Gun Owners

[KC0VWU]

How many of you are members of well regulated militias?

[PA5COR]

In The Netherlands we as gunowners and member of shooting clubs are considered as such, material to be used in time of trouble.

[KL1ZB]

How many of you are members of well regulated militias?

You going to have to be a little more specific...

What type of "well regulated militias" are you talking about?

Local, State, Regional?

How do you define "well regulated"

Are you talking "regulated" as in "regulation", pertaining to law or regulated as in internally "regulated" as in well drilled and organized?

[K8ERV]

material to be used in time of trouble.

Don't wait too long, the world is already in trouble, and needs all the help it can get--

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[ad5mb]

Well regulated militia:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1228/557822856_4f7bb9c5db.jpg

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.

You don't have to be a member of one. They just need to exist.

[kf4vgx]

Ever notice when watching a group of duck hunters ,if one says " DUCK" !

Several hit the ground and the others start shooting !;)

[W5GA]

By federal law, every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 is a part of the unorganized militia. Below is taken from 10USC

"Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia."

[W4BD]

"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."

Well the above statement says it all to me. Any time I have to jump through hoops or ask to use my RIGHT then it has been INFRINGED. We go back and look at history and how the common people were treated in Europe and especially England back before the USA was formed then you can see why the BILL OF RIGHTS was made. An UNARMED CITIZEN is at the mercy of who ever is armed. An ARMED CITIZEN then can protect and enforce the rest of the BILL OF RIGHTS along with himself and his property and family.

Gun Control is not being used to protect you from me or me from you it's being used to DISARM us so that the POWERS TO BE can do what they want with us. Just look at past history. When the NAZI'S started their thing with the "Undersirables" the first thing they did was GUN CONTROL. Like I say just go back and look at past history GUN CONTROL has been used to keep the people at the mercy of the Powers to be or before guns they contolled the SWORD and BOWS.

PAST HISTORY always REPEATS.

73's

[kc9jwa]

Yep this worlds in trouble, Guns wont even be enought to take all the trouble out maybe need mmm alot more, alot bigger, and badder:eek:.

[N0KLT]

Why do you ask? Or more to the point, why do you figure it is any of your business?

[kc7jty]

In The Netherlands we as gunowners and member of shooting clubs are considered as such, material to be used in time of trouble.
Lucky you, in the USA gun owners are considered the enemy by some 50% of the population. :eek:

[KL1ZB]

Ever notice when watching a group of duck hunters ,if one says " DUCK" !

Several hit the ground and the others start shooting !;)


No, No, No listen closer next time they aren't saying "DUCK" they/he is yelling "DICK" as in Dick Cheney. The are practicing for the day they need to protect them selfs from him.

[W7WV]

Not a joiner.
I have my own ideas and I am a survivor so far.

[nq6v]

www.badcopnews.com

When guns are outlawed, guess who will be protecting us?

[kc7jty]

When guns are outlawed, guess who will be protecting us?
George W Bush?

[K8ERV]

www.badcopnews.com

When guns are outlawed, guess who will be protecting us?

My dog will be there when needed---

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[K1VSK]

Touchy subject among the gun crowd - don't want to threaten their gun-totten ego with such details as taking 10USC out of context to confuse the definition of militia. If it wasn't for their guns, they'd all be unable to protect themselves from the monsters hiding under their bed... :)

[K4GUN]

Do you really want to learn something or is this nothing more than a troll topic? If you're sincere in learning what the meaning of the militia is and what significance it has in the 2nd Amendment, I strongly suggest reading the Heller decision. Never will you find a more detailed and precise description of the meaning and intent of the amendment. Its actually stunning in its clarity

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Here's the fun part. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on this case in March. The wording of the lower court is so strong, clear and well documented that it will be nearly impossible to take apart. Pardon the pun, but its a bullet proof argument of the original intent and the individual nature of the amendment.

Get back to me when you're done reading it. I really want you all to understand what has been said. I will then point out what I consider the most shocking part of this decision. There's something in there that is flat out jaw dropping, even to me. As you're reading, pay close attention to the discussion about the Miller decision.

[K1VSK]

I am quite familiar with the petition's language to which you refer having read it almost one year ago. The two fundamental issues raised therein are states' rights and the s0-called comma clause within the Amendment, neither of which are new to the Court or clear in their interpretation; hence the pending Court hearing.
Neither of us can speak on behalf of the Court so the matter is as yet undecided despite what either of us may think.
Notwithstanding the legal issues raised, there are two sides to any debate which clearly isn't going to be resolved here.
My only point was to perhaps not so directly say that it certainly sounds as though the gun possessing advocates seem to over-react anytime someone raises the issue and that reaction begs the question - why?
Dare I say they are never as vocal or animated when it comes to virtually any other issue as they are when someone questions their "right" to own guns.

[nx6d]

My only point was to perhaps not so directly say that it certainly sounds as though the gun possessing advocates seem to over-react anytime someone raises the issue and that reaction begs the question - why?
Dare I say they are never as vocal or animated when it comes to virtually any other issue as they are when someone questions their "right" to own guns.

Absolutely. The gun crowd goes berserk anytime someone mentions ANY kind of gun control.

It's pathological weirdness, which I don't get.

All you advocates, spare us the "safety" and "protection" arguments. It IS all about power, and the gun gives you the power you crave.

Pretty sick if you ask me...

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

[K4GUN]

K1VSK - The "why" is a twofold thing. First is that many are of the opinion that no other right can exist without the the protection of the 2nd. Without the threat of an armed citizenry, it becomes a lot easier to remove protections to speech, religion and search.

The other "why" is that what you considerable "reasonable" gun control, many gun owners find repressive. For instance, the 1994 "assault weapon" ban had a lot of problems. One of them was the 10 round magazine limit. Do you realize how many pistols come with 15 to 17 rounders? They come with that size because that's how many fit in the grip. An arbitrary limit meant wasted space and gun owners getting less than what they paid for. It created real problems for the competitive shooting sports and if that law had not sunset in 2004, entire classes of shooters would probably leave the hobby.

To you, a 10 round limit may sound reasonable. It may sound like a compromise to you. To us, it meant a dramatic change to shooting sports, wasted money and weight and limited effectivness of defensive arms.

We also knew that the law would have no effect on crime and would have unintended consequences. The magazine limit meant that high capacity, full size 9mm pistols went out of fashion but smaller and more concealable 9mms were in. Also in were big .45 caliber guns which never had capacities beyond 8 rounds but with a much more effective bullet. So a law to limit magazine capacities ended up promoting smaller and more concealable guns and larger and more deadly calibers.

What happens when a law doesn't work? Do they drop the law? Nope. They pass more laws in order to "correct" the old one. When these "moderate" and "reasonable" laws fail to do anything, the fear is that more laws will be passed which are not so moderate or reasonable.

Does that answer your question? I'm really trying to give a genuine answer because you seem sincere in attempting to learn more. I hope I didn't misjudge that.

[N3ATS]

How many of you are members of well regulated militias?

I am a Lone Wolf. I own firearms to protect my home and family from criminals, no-knock searches, theft by force, an other reasons.

[PA5COR]

Quote:
All you advocates, spare us the "safety" and "protection" arguments. It IS all about power, and the gun gives you the power you crave.

Pretty sick if you ask me...

Unquote.

I didn't ask you anything....
I'm 7 feet tall, and handled guns professionally and privately all my life.
As sportshooter i use the tools (guns) for competitive shooting in my club, and other clubs.

Maybe you compensate you shotcommings by driving an very big truck, no that i care, that is your right to do.
Or you drink your problems away, i don't drink alcoholic beverages, my choice.
Start trying to see things from 2 sides, your rant against gunowners shows you are the same, just on the other side of the fence diging in your heels with "your" truths.

You look the same way as the anti abortion group who kill people to make their point...

[n2ize]

"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."

Well the above statement says it all to me. Any time I have to jump through hoops or ask to use my RIGHT then it has been INFRINGED. We go back and look at history and how the common people were treated in Europe and especially England back before the USA was formed then you can see why the BILL OF RIGHTS was made. An UNARMED CITIZEN is at the mercy of who ever is armed. An ARMED CITIZEN then can protect and enforce the rest of the BILL OF RIGHTS along with himself and his property and family.


Not nessesarilly. If you are implying that the government is rogue, evil, armed and is going after it's people and you are armed and the government is armed in such case you are both armed and you are probably more vulnerable or just as vulnerable as those unarmed. . Something tells me that your guns would come off looking like toy pop guns next to the governments armaments if... such a situation ever arose where the government was "coming after you".


Gun Control is not being used to protect you from me or me from you it's being used to DISARM us so that the POWERS TO BE can do what they want with us. Just look at past history. When the NAZI'S started their thing with the "Undersirables" the first thing they did was GUN CONTROL. Like I say just go back and look at past history GUN CONTROL has been used to keep the people at the mercy of the Powers to be or before guns they contolled the SWORD and BOWS.



And the vast majority of people in Germany went along with it and joined Hitler's military, Those who were persecuted, some of whom were armed, were no mach for the German governments armaments and were rounded up just as readilly as their unarmed counterparts.

[K4GUN]

All you advocates, spare us the "safety" and "protection" arguments. It IS all about power, and the gun gives you the power you crave.

Pretty sick if you ask me...



People who have power seem to really concern you. You seem genuinely upset, nearly to the point of panic. Have you ever thought seriously about what that means?

[K1VSK]

K4GUN
I take it your suffix is no accident?

I'm not sure where I used the word "reasonable" but certainly didn't intend to as it's a very subjective term. Also, I think you provided a thoughtful albeit unresponsive answer yo my question "why?" as I intended it to it relate to the reaction observed when anyone questions gun owners rights. The question relates only to the reaction, not the substance of the argument. I still have no clear reason why some react as they do.

Regardless, I believe you have rational arguments and I am frankly ambivalent on the whole matter as I see some other stuff to be far more important to our rights, independence and economy than whether or not I get to own a gun which many of my friends use only to shoot little animals. I guess that could be considered target practice...

[K4GUN]

So are you saying the US Government is just a rogue nazi regime that must be overthrown ?

You read his post and still can ask that question? That is obviously not what was being communicated. What was being said is that while our current situation is vastly different than it was 200 years ago, history teaches that governments that wish to impose repression make gun control their first priority. Without control of the means of defense, totalitarian governments can't exist. Our government is not in control of individual arms and that is as it should be. Giving them that control removes a barrier to unforseen future tyrants.

[K1VSK]

I am a Lone Wolf. I own firearms to protect my home and family from criminals, no-knock searches, theft by force, an other reasons.

I apologize ahead of time if this sounds sarcastic as it isn't intended as such but I have a question regarding your statement -
as the first three reasons are redundant (criminals, no-knock searches and theft) in that they are invasions of some sort, what is included in your last reason - "other reasons"?

[K4GUN]

K4GUN
I take it your suffix is no accident?

I'm not sure where I used the word "reasonable" but certainly didn't intend to as it's a very subjective term. Also, I think you provided a thoughtful albeit unresponsive answer yo my question "why?" as I intended it to it relate to the reaction observed when anyone questions gun owners rights. The question relates only to the reaction, not the substance of the argument. I still have no clear reason why some react as they do.

Regardless, I believe you have rational arguments and I am frankly ambivalent on the whole matter as I see some other stuff to be far more important to our rights, independence and economy than whether or not I get to own a gun which many of my friends use only to shoot little animals. I guess that could be considered target practice...

Reasonable and thoughtful discussions are rare here and I appreciate your approach on this topic. I wasn't implying that you used the word "reasonable". I was attempting to illustrate why many gun owners are so touchy about the subject. The word "reasonable" is often used by those who may have good intentions, but it never sounds reasonalbe to us. It usually sounds distinctly unreasonable for a variety of reasons. If nothing else, we know that the "reasonable" law will do no good and that the next step will be far less reasonable.

Another thing that really sticks in my craw is the concept that restricting my freedom will improve public safety. I am not the problem. I have never robbed a bank, gone on a drive-by shooting nor pulled a gun during an argument. Yet when criminals do these things, my hobby, recreation and home defense plans are affected due to reactionary legislation.

It would be the same as putting a speed governor on your car or banning you from drinking alcohol. You've never driven recklessly. You've never killed anybody with your car. Why should you pay the price for the actions of others? Its the same with guns and gun owners. Most of us take the responsibility very seriously and it really irks us to be punished for the actions of others.

I hope that helps.

[KE7JFA]

Quote:
All you advocates, spare us the "safety" and "protection" arguments. It IS all about power, and the gun gives you the power you crave.

Pretty sick if you ask me...



How dare you make a bold statement like that to law obiding citizens that work hard for their money, put a roof over their families head and bread on the table.

You know nothing about people and their reasons to own firearms.

"Power you crave"? I guess that goes the same that buy H3's, Ford Powerstrokes and other gigantic gas guzzling vehicles.
Why do they buy those? Do you think they care about mileage or "the power they crave"?

[K1VSK]

Reasonable and thoughtful discussions are rare here and I appreciate your approach on this topic. I wasn't implying that you used the word "reasonable". I was attempting to illustrate why many gun owners are so touchy about the subject. The word "reasonable" is often used by those who may have good intentions, but it never sounds reasonalbe to us. It usually sounds distinctly unreasonable for a variety of reasons. If nothing else, we know that the "reasonable" law will do no good and that the next step will be far less reasonable.

Another thing that really sticks in my craw is the concept that restricting my freedom will improve public safety. I am not the problem. I have never robbed a bank, gone on a drive-by shooting nor pulled a gun during an argument. Yet when criminals do these things, my hobby, recreation and home defense plans are affected due to reactionary legislation.

It would be the same as putting a speed governor on your car or banning you from drinking alcohol. You've never driven recklessly. You've never killed anybody with your car. Why should you pay the price for the actions of others? Its the same with guns and gun owners. Most of us take the responsibility very seriously and it really irks us to be punished for the actions of others.

I hope that helps.

You do make a good argument.
All good points but we already are punished for the actions of others when it comes to insurance rates, health care costs, environmental restrictions, worker protection standards, the current income tax structure, etc... all of which were/are promulgated for austensibly good and intelligent reasons by well-meaning people. Of all of those restrictions or encumbrances on our lives (or as some would say, our freedom), I personally find gun control to be insignificant by comparison.

As the old saying goes, it's all about perception.

I just can't help finding it funny how some rationalize their reason(s) based on the paranoia of nazi government-style power, rogue nation dictators, American government totalitarianism (sp?), and the often used need-to-defend-myself argument - I assume these folk are all already karate Black Belts....

Have a good day. I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.

[N8UZE]

the often used need-to-defend-myself argument - I assume these folk are all already karate Black Belts....

Have a good day. I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.

Funny that you should mention that. When I was in my early 20s, I sometimes went through places at night such as underground parking garages when I went to night classes. Often no one was around if I should have needed help. I didn't want to go to the hassle of getting a gun, permit, etc and I didn't really care for guns anyway. Since I was young and healthy, I decided to take martial arts so that I might have a chance if attacked. I eventually earned a third degree black belt. Granted it was no guarantee but at least it could change the odds a bit. I wasn't worried about being immediately shot down as females are often kept alive for awhile for sexual assaults before being killed. That might have given me the chance to defend myself.

Now I'm older and not so healthy. Random violence seems to be increasing including attacks on mature and elderly people. Police response times seem to be becoming poorer all the time. If I end up living alone, I will at least think deeply on the subject of guns. Depending on my circumstances and the results of that consideration, I may very well end up taking a gun safety course, proficiency training, studying which type of gun would be most suitable for my lifestyle at that time and purchase such a weapon.

[PA5COR]

LOL

I quoted someone else :D
I am the law abiding hard working citizen that has several handguns and Carbine.

If you want an gun and are as me, go ahead, learngun safety and have fun.
If you don't want an gun, fine, don't go pestering me about it ;)

73,

Cor




How dare you make a bold statement like that to law obiding citizens that work hard for their money, put a roof over their families head and bread on the table.

You know nothing about people and their reasons to own firearms.

"Power you crave"? I guess that goes the same that buy H3's, Ford Powerstrokes and other gigantic gas guzzling vehicles.
Why do they buy those do you think they care about mileage or "the power they crave"?

[n2ize]

K1VSK - The "why" is a twofold thing. First is that many are of the opinion that no other right can exist without the the protection of the 2nd. Without the threat of an armed citizenry, it becomes a lot easier to remove protections to speech, religion and search.

The other "why" is that what you considerable "reasonable" gun control, many gun owners find repressive. For instance, the 1994 "assault weapon" ban had a lot of problems. One of them was the 10 round magazine limit. Do you realize how many pistols come with 15 to 17 rounders? They come with that size because that's how many fit in the grip. An arbitrary limit meant wasted space and gun owners getting less than what they paid for. It created real problems for the competitive shooting sports and if that law had not sunset in 2004, entire classes of shooters would probably leave the hobby.

To you, a 10 round limit may sound reasonable. It may sound like a compromise to you. To us, it meant a dramatic change to shooting sports, wasted money and weight and limited effectivness of defensive arms.

We also knew that the law would have no effect on crime and would have unintended consequences. The magazine limit meant that high capacity, full size 9mm pistols went out of fashion but smaller and more concealable 9mms were in. Also in were big .45 caliber guns which never had capacities beyond 8 rounds but with a much more effective bullet. So a law to limit magazine capacities ended up promoting smaller and more concealable guns and larger and more deadly calibers.

.

Since more guns and less gun control make an area safer then how do you explain this...

http://mysite.verizon.net/n2izeonline/crime.htm

How is is possible that a state with such a high population, major urban centers, and tight gun control can have a considerably violent lower crime rate, a larger drop off in crime, and a lower crime rate at present than a state with similar demographics and much less gun control ?

[K4GUN]

You do make a good argument.
All good points but we already are punished for the actions of others when it comes to insurance rates, health care costs, environmental restrictions, worker protection standards, the current income tax structure, etc... all of which were/are promulgated for austensibly good and intelligent reasons by well-meaning people. Of all of those restrictions or encumbrances on our lives (or as some would say, our freedom), I personally find gun control to be insignificant by comparison.

As the old saying goes, it's all about perception.

I just can't help finding it funny how some rationalize their reason(s) based on the paranoia of nazi government-style power, rogue nation dictators, American government totalitarianism (sp?), and the often used need-to-defend-myself argument - I assume these folk are all already karate Black Belts....

Have a good day. I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.

I never mind agreeing to disagree, as long as its on agreeable terms. I appreciate your respectful disagreement. I agree that there are some guys who have a hard time putting into words, exactly what they mean. Some might not even really understand what they are saying.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun. I don't have just one reason. I have a variety of them. From hunting to competitive shooting to home defense to concealed carry, they are all part of why I choose to own guns. One reason also has to do with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and that is a hedge against tyranny. That doesn't mean I think we are on the verge of it. It means that I don't rule it out as a possible future. Just because we can't imagine it happening, doesn't mean it can't. Until 1941, World War 1 was called the "War to End All Wars" because it was inconceivable that anybody could go to war again. War was thought to be as unlikely as a US dictatorship is now. Yet it happened and many people were unprepared to fight.

Taken in isolation, that's likely not a big enough reason for the training and money I have invested. Its part of the larger picture.

[n2ize]

Funny that you should mention that. When I was in my early 20s, I sometimes went through places at night such as underground parking garages when I went to night classes. Often no one was around if I should have needed help. I didn't want to go to the hassle of getting a gun, permit, etc and I didn't really care for guns anyway. Since I was young and healthy, I decided to take martial arts so that I might have a chance if attacked. I eventually earned a third degree black belt. Granted it was no guarantee but at least it could change the odds a bit. I wasn't worried about being immediately shot down as females are often kept alive for awhile for sexual assaults before being killed. That might have given me the chance to defend myself.

Now I'm older and not so healthy. Random violence seems to be increasing including attacks on mature and elderly people. Police response times seem to be becoming poorer all the time. If I end up living alone, I will at least think deeply on the subject of guns. Depending on my circumstances and the results of that consideration, I may very well end up taking a gun safety course, proficiency training, studying which type of gun would be most suitable for my lifestyle at that time and purchase such a weapon.

Years ago I used to hang out in the South bronx with firiends I had who lived there. We used to go to bars down there and just hang out and stuff. Back in thre 1970's and 870'sthe South bronx was more like fronteirland. It was heavilly crime and drug ridden. I was attacked on two occaisions. The first attack the guy flew out of the shadows and jumped me. After we crashed to the sidewalk I managed to punch his face and he ran.It was only then I realized he tried to stab me in the back but his knife broke. A couple days later I came back looking for the guy but people in the neighborhood told me he was a crazy guy (as in bone-fide nutcase) and was arrested for trying to attack someone else. Another time I was walking to a bar to meet a few friends. About 2 blocks from the bar these guys jumped me out of nowhere. One pinned me while the other jabbed and cut my arm with a broken bottle. Suddenly a couple friends happened to spot what was happening and broke the thing up before it got really bad.

In neither case would a gun have helped me. Most of these incidents come like a bat outta hell, they cut you down before you know what hit you. If you have a gun they'll often steal it. Sometimes they'll even target people who they know are packin. Another reason why I never carried a gun, even in the worst and roughest neighborhoods.

[K4GUN]

Since more guns and less gun control make an area safer then how do you explain this...

http://mysite.verizon.net/n2izeonline/crime.htm

How is is possible that a state with such a high population, major urban centers, and tight gun control can have a considerably violent lower crime rate, a larger drop off in crime, and a lower crime rate at present than a state with similar demographics and much less gun control ?

I didn't say that. You did. I can't access your site from work (damn filters!), but I'll assume there are selected statistics from a couple of urban areas. I further assume that no consideration is given to differences in law enforcement, government, corruption, blight or another other than gun laws. I've said it before and I'll say it again that correlation does not imply causation. I will also reiterate that selecting statistics is just a shell game that both sides can play. There is far more to life than statistics.

[K4GUN]

In neither case would a gun have helped me. Most of these incidents come like a bat outta hell, they cut you down before you know what hit you. If you have a gun they'll often steal it. Sometimes they'll even target people who they know are packin. Another reason why I never carried a gun, even in the worst and roughest neighborhoods.


Anything to back up those statements other than a guess on your part?

[KE7JFA]

LOL

I quoted someone else :D
I am the law abiding hard working citizen that has several handguns and Carbine.

If you want an gun and are as me, go ahead, learngun safety and have fun.
If you don't want an gun, fine, don't go pestering me about it ;)

73,

Cor

Sorry. Not meant to offend. I did not know you were quoting someone.

I was just fired up when I saw it and was ready to challenge someone to a duel! :D

[w2amr]

Nothing more entertaining than listening to a gun nut who thinks somebody is going to take his bang bang away from him. :D

[kc2orw]

Nothing more entertaining than listening to a gun nut who thinks somebody is going to take his bang bang away from him. :D
Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot :D

[W6GQ]

Nothing more entertaining than listening to a gun nut who thinks somebody is going to take his bang bang away from him. :D

YEAH, Like listening to an old fart whine they took code away :D

[w2amr]

YEAH, Like listening to an old fart whine they took code away :D

I'll give up my key when they pry my cold dead finger from around it. :mad:

[n2ize]

I didn't say that. You did. I can't access your site from work (damn filters!), but I'll assume there are selected statistics from a couple of urban areas. I further assume that no consideration is given to differences in law enforcement, government, corruption, blight or another other than gun laws. I've said it before and I'll say it again that correlation does not imply causation. I will also reiterate that selecting statistics is just a shell game that both sides can play. There is far more to life than statistics.

You made my point.

[n2ize]

Happiness is a warm gun, bang bang shoot shoot :D

I'm surprised that the angelof death has not responded to this gun beautification.

[kc2orw]

I'm surprised that the angelof death has not responded to this gun beautification.
Yeah I thought it would make them all warm and fuzzy too :D

[nx6d]

People who have power seem to really concern you. You seem genuinely upset, nearly to the point of panic. Have you ever thought seriously about what that means?

Give me a break, gun guy, and spare me your dimestore psychology. I'm not the one constantly wrapped around the axle because there's a MINUTE chance that someone might take away my precious popguns. You're the one with the problem. I also don't have "gun" in my ham radio callsign. That's a sure sign of instability right there.

You babble about polite discourse then launch a bomb like your last post. You can spare us the speeches about civility from now on.

I'll say it aagin. Guns are about power. Period. When power is entrusted to some of the lunatics on the gun fringe, there's a real societal problem. I think people who are obsessed with guns have a real problem. Period. You're one of them.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

[nx6d]

I'll give up my key when they pry my cold dead finger from around it. :mad:


Wait a minute. This isn't code/no code. Don't change the subject, George...

Know anyone on the West Coast that can put my 5/7 diesel motor back together?:D:D

[kk7ue]

No, not irate leftists, but do you remember the old Mad magazine madlibs? Take Daves statement and insert your favorite word and see what you can come up with.

I'll say it again. (fill in) are about power. Period. When power is entrusted to some of the lunatics on the (fill in) fringe, there's a real societal problem. I think people who are obsessed with (fill in) have a real problem. Period. You're one of them.

Dave NX6D



Amazing what you can come up with isnt it? :rolleyes:

[N8UZE]

Years ago I used to hang out in the South bronx with firiends I had who lived there. We used to go to bars down there and just hang out and stuff. Back in thre 1970's and 870'sthe South bronx was more like fronteirland. It was heavilly crime and drug ridden. I was attacked on two occaisions. The first attack the guy flew out of the shadows and jumped me. After we crashed to the sidewalk I managed to punch his face and he ran.It was only then I realized he tried to stab me in the back but his knife broke. A couple days later I came back looking for the guy but people in the neighborhood told me he was a crazy guy (as in bone-fide nutcase) and was arrested for trying to attack someone else. Another time I was walking to a bar to meet a few friends. About 2 blocks from the bar these guys jumped me out of nowhere. One pinned me while the other jabbed and cut my arm with a broken bottle. Suddenly a couple friends happened to spot what was happening and broke the thing up before it got really bad.

In neither case would a gun have helped me. Most of these incidents come like a bat outta hell, they cut you down before you know what hit you. If you have a gun they'll often steal it. Sometimes they'll even target people who they know are packin. Another reason why I never carried a gun, even in the worst and roughest neighborhoods.

I doubt that I will be entering bars and/or rough neighborhoods from this point forward. The bigger concern would be home invasion should I end up living alone. As I said, I would look at it from all angles. Once I reach the point where I would be unable to fight off an attacker, some other means of defense will be considered.

[n2ize]

Guns Sachmo !!

[N3ATS]

I apologize ahead of time if this sounds sarcastic as it isn't intended as such but I have a question regarding your statement -
as the first three reasons are redundant (criminals, no-knock searches and theft) in that they are invasions of some sort, what is included in your last reason - "other reasons"?

Why, hunting, of course. Target practice. Basically uses of lesser importance than those previously mentioned.

[n0ov]

Who'da thunk? Guns best crime deterrent after all
'People who say bad guys will stop because of 1 more law are full of it'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57641

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation

Funny, you always hear about some butt head shooting up a mall or school but never about things like this. I guess good news, is no news....

[w2amr]

Give me a break, gun guy, and spare me your dimestore psychology. I'm not the one constantly wrapped around the axle because there's a MINUTE chance that someone might take away my precious popguns. You're the one with the problem. I also don't have "gun" in my ham radio callsign. That's a sure sign of instability right there.

You babble about polite discourse then launch a bomb like your last post. You can spare us the speeches about civility from now on.

I'll say it aagin. Guns are about power. Period. When power is entrusted to some of the lunatics on the gun fringe, there's a real societal problem. I think people who are obsessed with guns have a real problem. Period. You're one of them.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

I guess we are not REAL men Dave. :D
Like this gentleman

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/Jay_G/IMG_6553.jpg

[KL1ZB]

Who'da thunk? Guns best crime deterrent after all
'People who say bad guys will stop because of 1 more law are full of it'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57641



Funny, you always hear about some butt head shooting up a mall or school but never about things like this. I guess good news, is no news....

The anti's have no problems with listing the gun death of a rapist that was shot and killed in the act in their statistics of why guns need to be banned.

Thats pretty sick.

[KL1ZB]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/Jay_G/IMG_6553.jpg[/QUOTE]

Well lets see here, he is wearing hearing protection and safety glasses. He is pointing the gun in a safe direction and doesn't have his finger on the trigger...

That is a hell of a lot better then Gun grabber Anti Dianne Fineswine!
http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf1.jpg
http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/images/dftf2.jpg

[KE7JFA]

And fineswine is so stupid, when that picture was taken, she was quoted saying while holding the AK "You just spray and shoot".

[N8UZE]

And fineswine is so stupid, when that picture was taken, she was quoted saying while holding the AK "You just spray and shoot".

I would want a very thick concrete wall between me and her. Even I know that the way she is holding it is potentially dangerous.

[PA5COR]

Just another person that knows didly squat about weapons or weapon safety claims to be an expert in them.

Oh well, at least it gave her 15 minutes of fame...

[K1VSK]

Why, hunting, of course. Target practice. Basically uses of lesser importance than those previously mentioned.


My perception of "hunting" is sneaking up on animals to shoot them, often times wounding them to suffer a slow, painful death.

[N3ATS]

My perception of "hunting" is sneaking up on animals to shoot them, often times wounding them to suffer a slow, painful death.

Then you're a poor shot. Go back to the range.

[n8yx]

Then you're a poor shot. Go back to the range.

He can't (or won't). 'Bad Things' hang out there... :eek:

[K1VSK]

The attraction must be that both animals and targets don't shoot back.

[W5GA]

The attraction must be that both animals and targets don't shoot back.

Wrong, the attraction is food.

[K1VSK]

Subsistence hunting or do they eat targets?

[NL7W]

Wrong, the attraction is food.

That's why Alaska presently has an Aerial Wolf Hunting Program -- to begin to re-balance the the moose/predator populations. The moose population in many parts of Alaska are severely depressed due to predation -- wolves (12,000 strong) and bears.

Active game and predator management has been and will remain successful in our State. Unless the environmentalist wackos are willing to capture thousands of Alaskan wolves, and relocate them to the lower-48, leave us alone. Despite the lesser-48's wrong-headed environmentalist intrusion into Alaskans' lives with chastising commercials and lawsuits, we know what we're doing in our state and environment. We have a outstanding track record proving our fish, game, and environmental management practices.

73.

[W5GA]

Subsistence hunting or do they eat targets?

You can only eat the targets if you have a glass of very cold milk to go with them. :) Without that, they stick to the roof of your mouth.

[w2amr]

My perception of "hunting" is sneaking up on animals to shoot them, often times wounding them to suffer a slow, painful death.

What are you , one of them bunny hugging half men? God put animals on earth so that men and women can entertain themselves by killing them and making them suffer. It's the American way. Guns, guts, and God. Long live the NRA ! :p

[NL7W]

What are you , one of them bunny hugging half men? God put animals on earth so that men and women can entertain themselves by killing them and making them suffer. It's the American way. Guns, guts, and God. Long live the NRA ! :p

You finally got something right.

[w2amr]

You finally got something right.
I get lots of things right. Gotta go now, there are a couple of neighborhood cats who need my help, They need to be shot. Don't worry, it's for their own good.

[NL7W]

I get lots of things right. Gotta go now, there are a couple of neighborhood cats who need my help, They need to be shot. Don't worry, it's for their own good.

Don't forget about gun control... cats have nine lives. Some of those lives, I'm sure, have been spent already, but several will remain. That will require gun control -- being able to deliver repeated kill shots.

Up here... the "unfortunate" human targets of Alaska's predators are just plain lucky to get off one good kill shot... we've gotta be good. ;)

Chow, Baby.

[K8ERV]

I sneak up on my food at City Market---

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[K1VSK]

It's becoming clearer - the real problem here is the effect of the elevated blood lead levels and the resultant mental incapacity

[w2amr]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/l/cheney_hunting_reality.jpg

[KL1ZB]

I sneak up on my food at City Market---

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo


At least when someone goes hunting for food the animal has a chance to escape. The cow in the slaughterhouse has a 100% chance of getting a bolt gun to the head.

[K1VSK]

At least when someone goes hunting for food the animal has a chance to escape. The cow in the slaughterhouse has a 100% chance of getting a bolt gun to the head.

Two ways to interpret this one; neither choice is a winner:

A. the world is his slaughterhouse, or
B. at least they don't wound animals making them suffer at the slaughterhouse.

You guys unitentionally make some great arguments against guns. I assume that isn't your intent?

[KL1ZB]

Two ways to interpret this one; neither choice is a winner:

A. the world is his slaughterhouse, or
B. at least they don't wound animals making them suffer at the slaughterhouse.

You guys unitentionally make some great arguments against guns. I assume that isn't your intent?

So are you telling us you don't think animals suffer in a Slaughterhouse?

A simple google search will show you are WRONG.

[NL7W]

Two ways to interpret this one; neither choice is a winner:

A. the world is his slaughterhouse, or
B. at least they don't wound animals making them suffer at the slaughterhouse.

You guys unitentionally make some great arguments against guns. I assume that isn't your intent?

VSK is not much of a sport, is he?

Too bad, so sad...


Up here in Bush Alaska, bears have a sporting chance, for they are the king of the animal food chain here, and nearest to equal footing with man. Bear mauling stories abound...

Most Hunters are wonderful conservationists. A good example of this is the organization of Ducks Unlimited -- many more abound. Hunting is an excellent wildlife management tool. Hunting aids wildlife managers in controlling stable, viable populations of animals within specified ecosystems.

Most hunters enjoy the great outdoors, man's hunting traditions passed down from the earliest times, and the wonderful meats and trophys garnered. Hunters are typically in-tune with nature, as they actively take part in our Great Outdoor's food chain -- as man has since the dawn of time.

73.

[kf6rdn]

Why does hunting even come into a 2nd amendment argument?

I have a right to keep and bear ARMS. Not sporting rifles, ARMS. As in weapons to defend myself & family.

Is it a power thing? Why yes it is! I feel better that I can do so.

It ALSO gives me a warm fuzzy "power trip" feeling buying extra food, potable water, shelters (such as tents) general basic camping gear to know I'm also prepared to also DEFEND myself against starvation, cold etc in case of some disaster.

It would be NICE to feel like I can depend on my fellow humans, to help me in a time of need, or not attack me, but that's not the reality of world as we know it.

I simply rather be the one able to help others, rather then need help. (Aside from the gun issue, sorry but I'm only defending myself and mine with deadly force.

The rest of you I will defend with deadly farce.
:p

[K1VSK]

I always though a sport was like baseball, football, sailing, archery, etc...
Didn't know that it also includes killing animals.
My mistake.

I assume it's also an Olympic sport like shooting rabbits while pole vaulting competition.

"Since the dawn of time", man killed in order to survive - it's called subsistence hunting. Do you guys routinely eat bear to survive?

[NL7W]

I always though a sport was like baseball, football, sailing, archery, etc...
Didn't know that it also includes killing animals.
My mistake.

I assume it's also an Olympic sport like shooting rabbits while pole vaulting competition.

"Since the dawn of time", man killed in order to survive - it's called subsistence hunting. Do you guys routinely eat bear to survive?

Subsistence hunting is defined by Alaskan Law, so yes. I do not qualify for many hunts; my income level is too high. But for most rural Alaskans, subsistence hunting and fishing is HEAVILY relied upon to provide sustenance and a way of life.

73.

[K4GUN]

Well since the "gun" issue seems to have been beaten to death, I see we've now moved on to hunting. K1VSK, I'm going to assume your comments are based on ignorance and not that you really haven't looked into the subject enough to actually know what hunting is about. Because of this assumption, I'm going to answer some of your concerns in the hopes that you're open minded enough to hear this.

Hunting is not about killing. Its about immersing yourself in nature and becoming part of the process of life and death, rather than just observing it. In nature, animals rarely (if ever) die a peaceful, humane death. Nature is violent and cruel. Starvation, predation, disease and injury are how nature deals with not just the sick and weak, but also with the elderly.

Hunters become part of the process. We don't "need" to do it for food in most cases. That's a byproduct of the process of hunting. The process of hunting is its own reward for those who take it seroiusly.

Before you say it, there is a BIG difference between a hunter and a poacher. They should never be confused with one another. There is also a difference between a hunter and a game shooter who goes to areas with released animals. A hunter doesn't need to kill in order to view the day as a success.

[N8UZE]

To continue on the hunting issue, if hunting were banned or if enough people lose interest in it for whatever reason, it will be necessary to either have regular deer roundups & slaughters by the Department of Natural Resources OR we shall have to re-introduce wolves throughout the country wherever there are deer. I really don't think most people want wolves in their areas.

[ab8ma]

Nature is violent and cruel. Starvation, predation, disease and injury are how nature deals with not just the sick and weak, but also with the elderly.

Scary but true, and not just in the animal kingdom.

[K1VSK]

Well since the "gun" issue seems to have been beaten to death, I see we've now moved on to hunting. K1VSK, I'm going to assume your comments are based on ignorance and not that you really haven't looked into the subject enough to actually know what hunting is about. Because of this assumption, I'm going to answer some of your concerns in the hopes that you're open minded enough to hear this.

Hunting is not about killing. Its about immersing yourself in nature and becoming part of the process of life and death,... .

Thanks for the condescending response - really helps make your point sound authoritative. It might help you in the future when trying to convince someone of anything that you not start with the "ignorant" theory.

Regardless, you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying that hunting is not about killing after which you admit it's about life and death. I suggest you consider that, as hunting to shoot something is clearly not life-preserving, it must therefore be about the only other option - death. In more direct terms, you hunt to kill.

As I am presuming you don't do so for subsistence and no one makes you do it, it logically follow that you do because you like it.

As killing and hunting are synonymous, you therefore like killing.

You'd be well advised to reconsider who you call ignorant?

[w2amr]

Thanks for the condescending response - really helps make your point sound authoritative. It might help you in the future when trying to convince someone of anything that you not start with the "ignorant" theory.

Regardless, you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying that hunting is not about killing after which you admit it's about life and death. I suggest you consider that, as hunting to shoot something is clearly not life-preserving, it must therefore be about the only other option - death. In more direct terms, you hunt to kill.

As I am presuming you don't do so for subsistence and no one makes you do it, it logically follow that you do because you like it.

As killing and hunting are synonymous, you therefore like killing.

You'd be well advised to reconsider who you call ignorant?
Good show VSK, great response. :D

[W5GA]

As killing and hunting are synonymous, you therefore like killing.

I can't tell you the number of times I've not pulled the trigger, or went home empty handed because I was having too much of a good time just being in the woods. The 2 are most assuredly not synonymous.

Obviously, you like killing too. If you didn't, you'd starve. To you however, it's some abstract, sterile process that you aren't really involved with outside of consumption. For those of us that hunt, it's all too real as we have to deal with all that goes with the kill. And I won't speak for other hunters, but that includes some measure of remorse. It doesn't mean that I'm about to give it up, but the kill is secondary to the enjoyment of the process that gets me to that point.

[K4GUN]

Thanks for the condescending response - really helps make your point sound authoritative. It might help you in the future when trying to convince someone of anything that you not start with the "ignorant" theory.

Regardless, you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying that hunting is not about killing after which you admit it's about life and death. I suggest you consider that, as hunting to shoot something is clearly not life-preserving, it must therefore be about the only other option - death. In more direct terms, you hunt to kill.

As I am presuming you don't do so for subsistence and no one makes you do it, it logically follow that you do because you like it.

As killing and hunting are synonymous, you therefore like killing.

You'd be well advised to reconsider who you call ignorant?


I'm sorry. I thought you were actually interested in a reasonable discussion. I didn't use the word "ignorance" as an insult. Ignorance just means that you haven't been exposed to information and that was what I was attempting to work on. You either misunderstood my meaning or have made a decision to be combative.

Hunting and killing are NOT synonymous. Not by any stretch. Hunting is an act that may result in killing. The success of a hunt doesn't depend upon the kill and if you re-read my post you will see that. Killing on the other hand, doesn't imply that a person hunted. Poachers kill but they don't hunt. People on a game preserve with released animals kill, but do not hunt. A motorist who strikes a deer has killed, but did not hunt.

I hunt as often as possible. I don't always kill. Every time, I anticipate that I could kill, but that's only part of what I anticipate. I also anticipate that I'll see the sun rise. I'll see animals in a habitat that most people only see on TV. I will hike and get exercise. I'll be immersed in nature and will be an active participant in it, rather than just an observer. I pay attention to wind, temperature, odors, sounds and light. I prepare for each hunt.

If you took the word "ignorance" as anything other than an observation that you has incomplete information, you didn't get my meaning.

[n2ize]

Hunting is not about killing. Its about immersing yourself in nature and becoming part of the process of life and death, rather than just observing it. In nature, animals rarely (if ever) die a peaceful, humane death. Nature is violent and cruel. Starvation, predation, disease and injury are how nature deals with not just the sick and weak, but also with the elderly.

Hunters become part of the process. We don't "need" to do it for food in most cases. That's a byproduct of the process of hunting. The process of hunting is its own reward for those who take it seroiusly.

Before you say it, there is a BIG difference between a hunter and a poacher. They should never be confused with one another. There is also a difference between a hunter and a game shooter who goes to areas with released animals. A hunter doesn't need to kill in order to view the day as a success.

I love nature. I observe it. Then I KILL IT !!:confused::eek::eek:

[N3ATS]

I assume those here who are speaking out against hunting are Vegans?

[n2ize]

Thanks for the condescending response - really helps make your point sound authoritative. It might help you in the future when trying to convince someone of anything that you not start with the "ignorant" theory.

Regardless, you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying that hunting is not about killing after which you admit it's about life and death. I suggest you consider that, as hunting to shoot something is clearly not life-preserving, it must therefore be about the only other option - death. In more direct terms, you hunt to kill.

As I am presuming you don't do so for subsistence and no one makes you do it, it logically follow that you do because you like it.

As killing and hunting are synonymous, you therefore like killing.

You'd be well advised to reconsider who you call ignorant?

Precisely. You described to the tee the contradictory response that hunters always provide.

[W5GA]

I assume those here who are speaking out against hunting are Vegans?

I doubt it, I don't think anyone actually lives on Vega.

[W5GA]

Precisely. You described to the tee the contradictory response that hunters always provide.


And what contradictory response would that be?

[K4GUN]

Precisely. You described to the tee the contradictory response that hunters always provide.

So let me make sure I understand you. You agree that hunting and killing are synonymous. That means you think that placing a glue trap for a rat and letting it starve is the same as a hunter in the woods. You think that all the bugs that are killed on your windshield are hunted. You think that the little boy that carves up the neighbor's cat is no different than the guy in the treestand.

I would submit that you have a very limited base of information on which to draw that conclusion. Either that, or your comprehension of the English language leaves something to be desired.

[K1VSK]

So let me make sure I understand you. You agree that hunting and killing are synonymous. That means you think that placing a glue trap for a rat and letting it starve is the same as a hunter in the woods. You think that all the bugs that are killed on your windshield are hunted. You think that the little boy that carves up the neighbor's cat is no different than the guy in the treestand.

I would submit that you have a very limited base of information on which to draw that conclusion. Either that, or your comprehension of the English language leaves something to be desired.

I'm pretty confident you know nothing about the people at whom you cast these arrogant insults, can't possible know or understand their perspective(s) and don't seem to care to try to do anything other than insult them/me all in a vain attempt to justify your opinion.

It doesn't work, never has and moreso never will in a losing argument.

Most of us don't drive around aiming our cars at bugs - how you equate this with hunting is inconceivable and "leaves something to be desired".

By the way, I'm pretty certain most people would consider both the "little boy that carves up the neighbor's cat" and the "guy in the treestand" asdisplaying clearly sociopathic behavior.

It's easy to rationalize anything - it's much more difficult to justify it and blaring insults doesn't do it.

[w2amr]

I love nature. I observe it. Then I KILL IT !!:confused::eek::eek:

:D:D LMAO , again. This place is like an amusement park.

[w2amr]

I assume those here who are speaking out against hunting are Vegans?
I hear Greg is a Martian.

[ad5mb]

I assume those here who are speaking out against hunting are Vegans?

Reminds me of the time a loudmouth was venting about hunting and hunters in a restaurant a few years back. A loudmouth in a leather jacket, with leather boots and a leather belt...

[nq6v]

Good God, we are overrun by ultra liberals, without a capacity for rational thought.

It started slowly with ham teating being put in the hands of hams, rather than the folks at the FCC. Now our numbers are overrun by those who memorize questions and answers supplied via FOA, and few new hams actually cracked a book on theory. Now there is no code.....,

People hunt. We hunters do not attempt to infringe upon non hunters in excersizing their right not to hunt. We would appreacate the same from you, in regards to tolerance toward our activities, as we show toward yours.

But if any of you ultra liberals actually did any studying, you would find yourselves our kind of status quo, and hence, more conservitive in thought and behavior.

Bring the code requirment back. It is our only hope to stem the tide of non thinkers.

[K4GUN]

I'm pretty confident you know nothing about the people at whom you cast these arrogant insults, can't possible know or understand their perspective(s) and don't seem to care to try to do anything other than insult them/me all in a vain attempt to justify your opinion.

It doesn't work, never has and moreso never will in a losing argument.

Most of us don't drive around aiming our cars at bugs - how you equate this with hunting is inconceivable and "leaves something to be desired".

By the way, I'm pretty certain most people would consider both the "little boy that carves up the neighbor's cat" and the "guy in the treestand" asdisplaying clearly sociopathic behavior.
.


Now I get it. Up until this point, I was working under the hope that you were actually an intelligent person. You have proven me wrong. Nothing in my previous comments were condescending nor intentionally insulting.

You're the one who said "killing and hunting are synonymous". I hate to break it to you, but "synonymous" means being equivalent in meaning or expressing the same idea. I can't explain it in any more clear language that you are just wrong. There are a lot of ways that killing happens and very few of those have anything to do with hunting. Hunting also has a lot more happening than killing.

Sociopath behavior? That's curious. You really think hunters are sociopaths? Let's turn that around a bit. Are you a vegetarian? Do you have a leather jacket? Do you have any leather shoes? I'm betting you're content to let others do your killing for you. That allows you to keep your metropolitan superiority because you don't think about how any of these products reach you. You hire people whom you consider sociopaths to do your dirty work for you. Interesting.

[W5GA]

The leap from anti-hunting, anti gun ownership etc. to no-code absolutely escapes me. Talk about lack of thought!

[n0ov]

Nature of the amateur radio hobby

Give a choice of shooting off a gun, or shooting off at the mouth, most Amateurs will shoot off at the mouth every time...............

Bullets are expensive :D

[w2amr]

Good God, we are overrun by ultra liberals, without a capacity for rational thought.

It started slowly with ham teating being put in the hands of hams, rather than the folks at the FCC. Now our numbers are overrun by those who memorize questions and answers supplied via FOA, and few new hams actually cracked a book on theory. Now there is no code.....,

People hunt. We hunters do not attempt to infringe upon non hunters in excersizing their right not to hunt. We would appreacate the same from you, in regards to tolerance toward our activities, as we show toward yours.

But if any of you ultra liberals actually did any studying, you would find yourselves our kind of status quo, and hence, more conservitive in thought and behavior.

Bring the code requirment back. It is our only hope to stem the tide of non thinkers.
Oh Geez............

[K1VSK]

Now I get it. Up until this point, I was working under the hope that you were actually an intelligent person. You have proven me wrong. Nothing in my previous comments were condescending nor intentionally insulting.

You're the one who said "killing and hunting are synonymous". I hate to break it to you, but "synonymous" means being equivalent in meaning or expressing the same idea. I can't explain it in any more clear language that you are just wrong. There are a lot of ways that killing happens and very few of those have anything to do with hunting. Hunting also has a lot more happening than killing.

Sociopath behavior? That's curious. You really think hunters are sociopaths? Let's turn that around a bit. Are you a vegetarian? Do you have a leather jacket? Do you have any leather shoes? I'm betting you're content to let others do your killing for you. That allows you to keep your metropolitan superiority because you don't think about how any of these products reach you. You hire people whom you consider sociopaths to do your dirty work for you. Interesting.


Another insulting response doesn't negate the first one. It's not my intent to teach you manners, common courtesy or mutual respect, nor provide you with any logical basis for your bug analogy which was pretty entertaining. By the way, my leather jacket comes from a cow which presumably was already dead.

It is quite telling how animated and emotional these folks can get when they fell threatened or are asked to rationalize their habits.

[K4GUN]

Another insulting response doesn't negate the first one. It's not my intent to teach you manners, common courtesy or mutual respect, nor provide you with any logical basis for your bug analogy which was pretty entertaining. By the way, my leather jacket comes from a cow which presumably was already dead.

It is quite telling how animated and emotional these folks can get when they fell threatened or are asked to rationalize their habits.

I didn't get insulting until you did. You just failed to understand what the word "ignorant" meant and thought it was an insult.

Your leather jacket came from a cow that was already dead? Did it die of old age? Did it commit suicide? Was it natural causes? It was killed wasn't it? You didn't do the killing youself but because you bought it, you contracted out for the killing of that cow. By your logic of hunting and killing being the same and your insistance that hunting and sadistic torture of animals is the same, you are just as sociopathic as if you had done it yourself. How does it feel?

[n2ize]

I didn't get insulting until you did. You just failed to understand what the word "ignorant" meant and thought it was an insult.

Your leather jacket came from a cow that was already dead? Did it die of old age? Did it commit suicide? Was it natural causes? It was killed wasn't it? You didn't do the killing youself but because you bought it, you contracted out for the killing of that cow. By your logic of hunting and killing being the same and your insistance that hunting and sadistic torture of animals is the same, you are just as sociopathic as if you had done it yourself. How does it feel?

True, why contract the job out when you can have the thrill of killing it yourself. ?

[K1VSK]

I didn't get insulting until you did. You just failed to understand what the word "ignorant" meant and thought it was an insult.

Your leather jacket came from a cow that was already dead? Did it die of old age? Did it commit suicide? Was it natural causes? It was killed wasn't it? You didn't do the killing youself but because you bought it, you contracted out for the killing of that cow. By your logic of hunting and killing being the same and your insistance that hunting and sadistic torture of animals is the same, you are just as sociopathic as if you had done it yourself. How does it feel?

Let's ignore your faulty chronology regarding ignorant comments for the moment and focus on your analogy grouping together hunters and little boys who kill cats as one-and-the-same. As you categorized them together, it is a wonder how anyone can't perceive that behavior as sociopathic. Here on earth, there is a commonly held belief that anyone who does this is exhibiting a dysfunctional behavior.

Regarding your other childish "he hit me first" argument, I can only wonder why there isn't more gun violence in this country with that level of mentality.

You have only strengthened my opinion about the maturity of people who like guns. Any more would be pointless but entertaining.

[N3ATS]

Reminds me of the time a loudmouth was venting about hunting and hunters in a restaurant a few years back. A loudmouth in a leather jacket, with leather boots and a leather belt...

I can appreciate someone who denounces hunting that also toes the line in their diets and their attire. All else are hypocrites.

Ohhh, a cute bunny! Look, a pretty deer!

Ewww a filthy, #### covered cow. Get in the truck, you're a baseball glove. :D

[K1VSK]

I can appreciate someone who denounces hunting that also toes the line in their diets and their attire. All else are hypocrites.

Ohhh, a cute bunny! Look, a pretty deer!

Ewww a filthy, #### covered cow. Get in the truck, you're a baseball glove. :D

another eloquent mature argument for gun control.

They do themselves proud.

[PA5COR]

With those oneliners you become an reason to have NO guncontrol :D

[NL7W]

To continue on the hunting issue, if hunting were banned or if enough people lose interest in it for whatever reason, it will be necessary to either have regular deer roundups & slaughters by the Department of Natural Resources OR we shall have to re-introduce wolves throughout the country wherever there are deer. I really don't think most people want wolves in their areas.

We have several thousand we'd like to ship to the lower... I mean lesser-48. How 'bout we place several hundred in NYC's Central Park? That'll go over really well -- as they are opportunistic feeders. How 'bout we send 6,000 in the lower-48's Rockies out west? I'm sure the ranchers would like that... there goes your lovely supply of Western beef.

[W5GA]

We have several thousand we'd like to ship to the lower... I mean lesser-48. How 'bout we place several hundred in NYC's Central Park? That'll go over really well -- as they are opportunistic feeders. How 'bout we send 6,000 in the lower-48's Rockies out west? I'm sure the ranchers would like that... there goes your lovely supply of Western beef.

USFWS has aleady started doing that. The cries from ranchers in the infected areas are long and loud.

[N3ATS]

another eloquent mature argument for gun control.

They do themselves proud.

Eat meat do ya? Thanks for playing!

[K1VSK]

Sounds like the high serum blood lead levels are becoming a widespread problem.

[kf6rdn]

I doubt it, I don't think anyone actually lives on Vega.

Some of 'em might have driven one.

[NL7W]

Now I get it. Up until this point, I was working under the hope that you were actually an intelligent person. You have proven me wrong. Nothing in my previous comments were condescending nor intentionally insulting.

You're the one who said "killing and hunting are synonymous". I hate to break it to you, but "synonymous" means being equivalent in meaning or expressing the same idea. I can't explain it in any more clear language that you are just wrong. There are a lot of ways that killing happens and very few of those have anything to do with hunting. Hunting also has a lot more happening than killing.

Sociopath behavior? That's curious. You really think hunters are sociopaths? Let's turn that around a bit. Are you a vegetarian? Do you have a leather jacket? Do you have any leather shoes? I'm betting you're content to let others do your killing for you. That allows you to keep your metropolitan superiority because you don't think about how any of these products reach you. You hire people whom you consider sociopaths to do your dirty work for you. Interesting.

You shouldn't interfere or muddle their superior metro sensibilities!

[KC9IUX]

And the vast majority of people in Germany went along with it and joined Hitler's military, Those who were persecuted, some of whom were armed, were no mach for the German governments armaments and were rounded up just as readilly as their unarmed counterparts.


That is either a blatent lie or one founded in ignorance.

Ever hear of the Warsaw Uprising?

A ragtag bunch of Jews stood up to the Nazis.
Check it out. (http://www.warsawuprising.com/)

The Nazis had limited resourses, those who fought back used these resourses that could have been used to round up more dissedents.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg

[KC9IUX]

LMAO

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_better.jpg

[KC9IUX]

Snip, snip. lol

[KC4HGH]

If it's about "power" then it must be about the "keyboard kommandos" who try to put forth an arguement in the face of truth, then fail miserably like the left-wingers they really are. Boy, you're brave behind that keyboard!

Go ahead, whine about our "evil guns" and brag about your bravado in fighting hand-to-hand against PCPers & other crazies. You left-wingers are the ones who knee-jerk every time guns (or anything ELSE of a conservative air is mentioned) are mentioned.

By the way, I drive a truck, as well...does that make me something else?

Have a good day, while you tend to your rose gardens....

[kc2orw]

Sounds like the high serum blood lead levels are becoming a widespread problem.
Yep bout the size of it :D

[N3ATS]

Sounds like the high serum blood lead levels are becoming a widespread problem.

Can't present an intelligent discussion based on your "I eat meat, but think hunting is cruel" argument, huh?

[K1VSK]

Can't present an intelligent discussion based on your "I eat meat, but think hunting is cruel" argument, huh?

I just can't figure out a way to explain it such that you'd understand.

How one equates eating to enjoying killing is jaw-dropping.

[K1VSK]

That is either a blatent lie or one founded in ignorance.

Ever hear of the Warsaw Uprising?

A ragtag bunch of Jews stood up to the Nazis.
Check it out. (http://www.warsawuprising.com/)

The Nazis had limited resourses, those who fought back used these resourses that could have been used to round up more dissedents.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg

Such arguments that something similar could happen here is the genesis for cult militia paranoia. And how did the Warsaw uprising work out? What you fail to understand is they all died, knowing they would die regardless; they choose to do so fighting.

Is this rationale supposed to represent a sensible argument for having a gun - to ward off nazi-style tyrany in the U.S.?

i haven't noticed too any gun racks at the Yesheva

[W5GA]

Such arguments that something similar could happen here is the genesis for cult militia paranoia. And how did the Warsaw uprising work out? What you fail to understand is they all died, knowing they would die regardless; they choose to do so fighting.


Then how do you explain what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan? They were defeated by a rag tag bunch that started out using guns that were made with files and hand drills for gosh sakes. They may have only used them once to get something worth while, but in many cases that's what they started with.

[N3ATS]

I just can't figure out a way to explain it such that you'd understand.

How one equates eating to enjoying killing is jaw-dropping.

I am sorry, did I say I say somewhere that I enjoyed killing?

Besides, isn't your argument just one of degrees? You apparently eat meat, and you got to kill it before you grill it son. So, you are somehow "better" because you don't take part in the killing, yet enjoy the fruits of the results?

[K1VSK]

Let's review.
This began as an exercise in rationalizing gun ownership based upon it's contribution to society with self-defense and target practice as the two most commonly used arguments. When that didn't work, someone suggested hunting as a rationale. Now, you want to somehow make the distinction between hunting and killing - I guess there is right up to the point you pull the trigger where you lose that one big time. Parenthetical comments throughout included such gems as protecting ourselves from the nazis and the paranoid thought process that our own government is somehow some threat.

All of which is nonsense but would be inspirational to the anti-gun lobby.

[NL7W]

Let's review.
This began as an exercise in rationalizing gun ownership based upon it's contribution to society with self-defense and target practice as the two most commonly used arguments. When that didn't work, someone suggested hunting as a rationale. Now, you want to somehow make the distinction between hunting and killing - I guess there is right up to the point you pull the trigger where you lose that one big time. Parenthetical comments throughout included such gems as protecting ourselves from the nazis and the paranoid thought process that our own government is somehow some threat.

All of which is nonsense but would be inspirational to the anti-gun lobby.


What... a failed argument? Let's just present basic known facts then:

The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.

This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, although this belief is controversial among some factions and is not subscribed to by all.

* Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

“ 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. ”

* Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Provides for unenumerated rights, including implicitly a right to keep and bear arms and a right to have arms for defense, hunting, sport etc..


The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is a Federal provision. Each of the fifty states also has its own state constitution addressing their specific state. Forty-four states have chosen to embody explicitly a right to bear arms into their state's constitution,[54] and six states have chosen explicitly not to do so.

Of the forty-four states that have chosen to embody explicitly a right to bear arms into their state's constitution, approximately thirty-one have explicitly chosen to include the right to arms for "individual right", "defense of self", "defense of home" or similarly worded reasons. Approximately thirteen states, as with the Federal Constitution, did not choose to include explicitly "individual", "self" or "home" wording associated with a right to bear arms for their specific state.

Of the forty-four states, approximately twenty-eight have explicitly chosen to include the right to bear arms for "security of a free state", "defense of state", "common defense" or similarly worded reasons, as with the Federal Constitution. Approximately sixteen states did not choose to include explicitly "free state", "defense of state" or "common defense" wording for their specific state.

The facts are what they are, whether you like them or not. Today, modern legal theorists generally identify three models in United States to interpret the right to bear arms. Founded on a reading of the Second Amendment, "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."

The first two models focus on the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment — the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The first model, the collective model, holds that the right to bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia. The second model, the modified collective model, is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed. The third model, the Individual Rights Model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech. Additionally, this Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.

The third model, the Individual Rights Model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech. Additionally, this Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.

It's hard to argue with centuries old tradition, law, and reasonableness.

73.

[K1VSK]

Ah yes, albeit late but here we are with the other typical argument. The meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights.

One key misunderstanding revolves around who is prohibited from infringement and whether the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend that it extends to state jurisdictions.

More relevant to this discussion is whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. At present, ONLY two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. STOP here and think about it - 2 of 13 is hardly a majority opinion yet you folks continue to conveniently ignore this minor point.
A Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve this jurisdictional split. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

The above is the "basic known facts" which you conveniently ignore.
In simpler terms, the land of delusion is not a realistic place in which to live.

[W5GA]

The above is the "basic known facts" which you conveniently ignore. In simpler terms, the land of delusion is not a realistic place in which to live.

Then you shouldn't live there. Prior to the Twentieth century, the collective rights model didn't exist.

So 2 of 13 jurisdictions finally got it right! Would you hold that because SCOTUS made the Dredd Scott decision, they were correct in doing so?

[NL7W]

Ah yes, albeit late but here we are with the other typical argument. The meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most misunderstood and disputed among the entire Bill of Rights.

One key misunderstanding revolves around who is prohibited from infringement and whether the Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend that it extends to state jurisdictions.

More relevant to this discussion is whether it protects an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. At present, ONLY two of the thirteen federal circuits have adopted an individual rights view. STOP here and think about it - 2 of 13 is hardly a majority opinion yet you folks continue to conveniently ignore this minor point.
A Second Amendment case is currently under review by the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v. Heller), having been granted certiorari, to resolve this jurisdictional split. There is also a "modified collective" view that holds the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

The above is the "basic known facts" which you conveniently ignore.
In simpler terms, the land of delusion is not a realistic place in which to live.

What of the Supreme Court? What of the majority of states and their explicit state constitution verbiage regarding this issue?

Sorry, you lose...

[K1VSK]

Then you shouldn't live there. Prior to the Twentieth century, the collective rights model didn't exist.

So 2 of 13 jurisdictions finally got it right! Would you hold that because SCOTUS made the Dredd Scott decision, they were correct in doing so?

A specious argument from the 1850s seems hardly relevent in today's world particularly in the context of gun ownership in today's society vis a vis the mid 19th century. Time changes all unless you let it pass you by

[n0ov]

A specious argument from the 1850s seems hardly relevent in today's world particularly in the context of gun ownership in today's society vis a vis the mid 19th century. Time changes all unless you let it pass you by


Careful there my friend -- the same can be said of any of the 1st 10 Amendments. Start destroying one and you risk destroying the very thing that gave us so much today.................

[K1VSK]

[QUOTE=NL7W;1155415]What of the Supreme Court? What of the majority of states and their explicit state constitution verbiage regarding this issue?

Sorry, you lose...[/QUOTE


only in your mind's imagination. "What of the SC" is precisely what I just tried to explain to you...

As to the states' constitutions, you can't argue the Second Amendment in the same context as state legislation unless you recognize precedent which seems to evade your logic.

It sounds like your are reaching too far beyond your understanding of the distinction(s).

[VO1GXG]

guns are boaring :P ill stick to moose antlers and rocks.

[W5GA]

A specious argument from the 1850s seems hardly relevent in today's world particularly in the context of gun ownership in today's society vis a vis the mid 19th century. Time changes all unless you let it pass you by

There's nothing specious about it. SCOTUS got it wrong in Scott, we all know and agree that this is so, and that's my only point. It's no stretch to say that the majority of appellate courts have this issue wrong, too.

The one absolute truism here is Heller should (emphasis - should) settle the issue for a while.

[NL7W]

[QUOTE=NL7W;1155415]What of the Supreme Court? What of the majority of states and their explicit state constitution verbiage regarding this issue?

Sorry, you lose...[/QUOTE


only in your mind's imagination. "What of the SC" is precisely what I just tried to explain to you...

As to the states' constitutions, you can't argue the Second Amendment in the same context as state legislation unless you recognize precedent which seems to evade your logic.

It sounds like your are reaching too far beyond your understanding of the distinction(s).

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... How does this escape your logic?

It doesn't escape that of the Supreme Court, nor that of the majority of States containing explicit verbiage directly addressing firearm freedoms.

The Supremes will side on unwaivering principles and courage, traditional beliefs. They will site individual, collective, and states' rights regarding this issue -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

An opposing and liberal stance will not pervert the plainly worded 2nd and 9th amendments. A usurpation of Bill of Rights isn't in the cards.

Sorry, Charlie.

[W5GA]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/03/04/montana-claims-us-promised-state-individual-gun-rights.htm

This is interesting.

and this.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/03/listening-in-on.html

[w2amr]

If it's about "power" then it must be about the "keyboard kommandos" who try to put forth an arguement in the face of truth, then fail miserably like the left-wingers they really are. Boy, you're brave behind that keyboard!

Go ahead, whine about our "evil guns" and brag about your bravado in fighting hand-to-hand against PCPers & other crazies. You left-wingers are the ones who knee-jerk every time guns (or anything ELSE of a conservative air is mentioned) are mentioned.

By the way, I drive a truck, as well...does that make me something else?

Have a good day, while you tend to your rose gardens....

Ohhhhhh, a tough guy. I'm all a twitter. :p

[N3ATS]

Let's review.
This began as an exercise in rationalizing gun ownership based upon it's contribution to society with self-defense and target practice as the two most commonly used arguments. When that didn't work, someone suggested hunting as a rationale. Now, you want to somehow make the distinction between hunting and killing - I guess there is right up to the point you pull the trigger where you lose that one big time. Parenthetical comments throughout included such gems as protecting ourselves from the nazis and the paranoid thought process that our own government is somehow some threat.

All of which is nonsense but would be inspirational to the anti-gun lobby.



You failed to mention in your "review", how killing animals for food during the act of hunting is barbaric, though eating store bought killed-for-food animals is okay. Care to explain how you justify that belief?

[n0ov]

Forgive me, for I have sinned.

An About Face After Being Saved by a Gun Owner

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR MAILED TO WWW.KEEPANDBEARARMS.COM

I am one of those people who you loathe. One of those invisible people who come into your living room without asking your permission. One of those people who follow you while you shop, and make it harder for you to make legal purchases. One of those people who try and tell you how to raise your children, as if you don't know how. One of those who gives ratings to stations that promote our demise as a free nation. I am your enemy. Or at least I was.

I followed it all, all of the propaganda, all of the hoopla. Believed it too. Believed that leaving my house was more dangerous than being in a war. At any given moment one of you evil gun owners would open fire on me. I saw the NRA stickers, the Gun owners of America stickers on the cars that passed, and I thought you were all fools. I did everything in my power financially to try and help more laws pass that would prevent you from owning guns. I wholeheartedly believed that only the Police, and Military should have guns. Every time I heard of a gang shooting, or other criminal act committed with a gun, I honestly believed that if we could curtail the legal sale of guns, we could make a difference.

Boy was I wrong.

I have children, three actually, and to me the only thing more important than raising them properly, was seeing that they aren't hurt in anyway. I wanted to ban guns, save my children, save all children. No child should have to be part of any kind of death, especially the kind that involves being shot. I gave money to all of the anti gun organizations I could think of, went to the "Million" Mom March, even looked at Rosie when she spoke, and actually admire her. Brought the kids as well, and even yelled some not so nice things to those other marchers. I'm sure some of you know who I refer to.

I was on my way back from the march, on my way back to Connecticut, when I stopped off of the highway at a rest stop by one of those McDonalds they have off I-95. By this time I had dropped off two of my kids with their father, and only had my little one with me. I went into the restroom with her, and on my way out noticed two men hanging out by my car. There were only two other cars in the lot at the time that were anywhere near my vehicle. I immediately felt threatened by their demeanor, but continued on to my car. The smaller of the two approached me with a knife as I was about to open the door to put my child in her car seat. He yelled at me to get in the back of the car, they were taking me for a little ride. I obviously told them to just take my keys, they could have the car, but they insisted I get in the back. I then heard a man yelling something I don't quite recall, and saw him running towards me with a gun in his hand. The two men vanished into their car, and sped away. I stood there frozen in time, and by the time the gentleman with the gun got to me I just broke down and cried.

To make a long story short, you were all right, and I'm sorry. This man with a gun saved me, and I just keep thinking if I had gotten my wish and guns were banned, there is no telling where I'd be, and what would've happened to my daughter. The only regret I have is not getting the man's phone number who saved my life. I thanked him over and over again, and told him that he saved me, but he calmly said to me something I'd never forget. He said "That's what people like me are here for Ms., and I'm happy to have been able to help."

"That's what people like me are here for," those words keep on running through my head everyday. Maybe this gentleman by some chance is part of your group, and will read my message. If he does I would just like to say something to him, and to everyone else reading this note.

Thank you for saving my life, and to the rest of you thank you for fighting for this man's right to protect me and my child. Tell him for me that I will no longer be part of the group who invades his home, and tries to tell him how to store his guns. Tell him I will never be part of any group who tries to make it impossible for him to buy his tool he used to save me. And tell him I will never again tell him how to raise his children properly, because obviously I was oblivious to the fact that responsible people such as him know how to raise their children better than I do. I did rectify that situation the other day; I bought a shotgun for home protection, and am in the process of getting my concealed permit. Next time I will be ready to defend myself, or others for that matter. Some of my friends think I'm crazy, but they try their best to understand. I just tell them that as soon as their child's life is put in jeopardy by some criminal with a weapon that they will understand, but until then don't tell me how to live my life. I've lost some friends, but surprisingly most of them understand. If not for this man I could very easily have been killed or raped, and my child could've been taken from me, so once more I need to say thanks for saving me, and with all sincerity to the rest of you, forgive me, for I have sinned.

I have no idea whether this is legitimate or not, but it is sure some interesting reading............

[K1VSK]

[QUOTE=NL7W;1155471
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... How does this escape your logic?

It doesn't escape that of the Supreme Court, nor that of the majority of States containing explicit verbiage directly addressing firearm freedoms.

The Supremes will side on unwaivering principles and courage, traditional beliefs. They will site individual, collective, and states' rights regarding this issue -- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

An opposing and liberal stance will not pervert the plainly worded 2nd and 9th amendments. A usurpation of Bill of Rights isn't in the cards.

Sorry, Charlie.[/QUOTE]

Are you referring to the Supreme Court or the singing group, the Supremes?
Only the latter might agree with you.

To reiterate, read post number 129 and re-read the Amendment
as you seem to prefer consistently mis-stating it.

If you would like to debate this on factual and written law, that's fine but it's pointless for you to be involved in a debate over something you refuse to understand.

[K1VSK]

You failed to mention in your "review", how killing animals for food during the act of hunting is barbaric, though eating store bought killed-for-food animals is okay. Care to explain how you justify that belief?


Careful there partner - you seem to be confusing eating with killing. I prefer the former; you I'm still unsure about.

Since you are trying to legitimize your point by pointing out that I do, in fact, eat, I'd like you to also point out that you of course eat everything you kill.

[NL7W]

Are you referring to the Supreme Court or the singing group, the Supremes?
Only the latter might agree with you.

To reiterate, read post number 129 and re-read the Amendment
as you seem to prefer consistently mis-stating it.

If you would like to debate this on factual and written law, that's fine but it's pointless for you to be involved in a debate over something you refuse to understand.

Mis-stating? Hardly... I have stated, word-for-word, the pertinent words, separated by commas, of this simplistic 2nd amendment.



Toodles.

[n0ov]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/a/h/1/gun_fault.jpg

[KE5KTU]

I do not normally post my opinions, but after reading the whole thread I thought I would add my views.
First, the problem is that there are two groups, Pro gun and anti-gun. The pro gun wants to keep their arms. The anti, for the most part do not want them to have their arms. Where is the middle ground ?
A lot of people do not see a need for the pro gun group to have their arms. The question to ask, is what would the anti-gun group be comfortable with the pro gun group having ? Certainly it would not be fair for criminals to have guns and citizens not to have them. It also would not be fair for the police to have guns and the citizens not to. Will the police give up their guns ? No, for the same reason the pro gun people will not give up theirs. Defense of ones family, property, and life. Even though the second ammendment does not say that in those exact words.
The pro gun people have made an argument that without guns a lot of lives would be saved. Well, without automobiles, think of the number of lives that would be saved. Without bad doctors, think of the number of lives that would be saved. This can go on and on and on. The plain hard fact is, humans have been killing one another since the beginning of time. Swords, bow and arrow, spears, knives, this list can go on and on also, but I think the idea is relayed.
Passing legislation to make it illegal to own a weapon will work as well as the legislation outlawing the importation of drugs, it will work as well as the law forbidding felons to have guns. According to that law there should be no repeat offenders for armed robbery. Notice how I did not say it would not work, instead I say it will work just as good.
I myself have been fired upon. I was in a boat and a man started shooting at me. I fired back, and called the police. After 3 hours I escaped under the cover of darkness. I called the police every 15 minuites while laying in the bottom of that boat and they just kept saying someone was on the way.
No one ever showed up. Without a gun, I would not have been able to defend myself. On the same token, Without a gun the man could not have shot at me.
Both groups know that all the guns in the world will not dissapear, so for me, it makes since, that if a citizen wants a gun to protect ones self, family, or property, that person should have the choice to do so. If someone does not want a gun, that should be their choice also.
So where is the middle ground ? Appears there is none, and that is the sad part.
Also, as another thought, when the colonist declared their independence from England, and took up arms against the crown, well, wonder how it would have turned out if all the colonist had were swords ? Remember, The United States of America was founded by those who were willing to take up arms and die for the freedoms that they wanted. Without guns, well, they would have just died for the freedoms they wanted.
Jake
I respect both sides, I just happen to agree more with one than the other.

[NL7W]

KE5KTU, thanks for the post.

[w2amr]

If it's about "power" then it must be about the "keyboard kommandos" who try to put forth an arguement in the face of truth, then fail miserably like the left-wingers they really are. Boy, you're brave behind that keyboard!

Go ahead, whine about our "evil guns" and brag about your bravado in fighting hand-to-hand against PCPers & other crazies. You left-wingers are the ones who knee-jerk every time guns (or anything ELSE of a conservative air is mentioned) are mentioned.

By the way, I drive a truck, as well...does that make me something else?

Have a good day, while you tend to your rose gardens....
BTW mountain man, I happen to be a lefty, and when not tending my rose gar