oberkommando and others,
Let's face it both sides of the gun control issue do not want a SC hearing on the 2nd. HCI doesn't want their day in court because they know almost certianly they will loose. When the SC listens to a case they MUST look to the intent of the founders in their rationalizations.That is why decisions take so long. The HCI claim the the Second refers to a National Guard is idiotic. The founders were brilliant men, but they could not have the insight to know that in two hundred years and organization called the National Guard would even exist.
Have you read the Federalist Papers or the pre-constitutional Articles of Confederation, or the writings of Jefferson? These papers are very clear on their attitude of the right to bear arms. For the founding fathers...and mothers (yes my wife is looking over my shoulder)
the inability of a citizen to own firearms was the unthinkable act of a tyrant. One of the things the British did when attempting to pacify the revolutionaries was to ban firearms from the citizens. This ban was terrible beyond the obvious inabilty to fight British troops, for two reasons. First it left the people totally dependent upon the British troops for protection. Who for the most part didn't give a damn about the colonists. Bing unarmed left those at the city edges or in the country side open for attacks from hostile indians and highwaymen. Sound familiar people?
Second, the denial of firearms ownership took away the right to provide meat for the family table. The people were forced to go to crown government approved hunters or stores to buy their meat. Sound familiar folks?
In effect the limitation of firearms was an abomination in the eyes of the Founders. First, the God given right of self protection was removed and replaced by the protection of the state.(the right to life) Second, the ability of the man to provide for himself and his family was removed. (the right to property AKA pursuit of happiness) So once again these people were dependent upon the state for their food. When you are dependent to someones for your food, you are a slave. (right of liberty)
If a simplton like myself can figure this out, do you not thing the great minds of our Supreme Court can't do the same? The strange thing about the Supreme Court is that when addressing a true Constitutional issue, not interpritation issue that they are trying validate under an admendment for political reasons, the Court justices become very conservative.
Since I said both sides don't want their day in court, let me say something about the gun industry. Gun owners are not a well oranized bunch. Think about it. The NRA, GOA and other groups try to do a decent job. But we do not show a unified front. If all the hunters, trap and skeet shooters got together with the handgunners, joined these organizations the clout would be so great that no politician would dare bring up gun control. Since we don't do this, politically we are a seperate bands of gun nuts and don't demand any attention.
The gun industry looks at the lack of support and sees no political protection for their products. For the most part, the gun industry is made up of pretty small companies. We see alot of Ruger bashing from time to time because of Bill Ruger's rolling over on certain issues. He is doing what he has to do to survive in the current political climate. Lawyers have learned a long time ago that it is much easier (and cheaper) to get the other side to roll over than go to trial. This is exactly what the government is doing in their lawsuites and pressure on the gunmakers. Does Smith and Wesson, or Colt, Ruger, Remington have the financial resources to go head to head with the resources of the federal or even a state government? I seriously doubt it. I once heard a businessman complaining about a court hearing on an issue he had with the Federal Trade Commission. He said, he showed up with one lawyer, the government should up with three. When he showed up with two lawyers, the government showed up with six. He eventually gave up the case. Not because he felt he was wrong, and from every indication was he wasn't, he simply ran out of money.
The gun industry is caught in this type of a trap. They can't outspend the government. So they capitulate and try to save their companies. I believe it is no the getting to the Supreme Court that scares the gun industry, it is the expense of getting there and hoping that the Court will even hear the case.
I am one who wants the gun ownership issue to get to the Supreme Court. I want this thing to be put to bed once and for all. First it would finacially break HCI and put them out of business. Second, all their lies and misinformation will be out in the open for all to see. No one wins a Supreme Court issue by making childish emotional grandstanding rants like HCI loves to do. Third, a SC decision that the 2nd is valid and a right of all free citizens, we will have most of the stupid gun laws striken from the books and the ATF and other LEA's can be freed up do the jobs they were created to do.
I guess I can go on and on, but I will shut up at this point. Sorry if I was long winded.
Oh yes, before I forget. We need to get out and vote. We have a chance to start putting things right soon. If Gore or Bradly get in office, go and kiss your guns good bye. There are several political analysts that are saying the left will take the house this year. Mainly because they all believe we will have a republican president and history does bear this out. So we must vote to prevent this. I am a registered democrate, so I'm not simply pushing for the republicans. I made a serious mistake eight years ago and will never do that again. Please, tell everyone to vote. the left does mobilize there forces well, too many of us do not. VOTE!
------------------
Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona territory
"The unarmed man is a subject, the armed man is a citizen."