I rarely look past today on very many subjects.
But animal conservation and habitiat as well as right to bear arms are some that I desperatly want my kids, grand kids, great grand kids, great great grand kids, etc etc to beable to enjoy. I can not / will not take part in allowing the deteriation of any of them.

Our goverment plans agendas with a couple hundred years in mind.
The Chinese plan 1000's of years at a time.

I want to position myself now, so that in 1000 years my heritage is still alive, and so that our countries countrymen will still have the ability to both be free and defend thier selfs.
I hate to think of a day when all is lost and the US of A is defensless to a dictator "again". We have fought to hard, and has cost to much, to get where we are to allow any back tracking.

Edited to add:
Apperently they are being successful!
They just banned hand guns in SF, and wstahlm80 had a thread 2 days ago or so where a law was passed in a town in Ill. that prevents anyone from transporting a firearm inside the city limits. You can still own them but once you buy it you can not put it in you car and take it to your house. That's any firearm, hand gun, rifle, shotgun, probably paint ball too.
IL Hunters BEWARE!!!

 

You seem to think anyone who doesn't feel exactly as you do is irrelevent.

 

An uzi is an over rated firearm best suited for putting chit eating grins on a gronw mans face. I don't get why people are so afraid of them. What do you have against them?

If my RKBA has not been infringed then why can I not own a rifle with a barrel less than 16", a shotgun witha barrell less than 18", a sounds supressor, or a FA MG without first begging for permission from the government? Why can I not buy a MG that was built after 1986 without being a SOT? Why can I not own a Russian .51 caliber rifle without jumping through hoops? My rights HAVE been infringed, and so have yours. The difference between you and I is that I care.

Read the Federalist pepers, it clears up anything that you, or anyone else, thinks is unclear or vague in the Constitution. All arms of the standing Army...all. Hell during the Revolution private citizens owned top of the line naval fighting ships. The SCOTUS, actualyl all judges are required to interpret a law as it was intended WHEN WRITTEN. That's an important and oft overlooked part and has lead to legislation from the bench.


RE: MA

Mass is notoriously anti-gun and it is evident that the pervading atmosphere has at least in part influenced your thoughts and decisions on the matter. That's why I asked, thanks for answering.

 

Edited to add:
Apperently they are being successful!
They just banned hand guns in SF, and wstahlm80 had a thread 2 days ago or so where a law was passed in a town in Ill. that prevents anyone from transporting a firearm inside the city limits. You can still own them but once you buy it you can not put it in you car and take it to your house. That's any firearm, hand gun, rifle, shotgun, probably paint ball too.
IL Hunters BEWARE!!!

 

No I don't, but anyone who lets their, our, MY rights be infringed and restricted without so much as a care is worthless and not deserving of freedom. JMNSHO.

 

Then explain to me what:

means?

It doesn't say:

, it says "ARMS "

 

I have been reading this thread, with great interest.

Pony Driver - I admire your tenacity and your clear understanding of what the founding fathers were trying to do when they created the documents that this country is supposed to be based upon.

momalle1 - I have a question for you: Lets just say that they did ban all handguns in the USA. Now lets say all law abiding citizens turn them in. What has been accomplished ?

Would you really feel any safer ?

Would crime rates drop anywhere ?

Do you think that once the candy-@sses that wanted the handguns banned succeeded that other types of firearms wouldn't be next on the list ? Give them an inch, they'll take a mile...

When does it stop ? When the scumbags and criminals are all armed to the teeth and we all have knives and baseball bats to battle them with ?

Go ahead and put your head in the sand - ALL of us are experiencing the erosion of our rights, whether or not you care or want to do anything about it...

I find it disturbing that the government passes totally STUPID laws like the 3 or 5 day "cooling off" period. They require you to go through a background check when you purchase a handgun. OK. So they figure out I'm an OK guy and am entitled to own a gun if I so desire. Now, I want to buy a 2nd handgun - do you think they would look up my 1st registration and see that I ALREADY own a handgun and therefore am not likely to be buying a gun for a "crime of passion" ? NOPE.

If it is really about saving lives, answer this: How many people were ever killed by "crime of passion" gun purchases ? Anywhere near the number of people that are killed each year by drunk drivers or cigarettes ? If it is truly about safety and saving lives, there are much more dangerous items that need to be brought under control before we worry about handguns in the hands of everyday, law-abiding citizens.

As for me, I'll keep my handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. I use them for lawful purposes and hope I never need to use them on another human being.

But, if the situation warrants, I will... THAT'S one simple reason why the banning of firearms is wrong.

It's not the weapon, it's the person operating it - be it knife, club or gun...

 

Thanks B-man. I'd like to extend an invitation to you to stop by www.black-rifles.com/forums and take a look around. I think you'll like it, but if you don't no harm no foul.

 

Pony Driver, I'm sorry you feel I don't care about our freedoms, it's simply not true. I think we'll have to move on that we disagree that freedoms are being infringed as written in the Constitution in this case, but I do care. If you can't see that, I'm not going to change your mind. And while we are all affected by our environment, I think I've made it clear that I am not anti-gun. Most of my close friends, also life long residents, own and carry pistols. I know a lot of people that carry, I'm not sure what people think, but it is not impossible to get a gun in Mass.

B-Man, I'm not for banning handguns, (go back and read the thread) so I'm not sure why you are asking me.


I agree with PSS-Mags post

"I rarely look past today on very many subjects.
But animal conservation and habitiat as well as right to bear arms are some that I desperatly want my kids, grand kids, great grand kids, great great grand kids, etc etc to beable to enjoy. I can not / will not take part in allowing the deteriation of any of them.

Our goverment plans agendas with a couple hundred years in mind.
The Chinese plan 1000's of years at a time.

I want to position myself now, so that in 1000 years my heritage is still alive, and so that our countries countrymen will still have the ability to both be free and defend thier selfs.
I hate to think of a day when all is lost and the US of A is defensless to a dictator "again". We have fought to hard, and has cost to much, to get where we are to allow any back tracking."

100%. It's a great, non-left or right approach, it's about doing what's right.

That's all I have to say about it, if you can't accept what I have said as my true meaning, that's your problem.

Have a nice day.

 

The worst part about liberals is that most of them honestly believe they are 'centrist'.

 

Maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from a little better. I have help run firearms related websites for a couple years now, I am also part owner (if you can call it that) of one that's currently online. I have seen a number of people from DU and other places register and attempt to masquerade as gunowners or as someone friendly to the 2nd. Their motives and patterns are easy to spot and your post were seemingly headed in that vein.

What's worse than someone who has no interest in guns and could care less if they were around or not are the hunters. Not all hunters mind you as I'm one myself, but the people who own 1 $12,000 O/U shotgun or a trap gun and say "This is all you ever need" and then there's Bubba, the backwoods bumpkin 'I got's me mah diddy's Geerand and a deer gun. You don't need no uzi fo protecshun or a AK-fody sebn for no deer huntin.' Their intelligence aside they are ignorant. The second amendment is not about hunting, trap shooting, or personal protection. The duck and deer hunters of America are worse than the flat out anti's IMO. All they care about is their sport, and not our rights.

I know that not everyone in MA is anti gun. In fact I know a couple absolute gun nuts who live there.

 

Here is my problem with outlawing any firearm.

Lets say everything but fully automatic weapons are legal. I know a lot of people that argue "You dont need an uzi or ak47, etc to protect yourself"

Fair enough but....

If everything is legal but Automatic weapons (AW) lets look at the landscape

Law abiding citizens have everything but AWs.

Military and police have AW.

Criminals have AW.

The only people affected by the law are the honest law abiding citizens. They arent the ones you need to worry about.

SO I am against blocking anytype of weapon because frankly when you outlaw them only the outlaws have them.

 

Pony_Driver's veneer is cracking....stand back.....



Momalle, you continue to ignore my statement - you continue to assert thoughts about "protection from criminals" and "hunting".

Get this - The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting Or Crime.

Yes, I capitalized them all on purpose - you seem to be glosssing over my point.

It is about our own government! Achieving and Maintaining a parity with the force they are able to bear. To limit their excesses.

The Second Amendment was written for when the GOVERNMENT tries to do away with the other of the first ten amendments.

"Right" - a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession.

"keep" - To retain possession of: kept the change; must keep your composure.
To have as a supply: keep an ax in the shed.
1. To provide (a family, for example) with maintenance and support: “There's little to earn and many to keep” (Charles Kingsley).
2. To support (a mistress or lover) financially.

To put customarily; store: Where do you keep your saw?
1. To supply with room and board for a charge: keep boarders.
2. To raise: keep chickens.
To maintain for use or service:

"bear" - To hold up; support.
To carry from one place to another; transport.

"arms" - weapons considered collectively,
A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms.

"shall" - Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation.

"not" - n no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition.

"infringe" - To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing.

 

Momalle, Pony_Driver was dead on accurate when he described your appearance/thought process as one of those "moderate conservatives" or "liberals" who attempt to sway other gun owners into giving away their rights by using the bit by bit approach.

Gun control is any and all attempts to outlaw firearms of any types from the hands of criminals. No additional laws would have prevented any of the gun tragedies of the past.

In Columbine, those two CRIMINALS broke an assorted 25 state and federal laws in doing what they did. No assault weapon ban or ban on magazine capacity would have stopped them. However, in another school assault by a student with a weapon, the threat ended when a PRINCIPAL rushed out to his car and got his gun. Hmmmm.

This is what always irks me - liberals always seem to believe in the sanctity and validity of applying the OTHER amendments comprising the Bill of Rights evenly, without restriction by state or federal government, to the individual - HOW can they logically believe that the 2nd is the only one there that it is ok to limit?

 

I agree with the many here who have sound logical thoughts. Gun control in any form is completely against the Second Amendment period. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for any gun control.

To think there is a need for gun control in any form is simply illogical. First one must actually think “completely” through and in a logical manner. This is hard for many because it means taking emotion out.

So, let’s try this…

First, are their laws on the books, in all the states that make it illegal to kill another human being? Yes, all states have laws against illegally killing another human being and of course there are always exceptions (i.e. self defense etc). However the law does not need to specify by what means it is illegal to kill another human being (i.e. guns, knifes, rocks, fist, etc).

Second, are their laws that prohibit people from destroying personal and public property? Yes, every state has laws against destroying personal and public property. Again, there is no need for the law to spell out by what means personal or public property is destroyed (i.e. guns, bats, vehicles, etc). It is simply enough to have a law that states you can not destroy personal and public property.

With just those two simple laws (i.e. murder, destruction of property) it makes gun control unnecessary in every way shape and form.

Gun control is thought up and brought to the forefront by liberal thinking people. They have no common sense when they conceive these laws with the exception of fantasies.

They dream of utopia, of peace and harmony among all mankind, believing others should take care of others and everything should be joyful. It’s a pipe dream dreamed up on crack because it is pure fantasy and absolutely impossible, it will never happen, period.

The problem is they believe these laws will apply to criminals, the very people they love, look up to, and do everything in their power to take the blame off and put onto others. It’s never the criminals fault. They have proven this by getting stupid laws passed where a criminal can sue you if they fall down on your property, where it is sometimes illegal to kill a criminal in your own home etc. Lots of protection for criminals but very few for “law abiding” citizens.

The Second Amendment, as I pointed out and a few others, has nothing to do with one protecting themselves from criminals or hunting. It is there to take down and eliminate a government hell bent on throwing out the United States Constitution and all the RIGHT’S it gives citizens. You could also think of it from protecting the masses from the small minority groups of liberal, backwards thinking, irrational, and pipe dreaming utopia nut cases that fail to realize what reality is and is not…

There is NO black and white, there is NO grey area on the Second Amendment. You either 100% completely agree with it and support it or you DON’T. If you don’t great, that’s your right, but do NOT in any way, other then the proper way spelled out in the Constitution, try to take it away or you might find yourself part of the crowd that one day gets taken out…

Oh, the taken out is not people like me taken you out with a gun, but those who never and have never had to follow any laws, and have never been forced to accept 100% complete responsibility for their actions, the criminals…

It simply amazes me how many people really do not know the truth and reason behind WHY the Second Amendment exists. It might not make you feel all warm and fuzzy but it is there for the sole purpose of taking out a sitting government (local, state, or federal) when they neglect to govern as set forth by the United States Constitution…

The federal government, if they were abiding by the United States Constitution, would be taking serious action against San Francisco and the state of California. Neither have the RIGHT whatsoever to tamper with a Constitutional RIGHT…

The United States Constitution TRUMPS ALL states rights and laws…