[smoke]

Rosie Ho mode on:

Now Gov't Thug what is wrong with a few common sense "Gun Safety" laws?[}:D]
If we all work together our children will be safer!
Gun Locks work to keep children from being able to shoot anyone accidentally.
Gun safes work to keep kids from having access to guns.
Registration does not lead to confiscation...How many people have had their cars confiscated?
Let's be realistic...Background checks at gunshows for ALL SALES will completely stop all criminals from getting guns! Period!
So climb out of that militia compound and join the FREE WORLD today!
We can do it for the CHILDREN!!![}:D]

Rosie Ho mode off:

Lynn

At the end of the day the constitution is only a trivialized piece of paper just as the flag is only a rag on a stick.......got your attention ? It all boils down to an individuals moral compass and their willingness to unite in the face of a comon enemey in this case that enemey might just turn out to be the soon to be defunked United Nations. This organisation has obviously been overtaken by the forces of evil , these forces are not tangible but lie within every person in the form of a set of beliefs. I advise everyone to study history and refresh their memories rather than parroting empty phrases. This will be your strongest weapon in the face of our nextgreat challange.

Semper Fi

I'll try this and see how it goes but I've never tried to think like an anti before. maybe I'll learn something.

Gun hater mode on;

Well you know, if we had laws that would prevent these kids from getting these guns, all these school shootings would never have happened. There's just something about those assault weapons and those machine guns that make those kids go crazy. I read about how many kids are dying from these guns and I've seen it on TV. Rosie didn't say anything about 18 and 19 year old gangbangers figuring into the statistics so it must be made up crap from all the gun nuts at the NRA. They're all a bunch of militia wackos anyway. I'm glad that nobody in my neighborhood has any guns. This neighborhood was just built and we all have kids so it's much safer this way, besides they just hired two more policemen. Also, I don't even buy that argument that some of my relatives are saying about the hunting. There's no need to hunt anymore, Krogers has a sale on meat every 2 weeks. So you see, there's no need for a gun at all.

This is the 21st century, not the wild west or the colonial days. My car has power locks and I've got my cell phone, what crook is going to bother me?

gun hater mode off;

Whew, fellas that was tough. The preceeding evil tripe was spouted at me some time back. I got so pissed, I couldn't even respond. My only thought was to choke the idiot so she could speak no more..... That's my biggest problem with these people, I get so incredibly pissed off when I hear that crap, I loose my ability to speak and my trigger finger starts twitching.

Greg

I believe the ENTIRE gun control issue boils down to: those in power have a new world planned for us. Many of us do not want to live in their planned "utopia". They will not allow us to "opt out", and they will not leave us in peace. Those of us who are armed stand in their way. Therefore we must be dealt with. Once we are disarmed, their plans can move forward, into the wonderful world of peace and brotherhood the elite will bring about.

Then the killing starts.

Those who are anti-gun now will realize that we were right once they're standing in line to the gas chambers, smelling the smoke of their neighbors who are being reduced to ashes in the crematoriums. I say "we were right", because I for one don't plan on sticking around for the endgame.

Hey Colt shooter learn to take a deep breath and answer them one at a tiime for examle:
1. The majority of the kids involved in the shooting were influenced by certain violent type games while they were on psychotrophic drugs. OK then lets ban MTV, and video games plus doctors who prescribe these drugs.
2. Anybody that can believe what rosie Odognuts says as being factual must believe that liberals tell the truth. For example how many years before it hit the press was the far right telling about the exploits of Klinton, and they were made fun of.
3.  Security if in the hands of each person. Ask them if you can choke the shit out of them while they attempt to call the police and see how far they get. Let them know that you will allow a brief second for them to obtain something to protect themselves, but only a brief second.
4. Ask them do they search and examine their neighbors homes to ensure that none of them are armed.

When you speak up to them, always start low, and then raise the voice. They are conditioned for moral superiority, and when it doesn't work, they retreat into a fucking sheep mode. Make them back up what they say with facts, and then attack. Most of them are raised on the rosie o dognuts type shows, and are basically mental deficient in the response catagory. In the end they will probably start calling you names, and that is when you laugh your ass off at them, Oh how much fun it is to watch them get red in the face.

The Bill of Rights limits the powers of govt. generally and provides rights to the PEOPLE as INDIVIDUALS.

We'll get back to the Second . . .

First limits govt. restrictions on speech, press, religion.

Third limits govt. power to house troops in private domiciles.

Fourth limits govt. power to search/sieze.

Fifth limits govt. power to interrogate or compell testimony.

Sixth limits govt. power to detain without cause.

Seventh limits govt. power to prosecute without a jury.

Eighth limits govt. power to impose punishiment or excessive bail.

Ninth limits govt. power to impose laws not specifically stated by statute.

Tenth limits govt. power to over-ride rights retained by states or by the people.

But let's get back to the Second:

This is derived from English Common Law, the Magna Carta, and it reverses the view advanced by the Napoleanic Code.

The Napoleanic Code holds that guns belong to the king -- as does property. And that the king allows the people to use property at his discretion.

English Common Law holds that the PEOPLE own the guns, and property. And that the power to govern derives from the consent of the governed. That a person cannot be deprived of rights/property without due process. That due process shall be mandated by the consent of the people -- not by the power of the govt.

The control of power is fundamental to English Common Law and the Bill of Rights. The power to govern resides in the consent of the governed -- the PEOPLE, not the govt.

The Bill of Rights is intended to protect the fundamental rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is why laws are tossed out as "unconstitutional" even though they're passed by majority vote.

OK, what is a "militia"?

During the Constitutional Convention, private police forces where unheard of. Armies where comprised of volunteers for the defense of the PEOPLE.

A "militia" can be construed as ANY govt. sanction body intended to preserve order. Police qualify as a "militia." The police are an arm of govt. intended to preserve order.

"In order to preserve a free state" it's necessary that the "militia" be "well regulated." State is not like NY or Florida. State is like solid, liquid, gas . . . a condition -- FREE.

Unregulated militia . . . police, armies, govt. agencies like ATF, DEA, FBI . . . are tyrannical. Their powers derive from "the people" and must be regulated by the people.

This derives from the principle that "the just powers of govt. derive from the consent of the governed." The people regulate the govt. and the govt. militia. The govt. doesn't regulate the people.

The power to "regulate" resides in an armed populace. The PEOPLE control the arms, not the govt. When the govt. controls the arms, they have the power to tyranize the people. Nazi Germany and the Roman Empire come to mind.

The PEOPLE should have the same "uninfringed" right to "keep and bear" arms as the govt. militia that the people are entitled to "regulate."

Hard to regulate an out of control police force or army when they have full auto, high capacity arms and the PEOPLE are controled by the govt. through infringements upon their right to "keep and bear" the same arms as the militia they are mandated to "regulate."

It ain't about "sporting purposes." It's about regulating the power of govt.

Does the first Amendment give us a right to speak? No. It protects our right to speak. We have this right, with or without the Constitution. All the 1st Amendment does is enumerate the right, so as to protect it from any and all government attempts to regulate it. Correct?

The 2nd Amendment does not "give" us a right to keep and bear arms, it protects that right, just as the 1st protects our right to free speech. The often abused militia clause was inserted to state the reason to protect that right. The right is protected so that we may be able to call up an adequately armed militia, comprised of citizens well practiced in the use of arms. In order that we may have an effective militia, the people must keep and bear arms of a military value. To do otherwise would be useless.

You may argue that there is no need for a well armed miltia since you believe that our government is above doing anything which would endager our liberties. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but recent events lead me to believe that you are wrong. Waco and Ruby Ridge are prime examples.

While you may argue that these are isolated incidents, I beleive they were a test of the resolve of the people. So far, I believe we passed the test, and the radical left is back to whittling away our RKBA.

Now for some numbers: It is claimed that some 30,000 people lose their lives each year to firarms here in the US. Among these 30,000, there is said to be about 4,000 young people, up to age 20.

In the 20th century, 56 million people lost their lives to their governments after they were disarmed. That amounts to 560,000 each year, every year, for 100 years. If a mere 10% were young people, up to age 20, that would be 56,000 killed each year, or almost double the total of all firearms fatalities in the US each year, and almost the exact number of American servicemen killed in Vietnam throughout the war.

I prefer to take my chances with an armed civilian population.

Do we get to vote for them before or after they round us up and send us to the showers?

I personally take great joy in regualrly blowing the anti-gunners' bullshit out of the water!  I love it when they say something like:
 "The Framers never intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols."

 Answer:  Sure, and they never intended the 1st Amendment to apply to the Internet or TV.  When the Framers said "arms," that implied AT LEAST the standard weapon suitable for military service (why else would they bother?) carrying that to modern times, the M16 and Beretta would be a reasonable place to begin drawing the line between "arms," and "Weapons of Mass Destruction."  Of course, mortars, heavy machine guns, and military vehicles should only be sold to official state militias (RI comes to mind).  One does not have the right to possess tactical nukes, for instance.

What concerns me is that when they take office, elected officials swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the U.S.
Now, those politicians who pass the laws in states that infringe on our 2nd amendment right to bear arms and not allow carrying or a ban of certain firearms, isn't that considered disobeying the Constitution and possibly a type of treason since it is indangering our(U.S.) way of life?
While the argument is if the 2nd amendment is a individual right or not, until proven otherwise, each amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written as an individual right for each U.S. citizen.
So where in the Constitution does it say that the 2nd Amendment is exempt as an individual right?
Even a totally religious, non-smoking, non-drinking, and non-dancing Attorney General John Ashcroft believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
I believe it is time to regain our rights.

I'll go back to ball and musket if the US Gov't will.

BTW....Where will "they" be putting all these newly created "criminals" after the ban, what about the "killers" that are caught while protecting their 2nd ammendment rights?  "They" don't believe in the death penalty, so I guess more prisons will have to be built.  With so much cash needed, and so many fewer taxpayers footing the bill, I guess the anti's and the sheep won't mind seeing their tax bracket's spike a little.  After all, it's for the children, even if "they" must kill their parents to get their way.

What happens when the idealism of the liberals meets the realities of the world we live in?