On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:12:02 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 10:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:42:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 1/19/14, 9:31 AM, amdx wrote:
On 1/18/2014 4:20 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:19 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:20:37 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


I wonder...could that be due to the population increase over the
past 40 years coupled with the
source of the increase? The number of small arms either
manufactured or imported during the past 25
years has gone from about 3.7 million to 8.7 million. I suppose
DHS accounts for a bunch, but it has
only about 230,000 employees. Even giving each of them a couple
guns doesn't account for the growth.

The handgun chart is really weird, showing 5% gains and drops in
household possession in two year
periods.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co..._with_handguns


You can't get accurate stats on guns. Violates the 2nd.

In what way?

Unless guns are universally registered, it's just guessing.
Do you think universal registration violates the 2nd?
I have no opinion on that. You might have an opinion.
But the reason for lack of registration is the 2nd.
In any case, statistics on ownership are garbage.

I don't think universal registration, in and of itself, violates the 2nd.


I do think that universal registration makes universal confiscation
much more feasible.

I think that's what make it violate the 2nd .
The founders gave us the right to gun ownership so we would be able to
fight oppressive government. If you give THAT government the ability to
confiscate those guns, the 2nd is not in effect.
Mikek

My thread has drifted!





What the founders did with the Second Amendment was express their
disdain for a standing army, and it was an outgrowth of the Brits
housing uniformed troops in the homes of the colonists. What they
created was a mechanism for a trained and armed citizen militia that
could easily be organized when necessary. That trained and armed militia
these days might be the National Guard. It certainly isn't the
untrained, undisciplined rabble of firearms owners.

The concept of individuals here successfully pursuing a military action
against local, state, or national government is laughable, at best.


That last is undoubtedly true in some cases.

How about the concept of individuals joining with the National Guard or local or national forces?
Does that sound as laughable?


For what purpose? The National Guard is a government-sponsored force,
and the commander in chief is the POTUS. Why would one expect a
government-sponsored force these days to take on the government, be it
local, state, or national, in a military action, a la Faubus using the
Guard to temporarily halt integration of schools in Arkansas? Eisenhower
trumped Faubus in that incident by ordering the National Guard to stand
down and ordering in the U.S. Army.

The concept of citizens in this country taking on armed governmental
forces is absurd. All the armed citizenry in this county, and there are
lots of citizens with guns in this county, couldn't take on the county
sheriff.


The National Guard belongs to the state until federalized.

And that last would be especially true, except in a county in Maryland where the law enforcement
officials can't hit a target. Right?