Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

acesover wrote:Redneck....
I think in the 1910's or 20's tenthousand coal miners marched from Pa, NY, Ky, and other states to an area in W.Va. to help out on strike that was taking place there. They wore red bandanas around their necks, the press called them Rednecks.

This is correct. the red bandana was to distinguish the NON-union miners who were marching from the union miners/ hired muscle, they were getting ready to clash with..

stockingfull wrote:(BTW, if I'm not mistaken, black powder, single shot was the state of the art at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.. So, if we apply the logic being advanced here, why should we stop at semi-auto handguns? Why not shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons, or SAM's? That'll make everybody real polite.
.

There was also only a handful of newspapers back then and it took days if not weeks to get the news to people. ? You know, since there is now news in an instant with 24/7 coverage on TV and the Net maybe we should restrict the freedom of the press???... Afterall, manual roller presses where state of the art back when the Bill of Rights was drafted...

Ridiculous statement huh? No more so than your statement quoted above...

O.k. Then, If owning a gun is going to cause MORE gun crimes because everyone owns a gun, Please explain this.....

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

There ya go, cold HARD FACTS that gun ownership is in fact a deterant !

ktm rider wrote:

stockingfull wrote:(BTW, if I'm not mistaken, black powder, single shot was the state of the art at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.. So, if we apply the logic being advanced here, why should we stop at semi-auto handguns? Why not shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons, or SAM's? That'll make everybody real polite.
.

There was also only a handful of newspapers back then and it took days if not weeks to get the news to people. ? You know, since there is now news in an instant with 24/7 coverage on TV and the Net maybe we should restrict the freedom of the press???... Afterall, manual roller presses where state of the art back when the Bill of Rights was drafted...

Ridiculous statement huh? No more so than your statement quoted above...

Uh, no, actually I was arguing just the opposite: if you accept the idea that semi-automatic handguns (which didn't exist when the Constitution was drafted) are necessarily permitted to be held by individuals by the "simple" language of the 2nd Amendment, just the opposite conclusion -- the one I suggested above -- follows: no restrictions whatsoever could be imposed, whether on firearms or on the press, no matter how advanced the technology has become.

The point, of course, is that the notion that the Constitution can survive without being interpreted in and adapted to the context of modern life is patently absurd. And the judicial philosophy advanced by these "originalists", or "textualists", or "strict constructionists", or "federalists", or whatever you want to call them (Scalia, his lap dog Thomas, Alito and Roberts) ultimately is so brittle, requires so many (extremely cumbersome) amendments to the Constitution, that it can do nothing other than break it ultimately. The upcoming District of Columbia handgun case, D.C. v. Heller, is the most shining example of the problem in this term of Court. For the first time in 70 years, the nature of the 2nd Amendment is being examined by the Supremes.

I, for one, just can't wait to see how these wiseguys will hold Glocks to be an individual, Constitutional right without including Uzis, and anti-tank guns, and freakin' Howitzers, for that matter. I mean, suppose I want to drive around my little town in an Army surplus Jeep with a loaded 50-cal gun on it? Wouldn't that be my Constitutional right? If you have a right to cc without a permit, wouldn't that Jeep, with open and obvious armament, be less of a public safety risk? At least you can see it coming into the convenience store!

The point is that the preamble to the 2nd Amendment, referring to "a well-regulated militia," is really the language which courts have relied on for 70 years in upholding restrictions on all sorts of increasingly lethal, and progressively smaller, weaponry.

Beware of what you wish for, boyz. 'Cause your Democratic neighbor's gonna go out and buy newer and more powerful boomers than yours -- as soon as he realizes that you're about to plug him!

No, the democratic neighbor will move out when I decide to get back into using my 100, 200 and 300 yard rifle range, and they will be totally unable to do anything about it.

Thankfully I live where most of the people recognize the police for what they are: speeding ticket writers, and those who come too late to do anything worthwhile for a homeowner.

ALL my neighbors own and shoot guns regularly and that makes me feel MUCH safer than living in a subdivision filled with soccer-moms, investment bankers and lawyers that think the police will protect them... My neighbors protect themselves... Like I do.

The police are why the the 2nd Amendment was written: for the citizen to protect themselves against the too strong and overbearing government.

Greg L

LsFarm wrote:

The police are why the the 2nd Amendment was written: for the citizen to protect themselves against the too strong and overbearing government.

Greg L

You are exactly right Greg, And here is what happens when your have the 2nd. Amend. rights are taken away.
I know the Libs are gonna say " Oh that would never happen here in the US." Well, maybe, maybe not. But I bet these people didn't think it would happen to them either......


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

I Thought you might appreciate this . . .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
>------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
>------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
>------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated
>------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
>------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
>------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
>-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
>------------------------------

LsFarm wrote:ALL my neighbors own and shoot guns regularly and that makes me feel MUCH safer than living in a subdivision filled with soccer-moms, investment bankers and lawyers that think the police will protect them... My neighbors protect themselves... Like I do.
Greg L

Ditto, The cops are also for writing the report on how you defended your family from an evil doer by exercising your 2 Amend right to bear arms,. ( And also for taking the body off your property ! )

LsFarm wrote:ALL my neighbors own and shoot guns regularly and that makes me feel MUCH safer than living in a subdivision filled with soccer-moms, investment bankers and lawyers that think the police will protect them... My neighbors protect themselves... Like I do.

The police are why the the 2nd Amendment was written: for the citizen to protect themselves against the too strong and overbearing government.
Greg L

The problem is that there are a whole lot of people who do live in those subdivisions and the question has always been whether government may regulate any form of gun possession when it deems advisable to do so for public safety, which usually is in those and even more densely populated areas. For 70 years, such regs have been upheld. But now, since the (very conservative) D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the handgun law in the District of Columbia on constitutional grounds, the Supremes have taken the case. But it's a real bugaboo.

It's true that the 2nd Amendment was drafted to protect the populace from an overbearing government. Its verbatim text is as follows:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

But, of course, that really doesn't do anything to answer the question about whether regulation of Uzis, Glocks or Howitzers in private hands, is permissible under any circumstances. Remember, the founders were concerned about the previous British Quartering Acts and wanted to be sure that the rights of citizens in communities to organize and collectively defend themselves were preserved. That history, however, isn't very helpful to what has become the NRA position. "Keep" connotes "in the home" while "bear" connotes movement. But the essential Constitutional question is whether all that is related to the predicate "militia" right in the Amendment language, or something broader. In fact, a quite reasonable argument can be made that the "well regulated militia" of which the 2nd Amendment speaks actually is the local police or Nat'l Guard, as opposed to either a foreign army or the night-table drawer or glove compartment.

But, as I said above, much smarter people than we are going to be making the arguments, pro and con, on this to persuade another group of very smart people who have to decide this. It will be one of the most interesting cases in many years.

stockingfull wrote:But, as I said above, much smarter people than we are going to be making the arguments, pro and con, on this to persuade another group of very smart people who have to decide this. It will be one of the most interesting cases in many years.

And at the end of the day life will go on and we move on to the next crisis

Something I found.

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordance).Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.

Maybe you can get that Jeep after all....


John

69Drag wrote:Something I found.

Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordance).Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.

Maybe you can get that Jeep after all....


John

I'm serious! This is the dilemma the Supremes are going to have to face.

It's easy for us to think of the guns we want to have (however divergent those concepts may be) and be comfortable. But it's the goll-darned Constitution we're talking about here! And, whatever it's language says is a baseline right, simply isn't subject to legislative restriction of any kind.

So, if the 2nd Amendment is as broad as what I understand the NRA contends -- like UNLIMITED -- then my acquisition of "arms" (a pretty broad term) cannot be restricted by any legislation whatsoever and I can buy a mortar, or a Howitzer, and set it up and aim it at your house and sit there in my lawn chair and suck on a beer while I watch you sweat. And what will you do? Buy your own, of course. And then we can have the Middle East in our very own neighborhoods. Whoopee!

You get my point.

stockingfull wrote: And then we can have the Middle East in our very own neighborhoods. Whoopee!

You get my point.

Damn right, I could not imagine what would happen to this country if the citizenry was armed with 230 million firearms.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiing.

stockingfull wrote:
So, if the 2nd Amendment is as broad as what I understand the NRA contends -- like UNLIMITED -- then my acquisition of "arms" (a pretty broad term) cannot be restricted by any legislation whatsoever and I can buy a mortar, or a Howitzer, and set it up and aim it at your house and sit there in my lawn chair and suck on a beer while I watch you sweat. And what will you do? Buy your own, of course. And then we can have the Middle East in our very own neighborhoods. Whoopee!

You get my point.

The crime is in what you do with the gun. Even if everything were legal how many of us could afford the real exotic stuff like say a fully functioning tank, (I would really love one!) so I doubt much would change.

Now to answer the hypothetical question. After about his sixth beer I would point and yell over to my neighbor "hey look! its Barack Hussein Osama on a pink donkey!" when he turned to look I'd pop him two in the cap with my .45 and check out my new Howitzer.

gaw wrote:Now to answer the hypothetical question. After about his sixth beer I would point and yell over to my neighbor "hey look! its Barack Hussein Osama on a pink donkey!" when he turned to look I'd pop him two in the cap with my .45 and check out my new Howitzer.

Where do you live again?

We should have banned Knives long ago as well, that poor defenseless woman in NY City was needlessly Slashed to death becuase our Goverment was to slow in getting rid of these BAd bad implements of death!

Canada is now considering banning "Rambo" knives, not becuase they've actually used in any crimes, no they want to ban them because they look MEAN.
This is the problem with Socialists and the Neo-Fascists (aka liberal elties), they think that by holding Domain over the citizenry they have in turn saved us from ourselves, WRONG. They in reality would lead us to slaughter, because as a populace we are law abiding and generally good people, the criminals prey on that notion, they attack the weak as general rule, the police act merely as clean up crews most of the time and even a punk Lib cannot argue that point.