We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I never held a firearm before the Marine Corps, and chose not to since Vietnam. I spoke with a Marine Sergeant yesterday, he on the way to Afghanistan, his third tour there and Iraq. He hadn't held one either before the Marine Corps loaned him a rifle, trained him to use it, and he has to protect his country and family back in Ohio. He doesn't know whether he will choose to own one after he returns, serves another 10-years, and retires from the Corps.
The point is that those of us who treasure the 2nd Amendment to our Bill of Rights are not rampant Rambos, but understand that any key right denied is a shot at all our others.
Last week's US Supreme Court defense of the 2nd Amendment wasn't just about our right to own firearms. As InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds puts it:
So in little more than 15 years, we've seen an amazing turnaround on an issue where the "establishment" side had broad support from politicians (in both parties, really) and almost universal support from the media. Gun control now is nearly dead as an issue, and the "establishment" view that the Second Amendment didn't protect any sort of individual right, but merely a right of states to have national guards, did not get the support of a single Supreme Court justice.
So what's the lesson for today? It's that activism matters.
Now the issue on which activists differ from the establishment is the size of government. Politicians (in both parties, really) are pretty happy with big government. In this, they have the near-universal support of the media (now using covert e-mail lists to agree on how to slant their stories).
But if people care about shrinking government as much as gun rights activists care about protecting the Second Amendment, then this situation, too, can see a turnaround.
Shot most everything that was available to shoot during my 4 years of service (post-Vietnam). Loved shooting it all but it nearly left me deaf since I was too stupid to wear proper ear protection.
Once I got out I'd had enough of shooting until recently when I play around once in a while weapons owned by friends.
I'd like to get off my fat arse and go exercise my 2nd amendment rights before they disappear. I'm reluctant to part with the necessary funds given the fragility of the current economic situation. Gonna have to make a decision soon, I fear.
Jappy's point is well-taken, and that is the reason to ensure that the politicians fear the people.
Thomas Jefferson offered the appropriate comment for times such as these: "If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions."
Empirical evidence supporting Mr. Jefferson's insight is everywhere one wishes to look.
Yes, but this new legal action can also be seen as an opportunity for local governments to increase their level of control--is that not correct? Why did Chicago come up with stricter laws just 10 days after this decision? Somebody please explain--Buddy you out there?
Your post reads like "all those who own guns are latant Rambos".
I think nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of gun owners are quite the reverse of what Rambo is often portrayed of being, a homicidal maniac who solves every problem by shooting people.
Of course the original movie was quite different from that, and showed John Rambo to be a quiet guy driven over the edge by excessive use of force by the police.
He didn't go on a rampage even when the army was brought in with heavy material to kill him.
J.T.: If you or anyone has that impression, my poor writing is at fault as that is not what I wanted to convey. I agree with you as to the peacefulness of those I know who are more active than I in owning a firearm. My choice, and the possible choice of the other Marine, do not reflect -- as our service tells -- any rejection of firearms or of 2nd Amendment rights for ourselves or any others should that choice be made or felt necessary by events. And, the latter half of the post is to the point that impinging on any of our rights is taking aim at all.
Thanks for firing a warning round at my syntax.
I have enjoyed shooting since I was 17 -- grew up in a house with no guns, but my uncle was a Marine and a rifle expert. I have guns now for cowboy sport shooting, not for protecting my home because my neighborhood has never recorded an occupied burglary. Lots of neighbors do have guns and that may be why.
I am discouraged that people like Reid, Baucus and Tester claim to support the 2nd Amendment and then vote to support justices that they know will oppose it.