right to bear arms is also for our own protection from Congress! What follows is a little of what our fore fathers were debating at the time the 2nd was put into words. Pretty interesting to ponder under our current circumstances.
This is from Wikipedia,
A widespread fear during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention stated his strong belief that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those that would take them away. George Mason during that debate also showed his distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.
Also from Wikipedia
The origin of the second amendment occurred in context of an ongoing debate about "the people" fighting government tyranny, (as described by anti federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" in relation to the ongoing at that time, revolution in France.
I'm aware of the amount of homicides taking place in this country, believe me I don't like it when a gun is used, BUT, if you have any common sense, think about all the guns that are already out there. There were over 1.5 million sold legitimately last year alone. If they ban guns today they would never retrieve them all in a million years. All that would happen is honest citizens would buy and sell on the new black market that would form and of course some would get caught and go to jail etc. BUT, the common criminal would have it easier in obtaining a gun on the same black market. As far as criminals having guns, nothing would change. As far as I'm concerned the more responsible citizens that buy a gun and learn the proper usage the better. That just means eventually there will be more of us than them. AP