Alphecca

All the PA papers seem to be throwing a hissy fit because the anti-gun people walked away with nothing this week from Harrisburg.

Trying to talk sense to those people is like trying to quench a forest fire by peeing on it.

That it won't do any good is irrelevant to the anti-gun bigots. What almost always goes unmentioned is that "one-gun-a-month" can't possibly work without gun registration. THAT is what really is wrong with "one-gun-a-month" and is why it is so important to the leaders in the anti-gun movement.

"One-gun-a-month" is stealth gun registration.

How does one get to write professionally when one does not know what the words mean?

This cretin can't equate restrictions with infringements? Does he not know what "...shall not be infringed means"?

Sorry, stupid question on my part, of course he doesn't, he's a relativist. Which means as a human he is useless.

The principal purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure that the citizens had the means to protect themselves FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Other benefits of this privilege are ancillary to this fundamental purpose. (Just as the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and press was designed to protect POLITICAL dialogue, not to protect publication of pornography, although McCain-Feingold seems to have inverted the relative importance of these two categories as far as protection is concerned.)

Remember that in the late 1780's, many feared that a strong (compared to the failed Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution) central government could pose a serious threat to the liberties which the citizenry had just recently wrested for themselves from the British Crown. Articles 1 and 3 to 8 of the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution to make it crystal clear what the central government could and could not do with respect to certain of these liberties. Article 2, the right to keep and bear arms, is the enforcement clause, intended to insure that, if necessary, the citizens have the means to resist the central government overstepping its appointed bounds.

I believe history has proven that the worriers were correct in their fears of what a strong central government would do to our liberties. While the time to invoke the ultimate enforcement clause has not (yet) arrived, it is vital that we keep the option open. Hence the need for continual vigilance to resist erosion of the rights provided under Article the Second.

I've never grasped the concept behind "one gun a month" laws. Do murderers gnash their teeth and exclaim "Damn, I was going to shoot up a schoolyard but I can only buy one gun at a time!" Is it possible that a criminal might have only one firearm, or that he might spend a few months assembling an arsenal in advance?

This may amaze the anti gunners, but some, a few, a small percentage of firearms may be reloaded many times. Our soldiers, for example, typically carry a longarm and a sidearm into combat.