It’s hard to diagnose things without being able to actually see
them…No, the hammer lever “nub” shouldn’t go all the way through the hammer, but if it’s worn enough that it won’t stay in with the hammer in the gun, then it may be a good idea to try to find a replacement.

The frame should prevent the lever from falling out once the hammer is in the gun, so if the problem is just getting it in, try dabbing some gun grease on the nub to hold it together long enough to get it into the frame. If the lever falls out while the hammer is in the gun, there’s definitely a problem, either with the lever, the hammer or the frame.

Hope that helped.

What is “speech?” Does it include TV? Radio? Cable TV? the Internet? What is a Religion and how free should it be? Should practitioners of Voodoo be permitted to sacrifice live chickens? Should Mormons or Muslims be permitted multiple wives? Should Christians be allowed to pray in public venues?

What is the “Press”? Does it include only full time employees of established, commercial media outlets? Does it include bloggers in their pajamas? Does it include “free lance” journalists who sell their stories to the highest bidder?

What is “freedom of the press?” Does that mean the press can say whatever they want whenever they want, even if patently untrue? What about libel? Should the press be shielded from consequences when they refuse to reveal “confidential sources” who leak sensitive personal information on crime victims or information that affects national security or endangers the lives of our military members?

Ambiguity can ALWAYS be found if you look hard enough.

If you are really confused about what the founders meant by “arms” then I suggest you study some history, read their writings and public speeches. They make it pretty clear what they meant if you look into it.

The founders clearly believed that any particular member of “the people” should be able to be as well armed as any particular member of the military.

BTW: The first amendment is actually more restrictive than the second. The first amendment clearly says “congress shall pass no law respecting…” The first amendment protections only protect against infringement by the federal government (this was changed by the 14th amendment, but at the time the bill of rights was written…)

The Second Amendment reads “the right…shall not be infringed”. It doesn’t limit the restriction only to the Federal Government, it specifies that the right enumerated shall not be infringed By Anyone.

Now, unless your contention is that the founding fathers simply weren’t smart enough to understand the implications of the difference in wording, the importance of the second amendment to them is clear.

There really is no ambiguity in the Second Amendment. It’s very clearly and forcefully stated. The right of Americans to arm themselves equivalent to the typical military member of the day Shall Not Be Infringed. How can any other interpretation be reconciled with the clear statement that the intent of the amendment was to ensure the effectiveness of the militia’s ability to secure our free state?

I think Bob S. is spot on with his multiple reasons for the shortage.

Our own blog site
http://caramoan.ph