You see Dan, at any time, the argument is always brought into the defense of one's home. FWIW, unless you can be sure that the Trespasser is going to put you in fear of your life, there is such a thing as unreasonable force. Do you remember the Japanese exchange student that knocked on the guy's door in Louisiana. The kid got shot because the guy thought that somebody was trying to break into his house. I believe he was criminially convicted. I don't know about a civil action.

The deal is this Dan. If your right was THAT much etched in stone, seems to me that all attempts at gun regulation and leglistation would fall flat on it's face. The fact is, you have to register your firearms. You have to be licsensed to carry a concealed weapon.

If your rights really did flow from the 2nd amendment - that one clause the NRA has continually misinterpreted - there would not be much of an issue. Yet, there is.

How about the Brady Law? Boy the NRA fought over that? How about their stupid million mom march in Washington. Those women got played like grand pianos in their (NRA's) propoganda scheme.

Here is the deal with the NRA. They come from one premise - FEAR. Their real fear is that their membership will stop believing the rhetoric. So, they have to continue to dial it up a notch.

I am not a bleeding heart liberal by any stretch. At the same time, I am not from the right-wing faction that thinks the government should totally stay out of my business.

There is such a thing as a balancing act. Balancing your rights against what is good for the nation - for society.


Look - you want to hunt, go to the pistol range - fine. Be responsible. Tell me Dan, do you mandatory favor gun locks? The NRA doesn't. They say they would be ineffective. Even the manufacturers have said thay would help.

THe deal is that the NRA can't stand to have ANY part of their base erroding away. They see that losing the battle means losing the war. Of course, I ask, where is the war? Why does there need to be one?


The simple fact of the matter is that groups like the NRA - like many lobbying organizations - over-simplify the matter. Why? Because it pays them to do so - to keep the status quo....

< JVP >








>John - You're making a few broad statements there. I'm curious which part of the 2nd Amendment you think needs to be brought into the 21st Century. Do you feel that the whole amendment is no longer relevant, as militias (as a means of national defense) are basically obsolete? Perhaps you think that government is perfectly capable of fulfilling its role as protector of the people, and therefore we no longer need to allow private ownership of firearms?
>
>As someone who takes his right to keep and bear arms very seriously, and has seen a personal weapon used in the defense of his home, I'd like very much for you to explain why I need to give them up. Somehow, being called a "clueless asshole" just doesn't cut it.