Gun Refresher course

[IowaSkinsFan]

a. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

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 firearm 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. Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens 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. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

y. The American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

z. "....a government by the people, for the people....."

[Skinzaholic]

Amen to "d".. Robert!

[Ford]

Hrmm Robert ..

The United States Constitution, a document which I covet as much as the next man, guarantees you the right to bear arms. Does it specifically guarantee you the right to bear firearms? No .. no it doesn't. There are plenty of ways of ARMing yourself .. yet gun control opponents seem to act as if arms is synonomis with fire arms .. it's not.

Do you think that you have the right as an american citizen to posess nuclear weapons? I don't ... yet if you interpreted the constitution the same way for that, I suppose it would override all related legistlation.

[Skinzaholic]

Ford.... I think you are interpreting the constitution by todays standards... instead of as the writers intention. There is every evidence to believe they were inteding "arms" to mean "Firearms"... what else would it mean? A spoon?

Sometimes we like to bring in contention... but I doubt it was present in their minds. Everyone alive at tht time knew what it meant.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Ford
Hrmm Robert ..

The United States Constitution, a document which I covet as much as the next man, guarantees you the right to bear arms. Does it specifically guarantee you the right to bear firearms? No .. no it doesn't. There are plenty of ways of ARMing yourself .. yet gun control opponents seem to act as if arms is synonomis with fire arms .. it's not.

Do you think that you have the right as an american citizen to posess nuclear weapons? I don't ... yet if you interpreted the constitution the same way for that, I suppose it would override all related legistlation.

Even if you want to apply that ridiculous standard to what was obviously meant to be interpreted as firearms (as it was mentioned in connection with the militia who used firearms), it does NOT EXCLUDE, firearms. Therefore, I am guaranteed that right as a law abiding US citizen. IT DOES GUARANTEE ME THE RIGHT.

[Ford]

The point is it doesn't include or exclude them, it leaves that to interpretation. If you want to say it's so obvious that it is intended for firearms, you might as well admit that the purpose of the second ammendment is basically obsolete today and that it was meant so that militia men could protect the people against oppresive rule if need be .... is that what you're doing with your gun?

[JoeDaSchmoe]

Ford, you're going against just about every legal sense of the word here....

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Ford
The point is it doesn't include or exclude them, it leaves that to interpretation. If you want to say it's so obvious that it is intended for firearms, you might as well admit that the purpose of the second ammendment is basically obsolete today and that it was meant so that militia men could protect the people against oppresive rule if need be .... is that what you're doing with your gun?


Yeah Ford, that's what I am doing with my firearms.

You obviously have never used a firearm in any sort of sporting or competitive situation. You have no personal use for them (which is fine, that is your choice) and you therefore do not understand them, have no heritage with them, never had a firearm passs down through 3 generations of you family, stood on a fence row with you grandfather who used that firearm to feed his family and learn to understand, respect and appreciate firearms.

You are afraid of them and would rather deprive law abiding citizens of their right to lawfully own and use them.

I could just as easily sit here and argue with you that I do not use airplanes and I think they should be banned in America. After all, we saw what planes can be used for in America in 2001. If you think that guns kill people and not the person that pulled the trigger, then the same logic must hold that the planes killed the people in the Pentagon and the WTC and not the terrorists flying them. And we better ban box cutters because that is how the terrorists obtained control of the planes to begin with. For that matter, any object that was ever used to kill a human being should banned from ownership in the United States. Any knives in your household, Ford? Own a car, Ford? All can be considered weapons. You know what the definition of an arm is, as you are applying it, don't you? Play baseball? Own a bat? Think a bat has every been used to kill an American? We better shut down MLB.

You can apply any meaning you want to the second amendment. The fact is that you have no use for firearms, and therefore do not understand how any American can have use for them. That is a personal more of yours that will never be changed through a website. But as soon as you start saying that the reason for this amendment is obsolete, you have opened a pandora's box for reasons to rewrite the entire constitution. How many situations in history that prompted amendments to the constitution are now obsolete?

I own, respect and use firearms. You say you love the constitution as much as the next man, but you post here reasons why you think I am not guaranteed the right to do so by the second amendment. You would try to legislate that right away from me. What gives you the right to do that, to punish me for something you do not understand? What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

[jsarno]

damn ford...that's about as off the mark as you can get.

Click on this and tell me what is the VERY FIRST definition that comes up under "Arms"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arms

Robert, BRAVO! I wish we had a standing ovation smilie here. No one, I repeat, NO ONE will ever take my gun. I thank the State of New Mexico for having laws protecting Gun owners. In New Mexico it is legal to shoot someone / intruder in your house. I'm tired of seeing thieves in other states arguing that thier arm they lost or whatever was not worth the VCR they were trying to steal. No, they were trying to steal dignity and pride, and sense of safty, and peace of mind along with something they didn't own. So yes, that was worth thier arm, or thier life! Anyone steps foot in my house with evil intentions and I'll make sure that they never make that "mistake" again.
You want my guns...you can pry them out of my dead lifeless fingers. The constitution DOES protect us there. No if's and's or but's about it.

Skinz...good one...Spoon! :lol1:

[Ford]

First of all Robert my dad had a gun growing up my grandfather has one and im pretty sure his dad did .... i choose not to own one. It's not that I have no experience with guns, it's a personal choice.

Your argument about baseball bats, cars, and knives is a joke. All of those items are designed for other uses ..... guns are designed for killing .. plain and simple. What do you use a gun for other than shooting something? I'd love to know.

[Skinzaholic]

I spoke to a very good friend the other day... this man spent a year in the REAL Vietnam. Has 250 confirmed kills... saw things that I cant even bear to hear him describe to me.

He also watched as the American government pardoned the cowards who ran to Canada instead of going through the HELL that he went through.

It was at that moment that he vowed the government would never control or make decisions for his family. Another Ruby Ridge? Possibly... but that is exactly the sort of thing our Founders sought to prevent. And... by putting the right to own guns in the hands of every citizen (and then making it almost IMPOSSIBLE to change) they just about made it fool-proof.

Unfortunately, they failed to forsee the "fools" we would have in our nation today. Those who align themselves with the mindset that the government needs supreme power.

This friend (and several others) owns land in Central Pennsylvania... and has given me an open invitation for my family to go there should I ever need to. I dont own a gun... rely more on devine intervention for my protection... yet if the Democrats ever get gun rights revoked... you probably wont see me around here anymore.

[Skins57]

Here is my opinion. Every time the Republicans hear gun control, they think the whole world is out to steal thier great-great granddads rifle from them. I grew up around hunting, even did it for a few years, and I completely understand that but my proiblem is with people who want to own automatic rifles and the such. why would anyone need an automatic rifle. TArget shooting?? give me a break? Protection???? are you going to be attack by a small army??? If people want to shoot fully automatic weeapons join the army but no one needs to own these rifles.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Ford
First of all Robert my dad had a gun growing up my grandfather has one and im pretty sure his dad did .... i choose not to own one. It's not that I have no experience with guns, it's a personal choice.

Your argument about baseball bats, cars, and knives is a joke. All of those items are designed for other uses ..... guns are designed for killing .. plain and simple. What do you use a gun for other than shooting something? I'd love to know.

You are so short sighted and tunnel visioned. It's no more a joke than you implying that the founding fathers did not mean firearms when they use the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment.

Have you ever heard of amateur and professional target shooting competitions? 95% of my guns have never killed anything, and it has nothing to do with how bad of a shot I am. And even though it is none of your business what I choose to use my firearms for, because no matter what those reasons are, you will find some excuse that there is no need for that in America today, I will tell you. I am a sportsman. I compete in target competitions, I hunt, among other things, deer, pheasant, rabbit and coyote.

The fact of the matter is that you choose not to own a firearm. Fine, your choice. But what gives you the right to determine that I don't need, derserve, or am otherwise entitled to own them? Because all you think they do is kill? You spit in the face of every law abiding sportsman use own and use their guns legally every day with your single minded vision.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Skins57
TArget shooting?? give me a break?


Just because you don't do it doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy it. It is a valid recreation for some people in the United States.

The reason we get up in arms about gun control is because gun owners know it won't stop there. Gun control laws on the books now do nothing to curb the criminals who acquire them illegally and use them for ill intent means. All these laws do is punish people like me. So more laws are sought to apease the public, knowing full well they will never work. And all they do is punish people like me. First is will be the assault weapons. Then the handguns. Then shotguns. Where will it stop?

With thoughts like the one you posted above and those like Ford's, from people who don't use them and therefore think that "if I don't, no one else needs them", I am reminded every day while I will defend my right to keep and bear arms on a daily basis.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Skins57
If people want to shoot fully automatic weeapons join the army but no one needs to own these rifles.

What gives you the right to determine that?

[Skins57]

Give me one reason that people would need to own an automatic rifle. Don't tell me becuase they want to target shoot. You are right it is not my right to determine that but it is common sense ( for me anyway) that these weapon should not be owned by the hunter. These weapons are not allowed to be used in hunting so what logical reason does one have to own these weapons?

BTW I do taret shoot, believe it or not. Not very often but I do. And I have never seen a milk jug, that I need an AK-47 to blow up

[IowaSkinsFan]

I am talking about professional and amateur target shooting competitions on professional 10X targets at 600-1000 yards. Not quite filling up your milk jug and taking it out to your back yard with your BB gun.

What you don't understand is that over long distances, the grain of the bullet, primer, powder all affect the trajectory of the projectile. Which weapon is best suited to handle the conditions at those ranges? Can you tell me?

[Skins57]

I can not answer that question but if it is a competition then if the contestants all use the same rifle why does it matter?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Weapons of choice vary. You can use any size cartridge you want, up to a maximum size. For instance, if you show up with a Marlin, it's your choice, but at 1000 yards, your chances of winning are not very good.

There are tradeoffs to consider when choosing the right size bullet, muzzle length, course length, wind velocity, line position, time of day, etc.

[Skins57]

but what does this have to do with gun control on automatic weapons? If they are not allowed to be used by anyone the field is level so, maybe I am missing something (very possible :D)

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Ford
guns are designed for killing .. plain and simple.

Then you say:

What do you use a gun for other than shooting something?

Are you that dense that you think "shooting something" and "killing" are the same thing?
Ever heard of skee shooting.
How about watch the olympicsand tell me if shooting is anywhere in there. Hmmm, don't think they killed anything when they shot.

The purpose of a knife is to CUT. Knives are JUST as dangerous as guns are if USED IMPROPERLY. Think this is a joke? Go find figures of how many stabbings there are every day in this world. Oddly enough there is no right in the constitution protecting the ownership of a knife though.

wrote by robert:
You are so short sighted and tunnel visioned.

Yes, he is. He's shown it quite often around here.

Robert, you have to ask yourself this...how many "gun control advocates" actually own a gun? The ones bitching are the ones that have no clue about them. One of the most moronic comments I've EVER heard is "guns kill people". No gun in the history of the world has killed someone. A person kills a person. Whether it's a gun, or a knife, or a blunt object, or poison...PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Admin note- jsarno, that is enough with you terming someone as "dense" simply because they disagree with you. Thank you.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Skins57
but what does this have to do with gun control on automatic weapons? If they are not allowed to be used by anyone the field is level so, maybe I am missing something (very possible :D)

the field will NEVER BE LEVEL. Take it away from the law abiding citizens and only the criminals will own them.

Regardless, you place controls on automatic weapons...what's next? Semi Automatic weapons?

The following is the only type of "gun control" the USA should exercise..."STIFFER PUNISHMENTS FOR GUN VIOLATORS". There are laws on how you should use these things, and you should be punished severely if you break those laws. Don't punish the good.

[Skins57]

jsarno, Robert and I were talking about offical target shooting and that was where the comment about the field being level was meant for

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by jsarno


Are you that dense that you think "shooting something" and "killing" are the same thing?



Jsarno... try to refrain from insulting the person. People are allowed to disagree and should be allowed to excerise that right without being insulted. Im sure you didn't mean it this way... but it can be seen by many as an insult.


Thanks.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Ford
Hrmm Robert ..

The United States Constitution, a document which I covet as much as the next man, guarantees you the right to bear arms. Does it specifically guarantee you the right to bear firearms? No .. no it doesn't. There are plenty of ways of ARMing yourself .. yet gun control opponents seem to act as if arms is synonomis with fire arms .. it's not.

Do you think that you have the right as an american citizen to posess nuclear weapons? I don't ... yet if you interpreted the constitution the same way for that, I suppose it would override all related legistlation.

Further proof that the 2nd amendment is referring to firearms as an individual right:

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or . . . the press" also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases—or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 6011-12; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon—a sawed-off shotgun—was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of afree State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Ford
The point is it doesn't include or exclude them, it leaves that to interpretation. If you want to say it's so obvious that it is intended for firearms, you might as well admit that the purpose of the second ammendment is basically obsolete today and that it was meant so that militia men could protect the people against oppresive rule if need be .... is that what you're doing with your gun?

This part applies to your "obsolete" view of the 2nd amendment. Please read it carefully.

If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Sorry, here is the link. (http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/enbanc.asp)

[Spence]

I make it a point to NEVER argue about guns with anyone. More than abortion, more than war or peace, more than taxes--guns and gun control is the most emotional and controversial issue in the country. It'll never be settled by debate or argument. Never. It'll be settled by nothing more than political power--which side can bring more political muscle to bear on the subject. Right now [and for some time], the gun merchants have won this argument. I don't see that changing any time soon. The fact is, very few gun control advocates are single-issue voters, but quite a few pro-gun advocates ARE single-issue voters. I can speak from experience on this subject, as a number of them are friends of mine.

Trust me, arguing about guns is the most fruitless exercise I can possibly imagine.

[skinsfan44]

Gun control laws is one of the reasons why I am a Republican, and a LIFE member of the NRA.

Look at what happened in England. They passed laws that forbid gun ownership. Crime there jumped 60% after that and noone feels safe anymore. The cops in London (before the Gun Law) never carried a gun while on duty. They only had nightsticks and now after the law, they MUST carry a gun, because only the criminals have guns.

I live out in the country here in Maryland and most everyone here where I live, owns a gun. There are no house break-ins, not ONE murder since I have moved here 8 years ago, and you feel safe walking around.

Then you got Washington, DC. There, noone is allowed to own a gun, and there crime rate is though the roof. Murder, Rape, Home Invations, Robberys ect, ect. Only criminals have guns, and they know it.

Look at Virginia. There crime rate for the state went down over 40% after they passed a Right-To-Carry law, and not one person who carrys a gun with a permit, has shot anyone else, except for self defence.

Look at Arizona. They have laws that allow you to carry a gun in a side holster. As long as everyone can see it, it is legal to carry. They have the LOWEST crime rate in America.

So, taking guns away will only INCREASE crime, not DECREASE it.

[Skinzaholic]

I agree Skins44... great posts.

The truth in the matter is that America will never see absolute restriction on guns. Just as Spence has cited his friends... I will cite mine... spread across Arkansas (my home ststae) there are gobs of them... they drive pickup trucks, stay married to their wives, and own guns. No government will take that right away... despte what the Democrats do in Washington.

The minute they try... I pack up my family in Harrisburg and move in with other friends who would rather die then have their freedom stolen by Democrat Control Freaks!

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Spence
I make it a point to NEVER argue about guns with anyone. More than abortion, more than war or peace, more than taxes--guns and gun control is the most emotional and controversial issue in the country. It'll never be settled by debate or argument. Never. It'll be settled by nothing more than political power--which side can bring more political muscle to bear on the subject. Right now [and for some time], the gun merchants have won this argument. I don't see that changing any time soon. The fact is, very few gun control advocates are single-issue voters, but quite a few pro-gun advocates ARE single-issue voters. I can speak from experience on this subject, as a number of them are friends of mine.

Trust me, arguing about guns is the most fruitless exercise I can possibly imagine.

Finally, an argument I can win!

[Spence]

Originally posted by robert11273
Finally, an argument I can win! :)

[jsarno]

great post skin44...I heard that on the radio the other day, but forgot to post it. That's all the evidence we need to keep guns.