My parents open carry

My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children's books and couldn't find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again.

Not every spam with a gun is a nutter with mad eyes but those that are write story books to explain that they arnt trying to terrorise everyone honest but the redcoats might turn up at any second.
 
My dad's fly was mostly open.....he did more damage with the contents of his trousers than the Kim family have acheived in three generations of dictatorship!
 

Forlorn Hope

Old-Salt
The bit about "as part of an organised Militia" seems to be missed more often then not....
 
She looks harmless enough.

WellDressedWalMary%20Shopper.jpg
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
I wonder though, how many arrsers, if they lived in the US, would carry weapons themselves.
 

RocksRock

War Hero
The bit about "as part of an organised Militia" seems to be missed more often then not....

No-where in the Bill of Rights and, specifically, the Second Amendment does it require citizens to be part of an organized militia in order to keep and bear arms. There are actually two versions of the Second which does help to add to the confusion mainly due to the addition of a pair of pesky commas. One was the version ratified by the then Congress which read:-

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.

But the version ratified by the States themselves and authenticated by the then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson read:-

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.

In either case there is no actual requirement that the citizen be a member of a "well regulated" militia. in either case the phrase referring to the well regulated militia actually reads as a preamble that explains the reasoning behind the amendment. The puzzling bit is the second comma in the Congressional version. To all intents and purposes it would appear superfluous since it doesn't change the meaning of the phrase as a whole.

In any case, the Constitution of the United States is quite clear in the fact that power flows from the States to the Federal Government and that any amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by three quarters of the States. Taking into account both facts it seems clear that the version ratified by the several States and the then authenticated Secretary of State would take precedence. That version is quite clear and effectively states "Because we need a well regulated militia to ensure the security of our land, the people cannot be prevented from owning and carrying arms".

The word "arms" was another example of the far sightedness of the Founding Fathers in that it acknowledged that weapons available to them in those times would be improved upon and new weapons invented that they could not foresee, thus they chose not to specify any form or weapon and simply call them arms.

It is further interesting to note that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is used only once in the Bill of Rights. It is the most restrictive term in the entire screed and prevents the government from laying any restriction upon the poeple's ability to keep and bear arms.

Just to allay any argument that the interpretation of the Second amendment is flawed this is what George Washington said to the second session of the first Congress:-

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.

Fairly cut and dried... There's lot's more about what the Founding Fathers themselves said about weapons and the right of the people to own and use them here.

And, because it's the NAAFI... You're talking out yer arrse...
 
The flash to bang time for German police to turn up where I live is 43 minutes. A great deal can happen in 43 minutes and violence levels are rising all the time due to the influx from the east and from Africa. So yes I would carry here if I could.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I live in Folkestone. What I need is something capable of hitting France; any suggestions?
 
No-where in the Bill of Rights and, specifically, the Second Amendment does it require citizens to be part of an organized militia in order to keep and bear arms. There are actually two versions of the Second which does help to add to the confusion mainly due to the addition of a pair of pesky commas. One was the version ratified by the then Congress which read:-



But the version ratified by the States themselves and authenticated by the then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson read:-



In either case there is no actual requirement that the citizen be a member of a "well regulated" militia. in either case the phrase referring to the well regulated militia actually reads as a preamble that explains the reasoning behind the amendment. The puzzling bit is the second comma in the Congressional version. To all intents and purposes it would appear superfluous since it doesn't change the meaning of the phrase as a whole.

In any case, the Constitution of the United States is quite clear in the fact that power flows from the States to the Federal Government and that any amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by three quarters of the States. Taking into account both facts it seems clear that the version ratified by the several States and the then authenticated Secretary of State would take precedence. That version is quite clear and effectively states "Because we need a well regulated militia to ensure the security of our land, the people cannot be prevented from owning and carrying arms".

The word "arms" was another example of the far sightedness of the Founding Fathers in that it acknowledged that weapons available to them in those times would be improved upon and new weapons invented that they could not foresee, thus they chose not to specify any form or weapon and simply call them arms.

It is further interesting to note that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is used only once in the Bill of Rights. It is the most restrictive term in the entire screed and prevents the government from laying any restriction upon the poeple's ability to keep and bear arms.

Just to allay any argument that the interpretation of the Second amendment is flawed this is what George Washington said to the second session of the first Congress:-



Fairly cut and dried... There's lot's more about what the Founding Fathers themselves said about weapons and the right of the people to own and use them here.

And, because it's the NAAFI... You're talking out yer arrse...

The evangelical way some people carry on about the "founding fathers" (slave owning traitors every one of them) and the determination to refuse to see that some thing written over 200 years ago in a completely different society with totally different problems and concerns may not possibly be the light and truth of the world anymore is a strange sort of behavior.
 
I wonder though, how many arrsers, if they lived in the US, would carry weapons themselves.

I do for about half of each year and it will probably become nearer full time. Leaving aside whether the law in MD would allow me to carry or not, I wouldn't - not because of any anti-gun sentiment on my part, but because I don't have a life that leads me feel the need.

We live in a gentrified formerly pure white, blue-collar, inner city area of Baltimore (think Coronation Street transplanted to the shores of the Patapsco River or watch Season 2 of The Wire). There is no crime to speak of, certainly not the sort of crime that requires me to be armed for my protection.

The worst that has happened to any of our neighbours since I've been coming here is the lad next door got mugged for his cell 'phone last year. He was bladdered, off his home turf at 2 a.m., and I suspect possession of handgun would not have resulted in a happy outcome for him.

A few miles north of here it's a different matter but we don't live there - we only see those areas from the freeway.

Police response/presence? The City of Baltimore needs us - we pay taxes. And it needs visitors to use the convention centre, the stadiums and the new casino in the redeveloped areas around the Inner Harbour. So we're well served. On a very local level, it helps that a block away is a cafe that is heavily patronised by the Bal'more Poh-leece, there's often a cruiser parked up while a copper fits himself round a slice of pizza.

I might have a less rosy view of life if I lived elsewhere in the US, or indeed elsewhere in Baltimore. But living as I do at the moment a gun wouldn't improve my life.
 

Mattb

LE
I wonder though, how many arrsers, if they lived in the US, would carry weapons themselves.
Definitely.

But I trust myself with a firearm, I don't trust anyone else. As a whole, I reckon I'm safer living in the UK where pretty much no one has a gun (except farmers and farmers' mums), than I would be in the US where everyone and his mum is packing.
 
Definitely.

But I trust myself with a firearm, I don't trust anyone else. As a whole, I reckon I'm safer living in the UK where pretty much no one has a gun (except farmers and farmers' mums), than I would be in the US where everyone and his mum is packing.

But they're not. I'm just off to get a haircut and visit the hardware store - it is very unlikely that anyone I meet (or their mums) will be carrying.
 

Latest Threads

Top