Today's post on Ontario home inspections illustrates one of the reasons I get so irritated with some in Second Amendment academic circles who maintain that registration would prove to be Constitutional, citing militia laws specifying firearm and inspection requirements. There's no argument that those mustered were required to submit to command authority in this and other matters--but also no evidence that this universally included a thorough accounting of everything that they did not bring to the field and left for private use at home.
I don't know why these reputed smart guys think it's wise to cede this point before we've even engaged on it, and particularly with the indisputable historical record of government abuse whenever such lists are at their disposal.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
People who live around me seem almost to trip over themselves in the rush to "register" their guns.... even though it isn't required. When I first moved here, as soon as people found out I had guns, the first question invariably was "are they registered?" I looked into it, and it isn't even required, so why would ANY guns be registered here? I guess it is just a form of "patriotism" to these ..... slaves.
My problem is I just don't trust gov't -any gov't- to always do the right thing. They already know too much about us and want to know more. Gov't wants to know where the guns are so when there is a problem (Katrina) they know where to go. Civil disobedience can be a good thing.
Post a Comment