The interpretation of the Second Amendment has long since concerned me. I see both sides, although I have never stopped believing that all Americans should be armed. My concern stems more deeply from the fact that we have a small 'representative' body of people that make decisions for the rest of us, and recent bills have demonstrated that the 'people' are largely considered ignorant and unable to decide or be responsible for themselves.

The court system is run very much like parenting, or at least my parenting. If a situation/request/behavior is new, discussion is had, arguments are made on both sides, and the judge (me) makes a ruling. Granted, the judge and the defendant (sometimes the plaintiff) are typically the same person in these cases, but the process is very similar. The decision is final without the admittance of new and significant evidence or testimony. Precedence also comes to play. 'No, we can't do that my dad will say no because once...' There are many issues in our society that I believe must necessarily be discussed and rediscussed. Not because the current legal interpretation is wrong, but because I don't want the importance of the concept to be lost (e.g. abortion rights).

Personal armed defense I don't see as one of those issues, though. I have friends that tell me I should not stop on the road to help a stranded motorist or pick up a hitchhiker. The reasoning is that they could be a whacko and kill or hurt me. My answer is always the same: I will not stop doing what I think is right because their are bastards out there that would turn my good nature to their advantage. I have yet to hear an argument against being personally armed that I can accept myself.

At any rate, the Second Amendment is very particular (in my opinion) regarding its intent: State Militia to maintain an internal defense if the government goes overboard. Interestingly, I think the current and recent governmental establishments would find this frightening, and do what they could to curtail such an organization. I read one treatise on the subject that said that the founding fathers were short sighted given the technology and sociology of today. I think he was right, but not for any of the same reasons. He felt that his analysis demonstrated the need for the removal of the Second Amendment. I disagree. If it were not for the automatic jail time, I would call the local law enforcement, tell them I am in fear for my life, and see how long it takes them to get to my house. I'd lay money on the probability that I would have been ripped off and injured before they got here. They might catch the person on their way given the one-way access to my house, but the damage would have been done.

I am puzzled by why the Founding Fathers did not consider personal security issue. It was brought up at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, but was denied by the majority. I don't know why. Everyone at the time was packing except for the Amish. Maybe that's why Pennsylvania turned it down. Maybe they were just worried it would cause conflict and delays with what the other colonies had voted on.

I have been unable to find a reference on-line, but someone I trust and was alive at the time told me that Khushchev said that America could never be taken because everyone was packin'. Of course, I am paraphrasing, but I can see the thought being accurate. A recent poll of criminals in prison indicated that their only fear when committing a crime was that the other person involved was packing.

I believe I have the right to carry. I know there are 'bad' people out there doing it, and they have to be monitored, but I just want to handle my own situation. I don't want to rely on law enforcement for encounters that I should be able to handle. That just costs us money, and we can't afford the police force that can handle it, nor do we want to. I don't think the county sheriff should have the ability to say I can't carry without a reason, but that is the way it is in California. I could drop a weapon in the seat next to me in the car with complete visibility, and technically that is not illegal, although I recognize that it would result in me spread eagle on the side of the car if I were pulled over for even the mildest driving infraction.

The fact is I have weapons at my disposal all the time. I have four cords of wood, I'm sure I have a substantial stick there that I could wield with malicious intent. I have hammers, screwdrivers, a nail gun, chickens... Ok, I don't know how I could use the chickens in an attack, but they can be brutal if raised away from people. Ask my sister. Anyway, every time I have to drive to work, I am in a potential weapon. I grant you that the hand gun or rifle only serves the purpose of killing, but I know that I could create a weapon myself if I wanted to. What is the point in taking weapons from citizens that can manage it on their own? Criminals will find it anyway, it is not hard to find if you want it... However, if you enable the population to arm themselves, it creates risk for the criminals. Isn't that a deterrent? Incarceration is obviously not a deterrent.

I have more, but am feeling frustrated after watching Sotomayor's thoughts on the subject. I respect her comments that indicate a separation from her personal opinions from legal interpretation. However, the whole thing seems scary to me. She admitted that the thought of personal protection has never been brought up before the court, although I thought the recent D.C. ruling was about that, but apparently there were other circumstances involved.

Please, government, get out of my life... Yes, I'll be packing as soon as California lets me... I just don't want us to get to the point where the only thing we have is the right to bare arms...


Clean Harry...