More delayed Random Thoughts

Note: Many of these blocks of text actually is a link to a story or a web page that I am commenting on. Click on that text and it will take you to the page being referred to.
Again, I apologize for the somewhat dated nature of this series of thoughts, but of late me, my computer and blogspot.com have been having a tad bit of difficulty getting on the same sheet of music.
This particular Thoughts is going to focus on gun control. I offer up a series of different articles, rants and opinion pieces that I urge you to review. You may not agree with my view, and that of course is your privilege, but please do not just dismiss and discount either side. It helps to understand what fears and thoughts are motivating people and to understand that sometimes others just don’t view the world through the same perspective.
So here are interesting essays/rants on San Bernardino, Democrats/liberals/progressives and civil rights vis-a-vis gun control

This article really is correct: The right of individuals to keep and bear arms should not even be up for any debate. I know those who look at the Second Amendment will try to parse it in some way to say that isn't true, but it was not the original intent, as too many of the people contemporary with the Bill Of Rights and the adoption of the Constitution will remind you, whether they were Federalists or Anti-Federalists (the only two parties at the time)
This, to me, is a major part of the problem ... and part of the reason I am leery of any and all say that they are making the federal government act for the good of all. It isn't ... as this article, expresses. You, of course, are welcome to disagree.
This truly is a bit of a rant, but it does raise some interesting questions ... questions unfortunately, I never get much of an answer from the left.
Another basic rant, that poses some significant questions. Mainly: Why?
And this is my question: How many rights do we have to give up to satisfy those progressives and Democrats who want to criminalize our different views on speech, religion, press, firearms? That is not the America I grew up in and it is not the America that I hope my grandchildren will live in. But if the plans and policies of people like President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and a host of other people who call themselves progressive and liberals have their way, I am afraid that all of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution will fall victim to their vision of political correctness.
This is one of the reasons I have problems with all the hysteria about imposing gun controls: The data, folks, just doesn’t match the rhetoric of the president and fellow progressive and Democratic Party followers.
To be fair, in a way, I let the NRA speak for itself ... and its defense is rather eloquent
This is MediaMatters.org (the very progressive web site that produces Democratic talking points) view ... I offer it up as a rebuttal ... while at the same time making the observation that it doesn't answer the questions why federal laws are not enforced? Don't just attack saying it is racist, or the other side resists the laws ... explain why the existing laws on the books are not enforced? Is that such a difficult question?
This article if from Salon.Com ... and it again attacks the organization and an individual. Let me see, there are roughly 100 million people eligible to vote in the US and only 4 million of them are supporters of the NRA ... wouldn't you think that the other 96 percent could make up their own minds without ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with? Or don't you trust them?
Another person who fails to understand history, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and why all of that comes together. My comment to this fair lady: Stay in Toronto.
This appeals to the Irish in me ... but at the same time it points out how what the progressives and Democrats have been doing really have been a fundamental assault on the rule of law (you know, Mr. President, it would be nice if you told your minions to obey the law, as well as yourself) and the rights, duties and obligations outlined in the U.S. Constitution (as amended) and the Bill of Rights. On one side, stands liberty and freedom and I don't know what it is supposed to be on the other, but it sure is not anything friendly to the individual, his or her freedoms and rights.
These facts probably have gun control advocates just climbing the walls ... but they reflect the good sense of the American people ... much to the chagrin of our betters in the political, media, academic and economic elites. The adage of the old west about Mr. Colt’s pistol being the great equalizer seem apt here.
And if nothing else, if all else fails, there is the rush to judgment from parties on the left. Please, give me break.
And then there is this reality ... consider it, accept it or reject it, but when did due process and innocent until proven guilt in a court of law become such terms to be dismissed for convenience?
I would point out that sometimes we forget what really was the law "once upon a time" and how it helped shape the good parts of being an American. I would posit that such is the case with the Second Amendment and 1792 Militia Acts and its successors ... now great legal arguments possibly can made whether or not this definition of who and what is the "militia" is in the United States, but what often is overlooked is how it fostered the sense of community in each and every neighborhood, village, town, city, state. It is something that is sorely missed these days when we all seemed wired together only by our smart phones.
In addition, I would point out that the federal law required every able-bodied citizen (after a host of revisions to the original act) to arm themselves with a military compatible weapon - which folks, happens to include the infamous self-loading rifles that fire one shot every time you pull the trigger which have been given ignomimous label of being "assault rifles." Not only that, the citizen was obligated to provide for himself a basic load of ammunition of military caliber - which when I was in was carrying 220 rounds of 5.56 mm NATO or Remington .233 caliber bullets, or 120 rounds of 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester bullets, as well as a rucksack and a bayonet. All good light infantry gear. If you carried a pistol it was either 21 rounds of .45 caliber ACP for an M1911 or 45 rounds for a M9 9mm
To be specific: The second Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
Now, I hope you understand that the Second Amendment indeed apply to individuals in their role in the "non-organized" militia. Of course we can have a great debate now whether later versions have made that designation superfluous, but I fall in the school that it hasn't ... but like a host of other laws, it merely is no longer enforced ... much less with any rigor. I could go on, which would drive the current crop of civilian militia folks nuts, but I will leave all that for now ... you read, research and decide for yourself ... and I hope you come down on the side of individual liberty and freedom and the role we all owe to our community, state and nation.