A.. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a victim. B.. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. C.. Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface. D.. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. E.. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords? F.. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words. G.. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms. H.. If you don't know your rights you don't have any. I.. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. J.. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. K.. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? L.. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others. M.. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. N.. Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians. O.. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety. P.. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. Q.. 911 - government sponsored Dial a Prayer. R.. Assault is a behavior, not a device. S.. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer. T.. If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson. U.. A government that's afraid of it's citizens will try to control them. V.. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for. W.. Enforce the "gun control laws" in place, don't make more. X.. If you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. Y.. The American Revolution wouldn't have happened with Gun Control. Z.. "...a government by the people, for the people..."
I Agree I'll respond. I hold my 2nd Amendment Rights dear to my heart even though I'm stuck in the Police State of New Jersey for now..
You guys should try living in Canada, you are very lucky you don't have the idiots that run this countrydown there.
AS AN OWNER OF OVER 60 GUNS, I AM NOT GIVING UP MY GUNS WITHOUT A FIGHT.I have never shot any person with any guns nor, am I planning to.The government wants to regulate my rights of shooting, owning, and posessing guns,but they have no problem sending our troops to Iraq with guns to protect us over here in the USA. I love my country but,I also like my rights too! PATo No:
I guess I'm on the middle of the fence here. I grew up around guns (my dad was a Chicago cop). I'm comfortable around guns and own 2 handguns. I believe in our right to defend ourselves and our right to keep and bear arms. However, I don't believe we should be able to own automatic or semi-automatic guns. These are just killing machines. When was the last time you saw a legitimate hunter blasting a deer with an automatic rifle. The founding fathers of this country believed that rifles and guns should be owned so people could defend themselves and feed themselves. Remember at the time we had no national army. It was all volunteer state militias. But they did not envision technological advancements. It is there that I personally draw the line. Sure defend yourself, go hunting etc., but just don't do it with an Uzi.
BIRDMAN, Same with me.I enjoy hunting and target shooting.I have 6 handguns and not 1 has hurt anyone.Remember, gun don't kill people. People kill people. Your points are well taken and I am in total agreement. Pat:TU:
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of "Hunting Guns Only". Sorry,the words were written VERY specifically for a reason. So,they would not be "INFRINGED UPON". One last point I feel the need to make is, why are the people who feel the second amendment should be modified or struck all together, the same people who state that the First Amendment can't be infringed upon at all,ever,don't even want to talk about it!o No:
Well, the way I read the second amendment, the rationale for non-infringement is the necessity of having a "well-regulated militia. Made perfect sense in 1787. Pretty different circumstances now. Our standing armed forces are just about invincible. Not much need for citizen-soldiers. Don't want to take away your recreational guns, but think you will have a very difficult time convincing most of your fellow citizens that you have to own automatic weapons as part of our national defense.
Harry,let me start here in saying I'm not posting to start a pissing match and I have no need or want of an automatic weapon,..but. I don't need to convince my fellow citizens of anything ,as far as I'm concerned ,it's not open to debate. Different people's idea of what I should or shouldn't have in my posession is as different as the people who live today. THAT's why our founding fathers didn't leave the second amendment open to interpritation(?). What I can't for the life of me understand is, if the 2nd amendment to be modified and twisted to meet what a few in present day society feel is correct,how come it's out of bounds to even discuss modifying our 1st amendment! People are aloud to stand up and shout how much they hate America,yet they're protected under the freedom of speech,no matter how vile they are because"Thats My Constitutional Right". I don't even want to get started about people like Howard Stern! I guess I just don't like selective enforcment......OK, I'm done now...I'm taking deep breaths.....Deeeep Breaths....OK, thats good...:laugh: :laugh:
My favorite: :beer I hold the 1st Amendment dear to my heart, and I often talk about about the 2nd Amendment. When Ted Nugent was leading an NRA outreach, I was impressed. When I received an NRA letter criticising the media, I was not. Basically, it used the same bleeding-heart emotional rhetoric techniques that the anti-gun camp employs. I was at the time a practicing journalist, and the broad, sweeping generalizations were true of very few people in the field. The world is getting "smaller," and communication, reporting, and news reporting are more broad and efficient. We hear more reports of shootings than we did in the past. However, true scientific scrutiny shows that crime in general has steadily decreased for at least 20 years, including gun-related crimes. I'm not sure of gun-related accidents, but they more than likely have decreased as well. This is, however, beside the point. I am not into guns. I have never owned a gun and doubt I ever will. I do believe that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was likely specific to the times in which it was written. This is, however, beside the point. A doctor I had as a teen said, when I complained of a cough, that we should treat the cause, not the symptom. To act otherwise would do absolutely nothing to remedy the problem. Shootings may be the symtom, but inanimate objects certainly cannot be the cause. Personally, I see no reason to change the 2nd Amendment. I am undecided about automatic assault weapons, but most of the people who own those are collectors. So I still see no reason for a change - in the Amendment, anyway.
The arguments are about fighting the government and the battlefield is rule of law. Don't forget the right to bear arms was not intended so individuals could protect themselves from criminals or to kill for food. It is in place to ensure Liberty for all free men!:blast:
AMEN TO THAT! Amen Scott, Thanks for posting that! The US Consitution was a perfect document and timeless as well but the World Order/Elitest/Establishment/Liberal crowd has eroded it with interpretation and amendments. The media would label you a "Right Wing Extremist" and the ATF would put you on some list if they saw what you believe. Our forefathers in this country had just such a reputation with the British Government. They were labeled trouble makers but there courage and self sacrifice gave us the great nation we enjoy. I would label you an asset to this nation and its ideals. By the way, have any of you seen Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore regarding guns and death in the USA? I have loved his work ever since the near perfect "Roger and Me" about the demise of his hometown of Flint MI. Brian
