The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Yep. That is my contention. It has been argued that people "need" an AR-15 / M-16 for hunting. Same with a 9mm semi-automatic with large capacity magazine. To hunt?

Meanwhile, there are plenty of states with no gun laws but with many meth-amphetamine labs. Back in the woods. Narcotics detectives have to approach the meth labs expecting a fight. Police armor up and bring in SWAT teams to take down a simple drug lab.

In what universe does this make sense?

welch wrote:Yep. That is my contention. It has been argued that people "need" an AR-15 / M-16 for hunting. Same with a 9mm semi-automatic with large capacity magazine. To hunt?

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed they need a 9mm handgun to hunt. Nor is the desire to own an AR-15 solely based on hunting, though they make an excellent small game hunting rifle and shouldn't be discounted for that purpose. Are you saying that people should only be allowed to own guns traditionally used for hunting?

welch wrote:Meanwhile, there are plenty of states with no gun laws but with many meth-amphetamine labs. Back in the woods. Narcotics detectives have to approach the meth labs expecting a fight. Police armor up and bring in SWAT teams to take down a simple drug lab.

NJ has strict gun laws. Are meth labs down in the pine barrens safter to raid than those in the midwest? No SWAT team needed?

welch wrote:Yep. That is my contention. It has been argued that people "need" an AR-15 / M-16 for hunting. Same with a 9mm semi-automatic with large capacity magazine. To hunt?

Meanwhile, there are plenty of states with no gun laws but with many meth-amphetamine labs. Back in the woods. Narcotics detectives have to approach the meth labs expecting a fight. Police armor up and bring in SWAT teams to take down a simple drug lab.

In what universe does this make sense?

I have NEVER heard ANYONE make such a contention about these weapons, until you just said that... And, since you have clearly taken a radical side on this, it suggests that your agenda has taken on a life of its own. FACT: NO ONE who knows ANYTHING about firearms would make such claims. You also realize, I'm sure (though it would not serve your argument to confirm) the meth lab chemists would be armed to the teeth REGARDLESS the law... The only difference, if you have your way, is that honest folk would be disarmed, while the criminals remain criminals. In what universe would THAT make sense?

I've thought seriously about whether a gun ban would be effective enough that the lives saved would outweigh the reduction in personal liberty. The thought that keeps popping in my head is: if people are serious about saving as many lives as possible, why not mandate speed governors in every vehicle? Imagine how many reckless, speed-related accidents would be avoided if nobody could drive over 35mph unless you were a police officer? NOBODY would go for that, regardless of how much safer the roads would be. Why? Because it'd annoy almost everyone and make their commutes too inconvenient.

Yet, there are people willing to wipe out an entire constitutional amendment that acts as the final check and balance between the people and the government, and strengthens peoples' ability to defend themselves. Why? Because it wouldn't affect THEM, only the guns and gun owners they dislike.

I hope my tangent/rant makes sense. I'm a couple drinks into the evening.

Hooligan wrote:I've thought seriously about whether a gun ban would be effective enough that the lives saved would outweigh the reduction in personal liberty. The thought that keeps popping in my head is: if people are serious about saving as many lives as possible, why not mandate speed governors in every vehicle? Imagine how many reckless, speed-related accidents would be avoided if nobody could drive over 35mph unless you were a police officer? NOBODY would go for that, regardless of how much safer the roads would be. Why? Because it'd annoy almost everyone and make their commutes too inconvenient.

Yet, there are people willing to wipe out an entire constitutional amendment that acts as the final check and balance between the people and the government, and strengthens peoples' ability to defend themselves. Why? Because it wouldn't affect THEM, only the guns and gun owners they dislike.

I hope my tangent/rant makes sense. I'm a couple drinks into the evening.

bbbbut... The government must protect you. LOL. Just remember... This is an administration which once described those who disagree with them as "the enemy"...

don't need gun control .... we need people control

I don't see a good reason to have an AR-15 or .9mm pistol at home.

Drug dealers?

In New York and New Jersey, they buy guns from guys who drive to loose gun-law states. There, they pay cash to people who buy guns by the dozen. So says my local precinct commander, who battled crack dealers 25 years ago.

Meth labs?

Making heavy guns easy to buy just ensures that the dealer will have an AK-47 or equivalent to protect their operation. That makes it risky for the narcotics police, who get an "inventory" or weapons before making a bust. That's how it works in Kentucky and Missouri in two of the counties that are claimed to be "the meth capital of the nation". Yes, in the state I know well, the police always go in with M-16's, helmets, and body armor. That state has a state police SWAT team barracks across the road from the county narcotics squad. Yes, the narcotics squad often calls on the SWAT team to assist when taking down a meth lab. Meth dealers are often addicts, and a meth addict is unpredictable. Many dealers are unpredictable: a few years ago, a pair of NYPD narcotics detectives were killed in a "routine" buy-and-bust when their targets got frightened and began shooting.

Why would any civilian need an M-16? Small varmints? When Ft Dix was becoming overrun by deer -- the fort had fenced in part of a deer herd -- the Army allowed veterans to bow-hunt the deer. The fort had two battalions training for Iraq, so I joked that they should just let the battalions lay out a zone, close in, and shoot the deer. A Soldier said, "That would be sick. An M-16 would rip a deer to pieces...make it explode. This way, we can butcher the meat and give it to food pantries in Philadelphia".

High-magazine pistols? Why?

In both cases, who is the target?

Yes, some people in west Texas believe that the military intends to jail them in closed Walmarts, take their guns, and send them to concentration camps. Representative Louie Gohmert is their congressman, and he believes it. The governor of Texas believed it enough to assign the "Texas State Guard" (note: not the National Guard) to watch the military training exercise...Jade Helm. A group of Texans warns that west Texas has many gun owners, and they will make the US Army (Rangers and Special Forces) wish they were back in Iraq.

This is crazy stuff.

welch wrote:I don't see a good reason to have an AR-15 or .9mm pistol at home.

You don't, but many people do. Does your opinion outweigh theirs? For practicality, there are numerous reasons why someone would keep an AR-15 or 9mm handgun at home. They're compact, have low recoil and inexpensive ammo. The AR-15 is modular and can be adjusted to fit almost anyone's build and preferences. I know women who love shooting them, but won't go near a bolt-action hunting rifle or 12 gauge buckshot.

In New York and New Jersey, they buy guns from guys who drive to loose gun-law states. There, they pay cash to people who buy guns by the dozen. So says my local precinct commander, who battled crack dealers 25 years ago.

What you're describing is what's known as a "straw purchase" and is already illegal. There will always be a black market.

Making heavy guns easy to buy just ensures that the dealer will have an AK-47 or equivalent to protect their operation. That makes it risky for the narcotics police, who get an "inventory" or weapons before making a bust. That's how it works in Kentucky and Missouri in two of the counties that are claimed to be "the meth capital of the nation". Yes, in the state I know well, the police always go in with M-16's, helmets, and body armor. That state has a state police SWAT team barracks across the road from the county narcotics squad. Yes, the narcotics squad often calls on the SWAT team to assist when taking down a meth lab. Meth dealers are often addicts, and a meth addict is unpredictable. Many dealers are unpredictable: a few years ago, a pair of NYPD narcotics detectives were killed in a "routine" buy-and-bust when their targets got frightened and began shooting.

If I were raiding a meth lab whose occupants were armed with muskets, I'd still call the SWAT team.

Why would any civilian need an M-16? Small varmints? When Ft Dix was becoming overrun by deer -- the fort had fenced in part of a deer herd -- the Army allowed veterans to bow-hunt the deer. The fort had two battalions training for Iraq, so I joked that they should just let the battalions lay out a zone, close in, and shoot the deer. A Soldier said, "That would be sick. An M-16 would rip a deer to pieces...make it explode. This way, we can butcher the meat and give it to food pantries in Philadelphia".

A deer is not a small varmint, but yes, an AR-15 is an excellent small-varmint hunting rifle. It's commonly used for small critters up to coyote size and excels. .223/.556 is a small, fast, accurate caliber that will drive tacks at a couple hundred yards.

I agree that an M-16 is not a good deer rifle... because the bullet is too SMALL. It's great for small game, but not anything deer-size. At around 55-65 grains, it's barely larger than .22 rimfire (~40 grains). A less than perfect shot isn't as likely to put the animal down as quickly as a more common deer hunting bullet like 7mm, 30-30, .308, 30-06, or even .357 magnum, all of which are well over 100 grains and do far more damage. The soldier that said an M-16 would cause a deer to explode gave you some questionable information along the same vein as "a .50 caliber bullet's shock wave alone will tear off someone's arm." Maybe full-automatic fire would cause too much damage to the animal for the meat to be used, but only a psychopath would use full-auto to kill a deer in a hunting situation.

High-magazine pistols? Why?

Why not? What do you consider high capacity magazines? In NY it's over 7. In NJ it's over 15.

In both cases, who is the target?

Are you looking for us to answer "people"? What's wrong with shooting an attacker?

Yes, some people in west Texas believe that the military intends to jail them in closed Walmarts, take their guns, and send them to concentration camps. Representative Louie Gohmert is their congressman, and he believes it. The governor of Texas believed it enough to assign the "Texas State Guard" (note: not the National Guard) to watch the military training exercise...Jade Helm. A group of Texans warns that west Texas has many gun owners, and they will make the US Army (Rangers and Special Forces) wish they were back in Iraq.
This is crazy stuff.

Agreed. The black helicopter paranoia is a little too much for me. Not trusting the government is one thing, but some take it a little too far.

welch wrote:I don't see a good reason to have an AR-15 or .9mm pistol at home.

...and?

So, here's the thing about guns...

You NEVER need one...


... until you need one VERY badly.



Btw... I agree about .9mm... If I shoot... I don't want them getting back up. .45 cal says "stay down"

The framers of the Constitution never intended for everyone to own firearms. The intention was for every member of the state militias to have a legal right to keep and bear arms because there was no standing army. In fact, Jefferson and other framers were diametrically opposed to standing armies as much as they were opposed to corporations. Now we have both. Even with the twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the right was written at a time when "arms" specifically referred to muskets and single action, single shot, black powder pistols. There was never any intention on the part of the framers to allow every citizen the right to keep and bear any type of arms which might be developed in the future. It was specific to state and national defense and was not an individual right to bear arms at any time for any purpose. That's why it is the only amendment which specifically enumerates the purpose within the amendment itself.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Without the commas it's pretty self-explanatory, except to the idiots appointed to SCOTUS whose only interpretation of law is political agenda. Now, if people want to discuss whether or not it should be a right that's another matter entirely, but in that case the language of the law itself should be changed, not the interpretation. Justice Stevens recommended the following amended language:

The right of people serving in a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:Even with the twisted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the right was written at a time when "arms" specifically referred to muskets and single action, single shot, black powder pistols. There was never any intention on the part of the framers to allow every citizen the right to keep and bear any type of arms which might be developed in the future.

If that's true, then the First Amendment doesn't apply to modern media. All audio recordings, the internet, CDs, DVDs, movies, etc, are all exempt from the 1st Amendment. Obviously, the authors didn't intend the freedom of speech to apply to any media that didn't exist at the time and could possibly be developed. Right?

Justice Stevens recommended the following amended language:

The right of people serving in a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

I guess the authors were too stupid to write what they meant. Just maybe, "...the right of the people..." was written that way for a reason?

Hooligan wrote:If that's true, then the First Amendment doesn't apply to modern media. All audio recordings, the internet, CDs, DVDs, movies, etc, are all exempt from the 1st Amendment. Obviously, the authors didn't intend the freedom of speech to apply to any media that didn't exist at the time and could possibly be developed. Right?

I guess the authors were too stupid to write what they meant. Just maybe, "...the right of the people..." was written that way for a reason?

The 1st amendment doesn't apply to anything other than the federal government (Congress) enacting legislation designed to control thought and expression. The type of medium is irrelevant.

The authors wrote what they meant at the time it was written. It isn't their fault it has since been taken entirely out of it's intended context.

The proper way to enact legislation is to create a bill which becomes law through process. It isn't to take an existing law and claim it means something else just to avoid having to go through the ratification process.

2A proponents are the minority and such legislation would never pass both houses of Congress and 38 of the 50 states. That's why the NRA clings for dear life to fear mongering. They've been "coming to take your guns" ever since it became a billion dollar industry. Funny how the leader of the cause is a big wuss who chickened out of military service on a bogus nervous disorder medical discharge.

If the Founders thought everyone should have an AK-47 or an M240 or an AR-15 or whatever other weapon a person believes there is a Constitutional right to own, they meant everyone actively serving in the militia. They said so. And they were specific. They didn't say "You can have guns because we need an army." They said "Because individual states do not have standing armies well-regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State." Now we have armies, navies, air forces, marine corps, coast guards, and national guards. We also have a draft. We have no need for militias or minutemen.

Before you misunderstand these statements, I'm both a military veteran and a firearms owner. Most of the 100 million people who own firearms in this country will never use them in defense of their state or of the nation.

One other thought: Why would the Framers give the People (about three million of them at the time the Bill Of Rights was written) guns to protect themselves from the 300 or so people in government in 1791?

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:One other thought: Why would the Framers give the People (about three million of them at the time the Bill Of Rights was written) guns to protect themselves from the 300 or so people in government in 1791?

That's a good question, and I'm no historian, but I'll take a crack at it.

I'd say that it's because they had just overthrown an oppressive government and wanted to make sure that the power always remained with the people, so that they could do so again if necessary.

Hooligan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:One other thought: Why would the Framers give the People (about three million of them at the time the Bill Of Rights was written) guns to protect themselves from the 300 or so people in government in 1791?

That's a good question, and I'm no historian, but I'll take a crack at it.

I'd say that it's because they had just overthrown an oppressive government and wanted to make sure that the power always remained with the people, so that they could do so again if necessary.

So, you're saying we agree the right was specifically for national defense by the militias and was never intended to be a carte blanche individual right to keep and bear arms. In that case the power had to be with the people because government had neither standing armies nor weapons of mass destruction. The Founders were equally concerned with the British, the French, and the "several Indian tribes."

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Hooligan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:One other thought: Why would the Framers give the People (about three million of them at the time the Bill Of Rights was written) guns to protect themselves from the 300 or so people in government in 1791?

That's a good question, and I'm no historian, but I'll take a crack at it.

I'd say that it's because they had just overthrown an oppressive government and wanted to make sure that the power always remained with the people, so that they could do so again if necessary.

So, you're saying we agree the right was specifically for national defense by the militias and was never intended to be a carte blanche individual right to keep and bear arms. In that case the power had to be with the people because government had neither standing armies nor weapons of mass destruction. The Founders were equally concerned with the British, the French, and the "several Indian tribes."

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. It wasn't for national defense, but defense against the government itself.

Deadskins wrote:I don't think that's what he's saying at all. It wasn't for national defense, but defense against the government itself.

That would be a self-contradiction since the government was of the People, by the People, and for the People. Everyone can have guns so we can protect ourselves from ourselves?

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I don't think that's what he's saying at all. It wasn't for national defense, but defense against the government itself.

the government was of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Do you think that's still the case? The founders had foresight.

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I don't think that's what he's saying at all. It wasn't for national defense, but defense against the government itself.

the government was of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Do you think that's still the case? The founders had foresight.

I think the Constitution was never intended to be etched in stone. That's why it was first amended only four years after initial ratification. The Framers were far from perfect and they recognized the need to change the language, amend, addend, append, and otherwise alter the Constitution. I'm all for the will of the People but what we have is the will of the powerful. If you look at the list of grievances against King George III and compare it with our modern government there are a great many similarities. We have become what we despised. Worse, the powerful have weapons the People have no right to keep and bear. If the government truly wanted to "come for your guns" or strip other rights they could enforce it much more simply than by sending "jack-booted thugs" to doorsteps. Carpet bombs are fairly effective against people with small caliber arms.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think the Constitution was never intended to be etched in stone. That's why it was first amended only four years after initial ratification.

And what was that second amendment they made?

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I think the Constitution was never intended to be etched in stone. That's why it was first amended only four years after initial ratification.

And what was that second amendment they made?

It was a concession to the state constitutions of Virginia and other states who already had a right to keep and bear arms specifically for the purpose of state militias. The very language of the 2nd Amendment comes from the Virginia Declaration Of Rights / Constitution Of Virginia:

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

To borrow an explanation from a friend:

"the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so."

Well, B&G, I think a simpler question is: What rights do you believe we actually have regarding firearms in the U.S.?

How does that align with your personal feelings on what rights we should have?

Hooligan wrote:Well, B&G, I think a simpler question is: What rights do you believe we actually have regarding firearms in the U.S.?

How does that align with your personal feelings on what rights we should have?

I think the closest interpretation of the rights we actually have regarding firearms is that anyone who wants to own one should be a member of the National Guard or Reserves.

Personally, the statistics invariably back the fact that guns are rarely used for legal personal defense and when they are used there are zero shots or one shot fired. Paranoia and fear mongering by people looking to profit from ignorance don't help. I think it makes sense to regulate guns and so does the federal government, which is why the 2nd Amendment does not fall under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV. Each state is not required to honor all others when it comes to gun laws. I don't think most of the legislation proposed is a viable solution to gun regulation. Registration doesn't help when there are things like straw purchases and private transfers. They're not coming to take my guns because I don't scare them. I'm not a threat. If ever the situation arises where I need to utilize my firearm for personal defense I am prepared. I was trained in a well-regulated militia.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Hooligan wrote:Well, B&G, I think a simpler question is: What rights do you believe we actually have regarding firearms in the U.S.?

How does that align with your personal feelings on what rights we should have?

I think the closest interpretation of the rights we actually have regarding firearms is that anyone who wants to own one should be a member of the National Guard or Reserves.

Personally, the statistics invariably back the fact that guns are rarely used for legal personal defense and when they are used there are zero shots or one shot fired. Paranoia and fear mongering by people looking to profit from ignorance don't help. I think it makes sense to regulate guns and so does the federal government, which is why the 2nd Amendment does not fall under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV. Each state is not required to honor all others when it comes to gun laws. I don't think most of the legislation proposed is a viable solution to gun regulation. Registration doesn't help when there are things like straw purchases and private transfers. They're not coming to take my guns because I don't scare them. I'm not a threat. If ever the situation arises where I need to utilize my firearm for personal defense I am prepared. I was trained in a well-regulated militia.

wow... You state that you were trained in a well regulated militia... What was that? You are aware that neither the Reserves, nor the Guard, are a militia, right? They are BOTH Federal military reserves... Note that the Feds fund, equip, and train both... The primary difference is, that control of the Guard is, at most times, placed under State or Territorial governors... But, the Federal government can claim control any time they choose (see Little Rock, Arkansas, Central High School, Sept 23, 1957). To be a militia, the force must fall exclusively under local authority. Granted... Many National Guard units claim lineage that goes back to militia units (such as my own 133d Engineer Bn, which traces lineage to the 20th Maine Infantry Regiment... I'm sure you recognize them), but, they are no longer militia. They are "the Guard". These are no longer "mere" volunteers... but, are professional soldiers... Part time, yes, but professional soldiers, none the less. And, yes, there are a number of states which continue to maintain an actual "state militia", Texas being one.

This not withstanding, Madison and Jefferson both, had much to say about the need for an armed citizenry... None of it in concert with your interpretation, from what I can see.

The Second amendment notes that there is a relationship between the right to own guns, and the need for a militia because, in the purest sense, the citizenry IS the militia. There in no requirement that you formally join a "militia".

Countertrey wrote:wow... You state that you were trained in a well regulated militia... What was that? You are aware that neither the Reserves, nor the Guard, are a militia, right? They are BOTH Federal military reserves... Note that the Feds fund, equip, and train both... The primary difference is, that control of the Guard is, at most times, placed under State or Territorial governors... But, the Federal government can claim control any time they choose (see Little Rock, Arkansas, Central High School, Sept 23, 1957). To be a militia, the force must fall exclusively under local authority. Granted... Many National Guard units claim lineage that goes back to militia units (such as my own 133d Engineer Bn, which traces lineage to the 20th Maine Infantry Regiment... I'm sure you recognize them), but, they are no longer militia. They are "the Guard". These are no longer "mere" volunteers... but, are professional soldiers... Part time, yes, but professional soldiers, none the less. And, yes, there are a number of states which continue to maintain an actual "state militia", Texas being one.

This not withstanding, Madison and Jefferson both, had much to say about the need for an armed citizenry... None of it in concert with your interpretation, from what I can see.

The Second amendment notes that there is a relationship between the right to own guns, and the need for a militia because, in the purest sense, the citizenry IS the militia. There in no requirement that you formally join a "militia".

AG72nd Engineering Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Army Corps Of Engineers. I am aware of all of the above, however one cannot in good conscience compare 1791 with 2015. The federalist and antifederalist papers make for interesting historical reading material. Madison and Jefferson were speaking in terms of States Rights. States rights were the focus of the Founders. Half of the Founders opposed any form of centralized government. Half opposed any form of standing armies. Half opposed any form of industrialization. Half opposed slavery. Everything, including the right bear arms, was a compromise between the states rights already in existence and the need for federal government to prevent things like states going to war with one another and states creating their own currency and refusing to honor the currency of other states, among other concerns.

I still stand on the need to alter the language of the 2nd Amendment. It simply doesn't apply to 2015. A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is no longer necessary to the security of a free State because we have standing armies. If the 2nd Amendment should read only the second clause, "the rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then change it through due process to say that and we won't have to have these debates. The reason we continue to have these debates is because it doesn't apply today. Law should say what it means and mean what it says and be applicable to the time in which it is applied.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:AG72nd Engineering Battalion, Fort Leonard Wood, MO. Army Corps Of Engineers. I am aware of all of the above, however one cannot in good conscience compare 1791 with 2015. The federalist and antifederalist papers make for interesting historical reading material. Madison and Jefferson were speaking in terms of States Rights. States rights were the focus of the Founders. Half of the Founders opposed any form of centralized government. Half opposed any form of standing armies. Half opposed any form of industrialization. Half opposed slavery. Everything, including the right bear arms, was a compromise between the states rights already in existence and the need for federal government to prevent things like states going to war with one another and states creating their own currency and refusing to honor the currency of other states, among other concerns.

I still stand on the need to alter the language of the 2nd Amendment. It simply doesn't apply to 2015. A militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is no longer necessary to the security of a free State because we have standing armies. If the 2nd Amendment should read only the second clause, "the rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then change it through due process to say that and we won't have to have these debates. The reason we continue to have these debates is because it doesn't apply today. Law should say what it means and mean what it says and be applicable to the time in which it is applied.

ESSAYONS, brother! I miss the chest clearing WHUMP! of a cratering charge, and the concept of using too much TNT or C4!

There is no statute of limitations on the tenets of the Bill of Rights (it is timeless). It is absolutely as applicable today as it was in 1791... and as it was in 1936, when the government in power invoked all gun ownership to the Third Reich. That is the real reason Madison and others viewed this UNALIENABLE right as critical, making it clear in the SECOND amendment that it may not be abridged by man. The right of gun ownership, as I noted, was NOT contingent upon membership in a militia... but was viewed as a hedge against a tyrannical government... which, frankly, remains as valid today as when written. It is clear that the very first act of a tyrant is to find the guns... and take them... as has been demonstrated multiple times in the 20th Century. Registration simply makes it easy to find the guns. The reason we have these debates is that there are those who would compromise their freedom for the illusion of security. How is that security working in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit? How is it working in so many declared "gun free zones"?