Here is a funny story.
My great grandpa once traded for a Browning 12 Ga. auto. He liked the old hump backs for some reason, I can't stand them. I was the only one that could shoot that one though. When ever grandpa or my dad would shoot it, about 1/2 the time, then it would dump the first 2 shells with the first pull. The bad part was it never sounded like 2 shots, you couldn't hear the second report because it was so fast. So they wouldn't know if it did or not until they went to shoot the third shot and it wasn't there. Look and inevitably the action would be open, it would be empty and all three spent cases would be on the ground. Apperently the sear was wore and they pull the trigger, where I squeze the trigger. Soon as it fires I let off and start aquiring sight of the target again. So apperently I wasn't squezzing it far enough back to fire the second round. So what was left of the sear was able to catch when I shot it. I didn;t want it because I dont care for humpo backs so he traded it off the next week. He always had atleast 2 or 3 different shot guns every week.

I was like a kid in a candy store when he was alive. Any gun that I wanted I'd give him what ever I wanted to trade and he'd go trade it for me. He'd get me what ever it was that I wanted with in 3 weeks tops. He was just one of those guys that could have talked an Eskimo into trading his heater for an Air conditioner plus give up some money for boot. Plus.... When he was done, then the Eskimo would have thought that he had just made the best deal of a life time on the air conditioner. That's not much of an exaturation either.

 

United States of America Constitution:

Amendment II

”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”

It’s a shame there is talk about time in prison and what is and is not legal about guns when the Constitution clearly states it’s nobody’s business since it is a “right” NOT a privilege to own any kind of firearm one wishes to own as well as do what ever they damn well please to it…

Oh well…

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of a free country gone socialist and ignoring the Constitution…

 

Interesting . . . and I'm not here to argue the second amendment . . . because I'm NOT for gun control . . .

however, the part you did not make bold could be interpreted to make an argument for why guns (especially fully auto hand guns) not allowed in some (all) states:

”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”

That's a pretty important and telling caveat. I could certainly understand how individuals, in this day and age, who are not a part of the recognized military, could not be considered to fall within the definition / parameters of "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

I always hear the second half referred to and emphasized and highlighted, but not that first part.

Interesting, but if the current military structure no longer resulted in the average individual to be considered to be a part of a well regulated militia that was necessary for the security of a free state . . . would that average Joe still have the right to bear arms?

That said, I'm still thinking of taking classes and then getting a P99 . . . but strictly for target fun, certainly not to guarantee the security of a free state....

 

I had serious trouble trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

But, it's already been ruled on that the Reserve military is not considered to be a Militia. Back when the constitution was written the Militia were the regular people who took up arms. A Militia should have nothing to do with the regular or reserve army. The power of the government should be held with the people, and everytime you take rights away from the people, you lessen their power.

 

The 3 round burst was added in the M16A2, along with a heavier barrel with a faster twist rate (for use with 62 gr ball ammo and 70-something grain tracers) and sights that are adjustible for windage and elevation. Military analysts at the time figured grunts were throwing waaaay too much lead downrange and not bagging the bad guys to account for all that ammo spent. I think I've read that the figure was something like 110 rounds for every confirmed enemy kill at the time for the average infantryman. The ammo/weight thing was one of several points thrown up when the M14 was gradually phased out in favor of the M16.

 

I'l agree Kobi that post kind of bounced around a bit. I htink I know what you are saying and I definatly know what you are pointing out and I agree.
You can't select a few words from the constitiution and try to interpret it. That's eactly whats wrong with the country now. AND that's how and why they are trying to take our right to bear arms away. So lets look at the key word in the first part of that amendment. "Militia"
When I think of Militia I think of a bunch of beer guted men, in camo, with LOTS of fire power, camping in the woods, thinking the goverment is out to get them for no reason. This is what a quick search turned up for teh true definition.

A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings:

1. An official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers
2. The national police forces in Russia, and other CIS countries, and the Soviet Union: Militsiya
3. The entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy
4. A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government

In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a national regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.

So according to the constitution then even a private civilan coordinated militia organized to defend thier own "free" state even if that's from it's own goverment, shall have the right to keep and bear arms.

Keep in mind how this country was founded and the state of mind that our for fathers were in directly after our revolution. They were a private malitia that revolted against the goverment. They were 100% focused on what the people wanted. They were prepared to fight any governing force that might come and try to take away thier way of life which is now our way of life... err is suppose to be our way of life.

Will the courts see it that way? Well No.. The judges like thier positions, they would do anything to stop a revolution.
Will the people see it that way? No the media wouldnt report it like that either. It would be reported as a group of extremeist that wanted to take over the country. So the people would back the courts. Same thing that Englands news papers probably did to our for fathers.

Remember history or you are doomed to repeat it.



We the people...

What does that mean?


Now am I saying revolt?
Heck no!
I am happy with the over all status of our country, but if the need be we should have the means to do so.

 

Just thought I might add, in Idaho in the early 1980's a small arms manufacturer, "Parma Arms" made fully automatic sub machine pistols that as I remember held about 50 rounds. Some of those wepons are still around.

 

Amendment II

”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 reason it is in bold was for a specific reason. It notes “who” has the right to keep and bear arms, which is “people”.

Not military personal, not police forces, not anyone above the age of 18, not men, not women, but “people” ALL people.

The main reason our forefathers wanted to insure our nation was armed by those who wished to exercise their “right”, not privilege, is because they knew it would be very hard if not impossible to completely throw out the Constitution and turn a “free” society into some other kind of failed society.

Anyway, it just doesn’t seem too important to the “people” now days because very few understand what the Constitution is about.

I would argue that there is very little problem with people reading the Constitution and coming to different conclusions. Yes that does happen but the biggest problem is those who come along and read something that is NOT even in the Constitution. For example abortion, free food, housing and medicine to certain privileged people in America.

One of the biggest jokes is anybody who talks about gun control. It’s a joke because they should never have the ability to talk about it and be taken serious. If someone had any logical sense they would tell the person talking about gun control to read the Constitution and that the Constitution PROHIBITS any kind of gun control.

However, not all hope is gone for those who wish to control guns. The Constitution was written such that if enough people believe in gun control, or no guns at all, they simply only have to pass a Constitutional Amendment and that would take care of any issues with the Second Amendment.

Problem is those people know that and wish to ignore they don’t stand a chance so they go through the courts, who also have NO jurisdiction over the Constitution but believe they are more powerful then the “people” of the United States.

As long as the vast majority of Americans continue to be brain dead to what the Constitution states and stands for the longer a few people, judges and activist groups will get away making their own personal changes to the Constitution…

 

Guess you forgot about that Ammendment to the Constitution just prior to #2.

 

Granted the first three words of our Constitution are "WE THE PEOPLE...," you are wrong in the assessment that courts do not play a role....the Primary role of the U.S. Supreme court is to interpret the laws passed by Congress and ratified by the President to make sure they coincide with the core intentions of the Constitution.

You must admit that the Contitution is a "living document" and thus must be interpreted as such. I am sure that the framers of our Constitution did not even dream of such destructive "arms" as bombs, air-craft and automatic weapons....and in such case...would you really want some Americans to have there incompetent paws on such weapons?

Also...the realm of communications is beyond anyones dreams in from the 1700's....thus the whole "freedom of speech" amendment is not as clear cut as it would have been back then....as entertaining as the **** industry is....I would prefer if it was not as readily available to youngsters as it is today....

As much as I believe that the Bill of Rights are rights which I perfer to live my life being protected by....I also understand that people are trying to broaden these rights beyond their core intentions....

 

He never said they couldn't talk about it... He said they shouldn't be able to talk about it AND be taken seriously. Don't try to selectively bold a sentence to change it's meaning.

 

Yes, I absolutely agree with that wherein the courts role is to “interpret” the Constitution. As per the Second Amendment there is not a whole lot to interpret. It states ”The people have the right to bare arms”.

How could anyone “interpret” that to mean only particular types of guns, only particular type of people etc? Pretty clear to me “people” so about the only thing you could interpret is that those “people” have to be breathing…

Actually I do “not” subscribe to the belief that the Constitution is a “living document” it is NOT, The Constitution was never met to be changed by a few people or a judge. Gun control means nothing to the Constitution since it makes absolutely no mention of gun control but actually makes an argument against gun control which is ”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

That statement makes it very clear what the “intentions” of the founding fathers were, don’t touch or make any laws dealing with guns or arms.

However, as was mentioned in my last post. There is a method in the Constitution to make any changes one wishes to make, including taking rights away, in this case adding wording to deal with gun control.

It’s called voting for an Amendment. I guess you could say that is the ONLY “living” part of the Constitution as there is NO other part that is considered a “living document”

To makes a change, or add an Amendment, which by the way could repeal another one, in this case to repeal the Second Amendment simply vote in a new amendment that repeals the Second Amendment.

It takes ¾ of both houses and ¾ of the states to say yes and the Constitution is changed. That is the ONLY METHOD the founding fathers put into the Constitution for making changes or letting the Constitution “live” as so many people misunderstand WHAT the Constitution is about and WHAT it actually states and means.

¾ is a HUGE number for both houses to come up with and a HUGE number of states to vote in a new Amendment but that is what it was intended for. That way a few power hungry judges and/or activist groups could not speak for the vast majority of Americans.

The founding fathers were not stupid people but I bet they would be absolutely floored to see how many Americans are no where near as educated as they were over 200 years ago. That is generally speaking and not directed to you.

Again, the Constitution in its present form is just fine and addresses issues such as **** even though **** did not exist in the 1700’s. Refer to my paragraph above about voting in a new Amendment to either change an existing one or completely repealing it. You could easily make a change to the first Amendment to limit the rights of people in what they can say, write or make movies about. You just need ¾ of both houses and ¾ of the states and **** or any other speech the “vast majority” of Americans do not like would be illegal and the United States Supreme Court couldn’t say a damn thing about it…

Yes people are trying to do that, a very small minority of them, activist groups (both left, right and in the center) as well as a few power hungry judges. They would be laughed at if enough Americans were actually educated well enough in school to know better.

I have no problem with anyone trying to change the Constitution in any way they wish. They just need to do so “legally” the way the Constitutions authors intended…

 

For the record…

I do not believe/feel convicted felons should have the “right” to own arms.
I do not believe/feel mentally retarded people should have the “right” to own arms.
I do not believe/feel people need hundreds of arms in one household.
I do not believe/feel people under the age of 16 should own or fire arms without an adult.

There may be a few more but you get the point…

However, it does NOT matter what I “believe or feel” because at this moment in time all those people I listed above have a RIGHT to own arms, any kind of arms they wish and technically and legally speaking there is nothing any court nor the Supreme Court can say or do about it…

BUT, they do, states have told particular people they do not have a RIGHT afforded to them. That is un-Constitutional and illegal but since the vast majority of Americans are not educated in what the Constitution means States and the federal government get away with it and can basically do as they please.

Speaking of the First Amendment our own Congress passed a law banning some speech and the Supreme Court upheld it as legal to ban some forms of speech even though the Constitution does NOT allow for that.

The law was Campaign Finance Reform. So our own “current” Supreme Court can NOT correctly “interpret” the Constitution, no wonder so many Americans are just absolutely naïve of our Constitution and what it was meant to protect …

 

What's it matter if some guy owns one gun or 100 guns? They can only shoot one at a time. It effects you in no way how many firearms your neighbor owns.

 

The thinking around here is, if you don't own at least three firearms you are probably homosexual.

There is a line by the John Candy character in the movie, 'Canadian Bacon' I love.
"Gentlemen, there is a time to think and a time to act...[chambers round]...and this is no time to think."