The 2nd Amendment??

[Charles]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

How do I define the 2'nd? And shall not be infringed? See below.

Is everyone in Tennessee that pig headed?

If so, and you ever get lost, and wind up in Missouri...don't worry.

You're among friends.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

"There are a lot of union members, who should be solidly in the Democratic camp, who vote Republican strictly on the gun control issue.

Chas[/QUOTE]


Right. This is my brother. Doesn't give a damn about anything else they stand for, (except he does share my pro-life stance, one of the views I share with the right.).

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Don't forget the use of the term "well regulated." That has to be given some meaning as well. The construction of the provision clearly links the right to bear arms to the necessity of a "well regulated" militia. Shouldn't that phrase have some meaning in the context of regulating firearms?

Regards,

D-Ray

I think so.

I don't argue against regulation entirely, but I see no harm in responsible people owning and using weapons such as rifles suitable for hunting deer, fowl, and so on. I have no problem at all with folks owning handguns for personal/home protection. So long as reasonable measures are in place to screen individuals for violent criminal behavior, and/or mental illness. To me, these things are just common sense.

However, weapons such as AK47s, UZIs, MAC10s and 50 caliber sniper rifles are a bit over the top. The stuff of paranoid hate groups, criminals, jackasses and the tinfoil hat crowd. In my opinion, if it was designed strictly for the military, then that's where it belongs, and nowhere else.

I know I'm about to be lambasted for the above statement, and I really couldn't care less. Go ahead fellas, get it off your chests.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I have no problem at all with folks owning handguns for personal/home protection.

You have a better chance of being struck by lighting than having a hand gun be of value in home/personal protection. IMO one of the more bogus rationals used in the gun debate.
If you want to tell me that psychologically it makes millions feel safer, that I will agree with.

[JJIII]

For your enjoyment:
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/Guns...fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy62.html

The list could go on.
Guns are nothing but tools. The proper training is needed of course.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

For your enjoyment:
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/Guns...fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy62.html

The list could go on.
Guns are nothing but tools. The proper training is needed of course.

http://www.politicalchat.org/offroad...read.php?t=105

Please reference post 8 and the entire thread, then think about your personal experience.
I have overwhelmingly found that guns make one feel better but the bad far, far, far, far, far, far out weighs the psychological comfort they afford. Especially when skittish folks have Xanax and the like to make them feel less threatened availble to them anyway.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

For your enjoyment:
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

http://www.nowandfutures.com/d2/Guns...fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/duffy62.html

The list could go on.
Guns are nothing but tools. The proper training is needed of course.

And your links will never come close to matching the links available for the tragedy's guns provide.

[JJIII]

I am sorry that you have had bad experiences in you life with guns....But, drunks and people with mental problems should not be fooling around with guns in the first place. Just as they should not be driving or operating dangerous equipment. I never said everyone should have guns. A person should be able to demonstrate some measure of responsibility first. This is where the slope gets slippery I guess. I am still going to support the 2nd amendment and count on the common sense of the local community to provide guidelines regarding who should and who should not have access to dangerous machines or guns.

As to the number of links available on either side of the question, both are more than can be counted. Tragedy sells, no tragedy is not very interesting except to the parties involved.

That last sentence is poorly worded but I think you get my drift.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

How do I define the 2'nd? And shall not be infringed? See below.

:thmbsup:

Originally Posted by Charles

Besides, if the war on ammo is as effective as the war on drugs, most everybody will be walking around looking like Pancho Villa.

Chas

Lmao!!!

Originally Posted by JJIII

Guns are nothing but tools. The proper training is needed of course.

I can't believe there isn't basic gun safety training in early elementary school. It would surely cut down on some of those tragic accidents.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

So am I. Sooner or latter the court will grow a pair and interpret the second as it was meant.

I don't need to count on anyone to provide guidelines. I need to vote for folks that know that it is absurd to have "dangerous machines or guns."

I suggest you look to your own life experience then. When did a gun keep you safe?

And was it imagined?

I have no problem respecting your opposing view and I have no issues with limited private gun ownership but it is rare for a gun to be of value in dissuading crime. I promise you, if I were a criminal the fact that you own a gun would be of little or no consequence.