>> the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to ensure that each state
within the United States would have a trained, official, "well-regulated" fighting force in place in order to
prevent the federal government from becoming overly powerful.
Not sure I agree. "Well regulated" had nothing to do with being properly supervised. It hwas a much more practical turn of phrase: able to hit the target. The concept hearkens bach to (I'm blanking on details) the English king who issued directives to his common subjects to practice the longbow, since a successful guerilla campaign had stopped the French armored force. A crowd of farmers who had good bows and knew how to hit with them constituted a "well regulated militia".
My other point of disagreement is the idea that the 2nd amendment was ablut states' rights. I assert that it was aimed at the citizenry-at-large. I think that the text of the 2nd makes the suggested idea, which suggests locked armories full of ordnance controlled by State gov'ts, a restrictive fabrication.
I mean, like, how do we take the message to the CA gov't that we're getting our tushes double-taxed off at the state level? The Bill of Rights, in my considered opinion, is about citizens one by one.
I see that Henigan disagrees. Bummer. I think that we won't get resolution on the issue until the 2nd amendment is dragged before the Supreme Court by the NRA or its archnemesis, Handgun Control Inc., with the lamentation "Will you please finally tell us what this means in plain English!"
I notice Henigan tries to make the "Logical extension" to hand grenades and ballistic missiles. Hogwash&rabblerousing of the lowest sort. No informed gun proponent would ever try to lump what Federal law classifies as a "destructive device" (any explosive, including incendiary or explosive ammunition) into the category of civilian firearms. Outshooting the Government isn't the point; being treated like valied citizens (barring psychosis or a conviction) is.
Finally: storing your weapons at shooting ranges. Objection No. 1. I like to clean my guns well; this takes time and effort. Best done in the living room while half-watching Beavis&Butt-head. I won't trust anyone else with the surprisingly delicate barrel steel of my "good'n's".
Objection no. 2. I imagine the ranges would charge for the honor of holding my guns secure. I do it for free.
Objection No. 3. If the storage-at-range is an act of law, I'd find this to be a serious erosion of privilege. |
