I'm always ready to fly off the handle, but it takes more than this to set me off. <--- notice the smiley.

The fact that granny COULD have used a rifle makes no difference. None what so ever. 'shall not be infringed' say it with me....'shall not be infringed'. I want to see Roe V. Wade tossed out on its face and ghetto stomped into oblivion as well as every single ILLEGAL piece of gun control legislation. It is never, ever okay or acceptable to let an old case rest if it is morally wrong or in this case unConstitutional. The grand daddy of federal gun control is precipitated on a lie. And to be perfectly honest the reason for the 1934 NFA was the fact that prohibition had ended and all those poor revenuers would be out of jobs. We all know that for the government to cut back would be a sin so we created a whole new set of laws for them to enforce...taxes. That's right ladies and gents, the 1934 NFA is a TAX code and the JBT's that enforced those regs were revenuers.

I don't know if you're trying to be obtuse or if you really don't understand the concept, but freedom is not free and an unreasonable fear on one person's behalf is not a reason to deny an other thier inalienable rights.

Since you have asked all of the questions thus far, I'll ask one why do you think it's legal and even okay to ban handguns?

 

Momalle, you don't seem to get it - the second amendment is not about protecting yourself from crime or criminals. At all.

It is about the ability of the citizen to protect themselves from an unjust, corrupt, or tyrranical government.

As mentioned, read the intent of the writers - the Federalist Papers, or even the Anti-Federalist papers (which were the same or similar authors, just making counterpoints).

As I said earlier elsewhere, if God himself came down to earth and said "If you all give me your firearms, I will end all violent crime", I would respectfully decline.

 

Legal, as in constitutional? Yes, but I think I made that point. Okay? No. I don't think barring the general public from owning handguns solves anything, in fact can create problems. I also don't think the general public should have the ability to own any gun ever created. No one needs an Uzi to protect themselves, no one. A 38 will protect your life and property as well as a 357.

Oh no, I get it, I was just clarifying what you said, I obviously missed the safety training part. I'm not pretending to do anything, but I ALWAYS try to look at both sides and try to understand both sides. IMO, only a fool wouldn't look at an issue from all possible angles. Do you not investigate all types of vehicles before deciding to by Ford? Do you not look at the best way to use and invest your money? I am surely decided that people should be able to own guns, I am not surely decided I need one. Does that help?

 

Using your logic of "legality and constitutionality" we could pass laws saying no handguns and no centerfire rifles, and no rimfire rifles - in fact the only legal guns are black powder muzzleloaders - right?

Um...no.

 

The Second Amendment is not, I repeat NOT about concealed carry or personal protection from private citizens. It IS about overthrowing a tyranical govenment should it become necessary, and keeping all other governments in check with the constant threat that should they go bat chit crazy and declare X, Y, and Z the general population possesses the means and will to oust them at will.

Please don't get hung up thinking that the 2nd is about 10/22's and a .38.

 

We covered that on a previous page and even went into the 1st only covering the printing press.

 

Svermill, you make good points except that the government should not be in the business of 'licensing' an inalienable human right, endowed on us by our Creator.

See this SCOTUS ruling: Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.

And in that opinon, Mr. Justice Murphy states:

 

Count one here.
Both threatened and saved in the same instance.
I can't say much about it, but I will say that it was not in my home or any home, that it was in a public place, in a public parking lot.
Thank God no shots were fired, I was caught unarmed and would be dead if they had.

I ussually didn't pack on me, and still don't. But was and is ussually one in my vehicle.



Do you have any idea what you just said?

Look up the definiton of Militia, and there in lies the answer to your own question.
Especially if you remember the history of our country and that we did not even have an orginized goverment at the time that the document was written. When it was actually being written we were just a small rebelious malitia ourselfs. It is popular to envision our forfathers sitting around in a mansion writting and signing this. When in reality it couldn't be more the opposite.


Since I have answered the question.....

FIRST: If your not comfortable with any firearm hand gun or long gun either one, and dont "feel" like there is a chance in hell that you could ever possiably need one at anytime in your life for any reason... Then point blank, DO NOT GET ONE! I mean it, I dont care what anyone else has, what anyone else uses it for, or why anyone else has thiers. You should not get that paticular firearm that you are not comfortable with.

SECOND: Asking if anyone else has ever used thiers for defense and basing your decision based on that info.

Thats like asking if anyone has used the bed of thier pickup, or thier V8, or thier 4wd. Then deciding which "if any" that you need, based on wether or not anyone else has used thiers or not.

Since I cooperated with your question, then can you please explain this train of thought in a way that makes some type of logical sense?

 

First, thank you for your story.

The pickup analogy is a good one, but I take gun ownership much more seriously. I didn't ask the question to support or slight gun ownership, it's simply a question I ask myself. The pickup is a good question, many people see a pickup as simply a tool to haul things and can't imagine why anyone would want one. If I were a non-pickup owner, I might ask why people would want one. I seldomly haul anything myself and I'm not 100% sure I could explain why I own one to a non-owner, but if someone asked, I would try. At the end of the day, they would have to bu what suits their own needs, but I would try to explain that truck ownership is more than having a bed and 4WD. It was just a simple question, maybe I can ask something a bit different, since the Supreme Court has said that the second amendment does not guarantee your right to any or all arms available, why the fuss about handguns? Why not be happy with rifles? I've shot both, and enjoy both, I've never seen anyone hunt with a handgun, so why the fuss. So far, very few have had to use any gun in their defense, so why is everyone "up in arms" about this law? (Is that question any better?)

 

Ohh I was thinking in defense of a human threat.
I carry a .38 as a side arm while wild boar hunting. If I'm the one driving them by foot, I dont want to be caught in brush trying to swing a rifle around when I'm being charged. Those things will tear you up. Also a .410 pistol has saved me a few times in that sence too. Have been able to kill numerous water mochasins with it while fishing on the river.

Also would like a .270 Contender for a side arm for deer hunting. Currently carry a .357 would be nice to only have the one round for both guns to carry.

The reason that everyone is raising such a fuss, is more the pricinable of the fact. They are not going to ever beable to pass a ban on all guns at one time and get away with it. We know that if they slowly take them away one at a time eventually they will all be banned.

 

ding ding ding ding ding
We have a winner!!!!!!!

 

No. I don't care WTF the SCOTUS said, they are plainly and patently wrong. They have no leg to stand on as 'shall not be infringed' is damn clear, cut, and dry. An unConstitutional law is by its very nature null and void.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall - "any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void" 1803, Marbury vs. Madison.

I will not settle nor accept a judge legislating from the bench nor the usurpation of my rights. People like you, who don't see a problem with the erosion of our rights and don't care, irritate me to no end. Your lackadaisical attitude toward freedom is appalling and a slap in the face to every Veteran this country has known, let alone those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us to be free.

To blindly accept the decrees of government is not only Un-American it’s a down right ignorant and moreover a DANGEROUS proposition. Anyone who does so ought to be ashamed of themselves for not caring, but most are too stupid to realize what they’re doing. We have all responded to you in a polite fashion and answered your questions up to this point so please answer a question for me. Are you really an anti trying to play devils advocate or are you for real? That is a serious and sincere question. I noticed that you live in Mass, are you a transplant or have you lived there your entire life? Seriously.

FYI [URL]http://www.handgunhunt.com/[/URL

 

Thank you, that's the best answer yet. I'm sure there are quite a few that are chipping away one gun at a time, but I don't think they'll ever be successful, surely not in our lifetime.

 

I missed the ] on the end of that last tag

http://www.handgunhunt.com/


Just because you don't think that they will be successful in taking all of our guns (or freedom of speech, or religion etc ) in our lifetiems is irrelevant. I want my children to experience as much or more freedom than I enjoyed in this great country. That is why I get irked at apathy. That is why I get boxes of letters back from all of my reps. Hell I even write other people's reps if they do a really good or really bad job.

 

First off, no one has infringed on your right to bear arms, and no the constitution does not guarantee any an all arms. Preventing you from owning an Uzi does not infringe your right to bear arms. Just because I don't view not being able to own an Uzi as an infingement hardly means I don't care, and I don't blindly accept anything, perhaps I agree with it. You're hardly being polite here, and I have made it more than clear that I am not anti-gun. If you can't read that, that's your problem. And yes, I've lived here my entire life. Why would that matter? I'm sorry that you find someone who agree's with some SCOTUS rulings annoying.