I agree that this is the most important reason for citizens to maintain the right to bear arms. It has been speculated in other posts that if the writers of the constitution were around today that they would not have given us this right. I disagree and think they would have allowed ownership of even full auto firearms but would have probably drawn the line at WMDs. I think they would have wanted to allow us to have the personal firearms necessary to overthrow the government that they knew would probably become necessary some day.

Isn't that what we have tasers for?

Anyways, a complete nationwide ban on handguns isn't going to happen. What was it that was said on the abortion thread? if one state bans them there are 49 other states to move to?

I understand, and you are probably right. Sun Tzu is careful to note in Art of War that you should not completely surround an enemy and give him no option to retreat, for he will have nothing to lose at that point and will fight most earnestly...the cornered cat concept. As long as you can move somewhere gun-tolerant without too much trouble, you aren't likely to put your life on the line--that is probably true.

I guess then the concern is that what if a national ban takes effect not as a sudden bill passed tomorrow, but as a creeping ban, as more and more cities, and then states, pass such bans. Is there a point at which the resistance will get critical mass, or will we be past the point of no return before we realize the problems. If each state truly had control over its national guard or some other form of community level organization could be employed to protect us from the next level up, that may substitute to some degree, but we don't have that, with the Feds having pretty completely consumed the N.G. structure into their own strategic thinking. Our only potential resistance exists within the arms that we as citizens have and possibly our police forces, which one would hope would have more loyalty to their municipalities than to the Federal Gov't.

I know I'm short on conclusions in this post, but I do think a lot of these are open items, at least as far as I am concerned personally. I'm apt to let S.F., Chicago, or even states do what they want right now either to ban guns, or to promote responsible gun ownership, as I don't have a ready answer and as stated, at least as far as crime goes, I can't say they won't work, or that they are wrong for trying. I can say that while I don't choose to arm myself today, I am willing to pick up arms if necessary in defense of the Constitution, as I swore long ago, against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I'm not aware of any law enforcement agency thats going to use a taser to deal with someone whos just shot/killed one of their own. Deadly force will be met with deadly force.

Actually, about 2/3rds of the states have a state guard that, by law, is not subject to federal draft or orders except in the most extreme of circumstances. In the nature of our discussion my guess is that, depending upon the governor, the state guard and armed civilians would be called upon to fight for the states.

Alot of that will play in to just how the second amendment is going to be finally judged. In 1982, the 97th congress concluded that the 2A is an individual right. In 2004, the Attorney General of the US has stated that the 2A is an individual right. All of the circuit courts have had mixed opinions, but to my knowledge, the 5th circuit is the only federal court to unequivocally state that the 2A is an individual right. The US Supreme court has made many decisions but have never come out with a solid answer on whether its an individual or collective. Until the day comes that the USSC makes the determination, it will always be an argument. Even now, the illinois state supreme court came down on the side of being an individual right, with extreme limitations, meaning that localities can ban certain types, but not all guns as that would violate the US constitution as well as the state constitution. The only reason that Mayor Daley has gotten away with banning most all guns in chicago is the 'grandfather' clause. since 98 he has not allowed any registration of new guns which is technically legal, but has also not been challenged yet.

The governments fear of the populace rebelling was never more evident than during clintons years with the demonizing of the 'militia movements'. They found the worst of the lot (meaning those vehemently anti-government) and used their media influence to make all militias sound anti government. Ruby Ridge and Waco were catalysts as well as road bumps in that process.

an independence day thought
 

Freedom isn't Free

By Geoff Metcalf on Jul 02, 2006

The rest of the article refers to the UN 'small arms' ban for those that might be interested.

Happy Birthday America (yes, I know it's a day early)

Then ask the Bosnians if they wish they had a few more guns...

People who advocate a total ban on firearms are too afraid to take responsibility for thier own safety, and are threatened by those who do.

Many more people are killed each year by automobiles, lets ban them as well. It would take a while to see the benefit, but one human life is worth the price, right?

For that matter, some nimrod killed his wife by dropping the toaster in the tub with her, so lets ban the private means to make toast, too.

We can all live in perfect safety under the watchful eye of the government, who never errs.

As for the unfortunate incident cited by the initial poster, consider it one of the unfortunate tremors in the bedrock of our liberty.