Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Guns in public

The following is a summary of the discussion a few friends were having.  The discussion outgrew email exchanges and the Conversations Around a Wood Stove Blog was born.  This summary was authored by Jerry an original member of the original group.

The founders intended that citizens be guaranteed the right to bear arms as a precaution against tyranny from their own government.  When the constitution was written citizens might well have been able to equip and train themselves well enough to protect themselves from tyrants in their own government.  That would be somewhere between difficult and impossible today.  I also personally believe that by the time citizens are in armed conflict with our troops or our police, our cause is already lost, and I will not spill blood for a lost cause.  I think George differed with me on that.

The right to bear arms for personal defense against violent criminals, and even political thugs such as the modern equivalents of the brownshirts of Nazi Germany is still a reasonable use of the second amendment.  If we continue down the road toward socialism there will be more of these.  In fact, there are indications that the current administration is using such already.

 I mostly agree with Jerry's summary.  I would add with emphasis that it is my strong belief that those who stockpile all manner of black rifles, shotguns and pistols along with tens of thousands of rounds of ammo are seriously deluded.  Their stated goal is to deter the central government from some vague and nefarious purpose.  I have said it before and I say again, ''Those who expect to mount a winnable armed revolution against the US Government are suicidal.  A platoon of grunts, raw out of Boot Camp will make mincemeat of them before they empty the first magazine from their Belchfire Magnum".

I have a sufficiency of weapons; all, except some handguns, suitable for hunting.  There is not a black rifle or "assualt" rifle in the safe.  My battery is sufficient to protect against varmints, and feed my family in emergency.

The present purpose of the Second is to gaurantee to non criminals the right to possess and bear arms for personal protection against varmints both human and animal.  The Second has nothing to do with hunting.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'd be interested to know: what constitutes a varmint?

Anonymous said...

"In fact, there are indications that the current administration is using such already."

Could this claim please be documented? Inquiring minds want to know.

Matt Morehouse said...

Well now that is an interesting question, interesting in that you might question what constitutes a "varmint". Around here most and I suspect all who have obtained the age of reason know with certainty the constitution of a "varmint".
Assuming you are of tender age I will attempt to define the constitution of "varmint". You may want to have you mommy or daddy help you with this:
A varmint is a mean nasty person who would hurt you given the chance.
A varmint is an animal that would steel your pussy's food or eat you if he got a chance.
A varmint is any small non game animal that makes a good target for fun and practice.

Matt Morehouse said...

Well, "indications" are just that and such are documented simply by being written. What is so difficult about that?

Anonymous said...

"Well, "indications" are just that and such are documented simply by being written. What is so difficult about that?"

Written where? When? By whom? A little scholarship is called for here.
What is so difficult about THAT?

Matt Morehouse said...

Written (posted) where you read them. I don't think it takes a lot of scholarship to get that. Am I missing something here?

Anonymous said...

You are omitting something: the specific references to which you only generically allude. Anyone can make a glittering generality ("Research shows"), but the careful mind who wishes to be believed will document the specific piece of research, the specific written reference. You are still talking around the point.

Dingo said...

Where are the 2nd amendment honks in relation the the Plaxico Burres case?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-burress-weaponscharges&prov=ap&type=lgns

Matt Morehouse said...

Anon.---I refer your nit picking to Jerry who wrote the passage in question. Maybe he will enlighten you. I've tried, I can't.

Matt Morehouse said...

What's a "honk"? Never heard that one before.
Personally I think the perp was treated harshly. He shot himself with his own gun and gets two years in the slammer? Doesn't seem fair to me.
Please expand on your Second Amendment reference.

Dingo said...

He was keeping and bearing a firearm, why isn't he protected by the 2nd amendment here? Where is the NRA on this one.

Matt Morehouse said...

He was in violation of the law. The NRA is not against all gun laws. For instance the NRA is in favor of concealed carry permits.

Did the perp have a valid concealed carry permit? I doubt it. Nevertheless I stand by my previous statement that the punishment was draconian compared to the "crime". I would think a fine of several hundred dollars would have sufficed.

The NRA legal defense fund helps people who have been unjustly accused of gun crimes. Did he request help? I doubt if he even knows the NRA exists.

Dingo said...

POLK COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF GRADY JUDD

An illegal alien in Polk County Florida who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop ended up 'executing' the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.A state wide manhunt ensued.

The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun.
After he shot at them, SWAT team officers open fired and hit the guy 68 times...

Now here's the kicker:

Naturally, the media asked why they shot the poor undocumented immigrant 68 times.

Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel:
Talk about an all-time classic answer.
'Because that's all the ammunition we had.'

Matt Morehouse said...

Did they kill him?