The fact that you are even able to legally hold this discussion is provided by the same document that allows you to own guns. It is not a privilege that government grants you – it is a right that our government has stated it will not attempt to infringe upon.

Freedom comes with lots of responsibility. It does not come with a guarantee of security. The founding fathers of this country used privately owned (military-grade) weapons to (gasp) defend themselves from what had previously been their own government.

If there ever was a civilian that presented a threat to the crazies it’s our President elect.

Now do you think for a minute that Obama or any of his supporters are going to change their position for a minute on their agenda because there’s a kazillion crazies out there with deer rifles?

“The US civilian population doesn’t have to be able to defeat the 3rd marine division, we never did. The third marine division isn’t the problem; it’s the people issuing the orders who are. One careful and discreet civilian, who was willing to die to make his point, could be armed with nothing but an average deer rifle and still do all the damage that needs to be done. And since our politicians know this, the existence of 90 million of those deer rifles in civilian hands is a profound restraint on their behavior. They treat us with the respect that comes from knowing that if they don’t, it only takes one gun nut to cut all their ambition short.

That’s why guns matter. Not because they’ll allow the civilian population to fight back against the Second Armored Cavalry, but because it provides a credible “threat of force” against the people who are the real problem, our politicians. It gives we civilians power over our elected officials that they can’t really throw off in a direct way. And that’s why some portions of the government are always so anxious to eliminate guns when they can, because they would rather not have to deal with us on any terms but their own.”

http://freenj.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-people-should-be-armed.html

So in other words:

‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.’’

– Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

I’d rather dust off my antiquated BOR’s with a .50 caliber, thank you.

When I read of the fifty caliber round falling into the RV my first thought went back to a conversation with a crew chief on a Chinook back then. He explained that a fifty was deadly at about five thousand feet because it would be tumbling when it hit the ship.

I had to wonder if some fool with a fifty caliber sniper rifle hadn’t missed an airliner and what goes up always comes back down.

@ jb
WOW! First off, I think any logical person would have read my comment and NOT assumed I was talking about driving citations or jaywalking and such. I am sorry I am not a lawyer or politician and have no experience writing legislation. Secondly, I dumbfounded that anyone would have a problem with much much stiffer penalties for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm. You really don’t find that a reasonable solution? I mean, the argument that people have the right to bear arms because it’s in the BOR’s is antiquated at best. The Founding Fathers were attempting to guarantee that a newly created government would always be accountable to the people and that by expressly allowing ownership of guns they were attempting to ensure that the American majority always had the means to protect itself from an oppressive government. In fact, several of these men beleived that the threat of revolution was the only deterrent keeping a democratic society true. I say it’s antiquated logic because we may have the numbers and some guns, but we certainaly don’t have the technology (F16’s, Abrams Tanks, drones, etc…). We are no threat to the American Government, therefore, militias (and your right to bear arms) serve no true purpose. However, guns are entrenched in American society and culture and simply prohibiting or even attempts at contorolling who purchases them are useless because there are always ways around when guns are so plentiful. IMHO, the only way out of this mess is stricter penalties for those who use their guns irresponsibly.

He explained to me he’s not in love with any one of them. When the great civil war happens he’ll be able to empty a weapon and then leave it without regret.

Kind of amazing when you think about it. We’re within two weeks in age, both of us Nam vets. He thinks Rush is liberal for gawd’s sake.

You ought to have heard him apologizing one day when a friend called and the friend heard NPR on the radio in the background at my place……gun nutz…..