Supreme Court gets one right!! Second Amendment

[mrs reb77]

Top court says Constitution gives individuals gun rights; strikes down D.C. handgun ban
http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D91HQUB01.html

Amazing! I thought for sure this one would be a disappointment.

From the article: The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.


Of course the vote was close 5-4. Thank goodness they got this done before another liberal gets on that bench.

[k-fridge]

Excellent!

[fixacr]

Maybe there actually is hope for this country after all.

[bootlen]

That should shut up a bunch of anti-American libs.

[The Doctor]

Great googlymoogly! The liberals for the dissent can manage to find penumbras to murder babies, but not to defend oneself from armed intruders and criminals.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Score this one for the good guys! Ya see, we still can thank GWB for his appointments. The next term will likely see some more changes. It's a shame both candidates for POTUS are liberal-leaning when it comes to court appointments. Remember the gang of 14!!!

[k-fridge]

That should shut up a bunch of anti-American libs.

Nah, if logic applied they would have shut up years ago.

[jmac00]

oooh joy............

it's about time someone in Government came to there senses.

Handgun Control inc and The Violence Policy Center, is probably crapping there pants :D:D:D:D

I can't wait to hear what they have to say:eek:

[mark beiser]

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

This man has no business being a justice on the Supreme Court, his dissent displays a complete misunderstanding of the whole point of the constitution, the bill of rights, and the role of government envisioned by the founding fathers of this nation.

[acmanko]

any good cop whould still take your gun away if he found it in your car.:eek:

[freddy-b]

5-4 Thats too close for me getting too excited. How could 4 of those bozos see it the other way? How?

[k-fridge]

5-4 Thats too close for me getting too excited. How could 4 of those bozos see it the other way? How?

Look at who the bozos are.

[mark beiser]

Look at who the bozos are.

The usual bozos.

This is why it is so amazingly critical that Obama not be elected.
Although justices appointed by "conservatives" sometimes turn out to be fruitcakes, like Stevens. :(

[the mojo]

And then you have the award winners such as good old Diane Finklestein,
demonically possesed as she is and she states " I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it".

This women does'nt have a remote clue as to what makes this country great.

Viva Roberts
Viva Alito
Viva Scalia
Viva Thomas
Viva Kennedy

All this because of "one" lone security guard.

[k-fridge]

The usual bozos.

This is why it is so amazingly critical that Obama not be elected.


Yep, perhaps the most important reason of all.

[Tool-Slinger]

any good cop whould still take your gun away if he found it in your car.:eek:
Not in Texas. HB 1815, went into effect last September. Concealed weapon in car: legal.

[jmac00]

And then you have the award winners such as good old Diane Finklestein,
demonically possesed as she is and she states " I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it".

This women does'nt have a remote clue as to what makes this country great.

Viva Roberts
Viva Alito
Viva Scalia
Viva Thomas
Viva Kennedy

All this because of "one" lone security guard.


oooh the gun control freaks are on the war path all ready. "they" have all ready claimed there will be blood in the streets? the Mayor of Chicago said "maybe we should throw out the judicial system all together and go back to showdowns in the street the way the did things in the old west"

what a bunch of freaking morons~~~~~That has got to be one of the dumbest statements of all time. Whats really frightening the commie/liberals, is there losing control of the populace, thats scaring the hell out of them:D

whats going to be really interesting, is in a year or two when crime in Washington DC DROPS DRAMATICALLY. How are the gun control freaks going to explain THAT :eek:

[mark beiser]

whats going to be really interesting, is in a year or two when crime in Washington DC DROPS DRAMATICALLY. How are the gun control freaks going to explain THAT :eek:

Beats me, but then they never bother to explain why the cities that the liberals have the most total control of, and that have the tightest gun control laws, are the cities with the worst crime, poverty and drug problems.
They want to keep stacking more liberal social programs on top of the ones that have already failed, never realizing their programs are what is causing the problem to begin with.

[mrs reb77]

Well well well. Is this any surprise?
John McCain welcomes Supreme Court decision on guns, Barack Obama attempts to straddle subject
http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D91I3CP00.html

[bootlen]

Spot on, mojo.

[RoBoTeq]

Not in Texas. HB 1815, went into effect last September. Concealed weapon in car: legal.
Well, this is good to know, in case I again forget to unpack my....ummmmm...loaded....um....9mm and ummmmmmm, accidentally bring it to Houston again:confused:

[Tool-Slinger]

Well, this is good to know, in case I again forget to unpack my....ummmmm...loaded....um....9mm and ummmmmmm, accidentally bring it to Houston again:confused:
Come on down Robo! Just toss your 9mm under the seat and breath in some fresh Texas gunsmoke-filled fresh air! Welcome to Texas! Keep it loaded, oiled, and handy!

Ummm, your 9mm there, I meant your 9mm... :D

[RoBoTeq]

Come on down Robo! Just toss your 9mm under the seat and breath in some fresh Texas gunsmoke-filled fresh air! Welcome to Texas! Keep it loaded, oiled, and handy!

Ummm, your 9mm there, I meant your 9mm... :D
Since I fly when I go to Texas, I don't think I should be tossing the 9 under the seat:cool:

It was bad enough that I had it in my checked in luggage without regestering it.

[jmac00]

Since I fly when I go to Texas, I don't think I should be tossing the 9 under the seat:cool:

It was bad enough that I had it in my checked in luggage without regestering it.


you can transport a firearm in your luggage, you do need to make arraignments with the air line and it must be legally registered . Just tell them your going to go to a competition somewhere :cool:

[glennac]

you can transport a firearm in your luggage, you do need to make arraignments with the air line and it must be legally registered . Just tell them your going to go to a competition somewhere :cool:

Guns aren't registered in most states just the liberal blue ones. You have to show your driver's lic and proof of ownership here and they tag it with special paper.

[Tool-Slinger]

Guns aren't registered in most states just the liberal blue ones. You have to show your driver's lic and proof of ownership here and they tag it with special paper.
I pack-iron, I keep it in my lap-top case. It goes in my home at eve, and I carry it to my truck in the morning. A practical use, not ready to draw and fire at any moment,.. but it is handy if I need it.

[duckman373]

I don't think the crime rate wil drop in DC. The murder rate now, is the same as it was before the ban, which proves the ban was ridiculous in the first place. God bless intelligent 5!. Nothing could ruin my day after hearing this news this AM.

[duckman373]

It goes in my home at eve, and I carry it to my truck in the morning. A practical use, not ready to draw and fire at any moment,.. but it is handy if I need it.

I do as well. Whatchya packin'? I carry an XD-45. I like the round, and it fits my hand well. Nice thing about AZ, is you can still carry in a holster without a license. Sure get some looks in the grocery store. I know the chances of ever needing it are slim to none, but it's the slim chance that keeps me prepared.

[Tool-Slinger]

I do as well. Whatchya packin'? I carry an XD-45. I like the round, and it fits my hand well. Nice thing about AZ, is you can still carry in a holster without a license. Sure get some looks in the grocery store. I know the chances of ever needing it are slim to none, but it's the slim chance that keeps me prepared.
Ruger Blackhawk.45LC for me, I am not sure what to make of those murder statistics. The gangs shoot at each other willy-nilly and citezens as needed,... but does a lone fed-ex driver have a right to defend himself from a gang breaking down his front door with his wife and children behind him in fear? No before, yes now, and a man should have a right to protect himself, family, and property. Wife at home with no husband? She should have an equal right to defence against a man. Situational necessity, publicly accepted known deterrent if a policy. DC has no guns legally but highest murder rate by guns, stupids in DC.

Time to pay-off that life membership to NRA, no kidding, 4/5 vote, lack of NRA or Bush appointments and this would have gone the other way....

[model m-man]

That news made my day! After all these years as a lifer in the NRA and contributing regularly to keep the lib's at bay, we won a biggie!

The sad part is now that we've pe-- in their corn flakes, the libs are going to come at us with everything they have. It's a long way's from over.

Pretty sad also that 4 members of the supreme court which is supposed be some of the brightest legal minds in the country couldent understand the simple language of the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. Most of us older folk's had to learn it back in grammer school. If a grammer school kid can understand it , why can't they? It's my belief that's why it is no longer taught in school. Politician's and lawyers don't want individuals to know they have right's that they don't agree with.

[duckman373]

That is very true. Got my life membership 3 months ago, if I had any doubts about the NRA then, I sure don't now.

[duckman373]

Pretty sad also that 4 members of the supreme court which is supposed be some of the brightest legal minds in the country couldent understand the simple language of the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.

"The right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Yeah, there's not much gray area there. I can't believe it's even an issue. God forbid you even think about infringing on someones 1st ad rights, the ACLU will be all over you like flies on..........well you know.

[jmac00]

The sad part is now that we've pe-- in their corn flakes, the libs are going to come at us with everything they have. It's a long way's from over.

the real sad part is the Supreme Court DID leave the door open for "some regulation" :rolleyes: Which might give the gun control freaks an opportunity to regulate "assault weapons" ~~~~~whatever those are:confused:

[whec720]

the real sad part is the Supreme Court DID leave the door open for "some regulation" :rolleyes: Which might give the gun control freaks an opportunity to regulate "assault weapons" ~~~~~whatever those are:confused:

More than likely, hand guns. Here we go again.....:rolleyes:

I don't trust the motives of the high court. I have a hard time believing any lawyer wants the public empowered. Why relieve the pressure of the thumb they have over us?

[RoBoTeq]

you can transport a firearm in your luggage, you do need to make arraignments with the air line and it must be legally registered . Just tell them your going to go to a competition somewhere :cool:
My last trip to Houston I accidentally left a fully loaded 9mm in one of my carry on bags. At the last minute I tossed a bottle of tequila in the bag and so had to check it instead. Imagine my surprise when I unpacked my bag and found the nine setting there at the bottom of it.

[jmac00]

My last trip to Houston I accidentally left a fully loaded 9mm in one of my carry on bags. At the last minute I tossed a bottle of tequila in the bag and so had to check it instead. Imagine my surprise when I unpacked my bag and found the nine setting there at the bottom of it.

whats even more amazing is The dept of Home land stupidity is SUPPOSE to search EVERY BAG that goes on a plane (yes even last year, they should have searched your bag----uuum luggage ;) ) and yet your gun made it through :eek: idiots, this what happens when you pay a dope $7 an hour to protect the public:mad:

[oloenneker]

I love how all the gun nutz have already claimed some sort of victory!

The truth is that local government can still regulate gun ownership.

[duckman373]

I love how all the gun nutz have already claimed some sort of victory!

.

The right to keep and bear arms is very important to some. It's been a long struggle to keep our constitutional right upheld. It's not the end of the battle, but it's a step in the right direction. I don't expect everyone to understand our elation.

[oloenneker]

"The right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Yeah, there's not much gray area there. I can't believe it's even an issue.

You actually missed half of the wording....





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.

[oloenneker]

The right to keep and bear arms is very important to some. It's been a long struggle to keep our constitutional right upheld. It's not the end of the battle, but it's a step in the right direction. I don't expect everyone to understand our elation.



Actually, it has not been that long of a "struggle"....

Gun legislation did not come around until the mid / late twentieth century...


Unless you consider the "tax stamp act" as actual second Amendment gun legislation.

[jmac00]

You actually missed half of the wording....[/B][/I]

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.


actually, YOU missed the important part. :confused:

[bootlen]

The "militia" was the word for an armed civilian populace...not for the Army or Navy.

[oloenneker]

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.


actually, YOU missed the important part. :confused:


I don't think so. As a matter of fact, there is a comma in between the two statements. That cases me to believe that the first, is precedent to the latter.

Or do you just want to be a "Bill Clinton" and parse sentences and words?:eek::eek::eek:

[oloenneker]

The "militia" was the word for an armed civilian populace...not for the Army or Navy.


No kidding!

But it was also in reference to a armed society to act as a military force when needed to. Especially in a political uprising, or for defense of the nation.


Not for shooting people stealing your car stereo.


Hence, the meaning has been molested by the "gun nutz" to mean that anyone should have any kind of gun they would like, for any purpose. That, I think, is straying WAY far from the original intent of the legislation..

That is why I believe the amendment needs to be "re-written" to encompass "modern America", and not "1776 America".

[bootlen]

No kidding!

But it was also in reference to a armed society to act as a military force when needed to. Especially in a political uprising, or for defense of the nation.


Not for shooting people stealing your car stereo.


Hence, the meaning has been molested by the "gun nutz" to mean that anyone should have any kind of gun they would like, for any purpose. That, I think, is straying WAY far from the original intent of the legislation..

That is why I believe the amendment needs to be "re-written" to encompass "modern America", and not "1776 America".

Do you understand the meaning of the word "right"? It does not mean the same as "privilege" nor of "responsibility". "Privilege" would connote the need for a license. "Responsibility" would connote your reference to defense of the nation.

I ask you...is voting a right, privilege, or responsibility? What about driving...right, responsibility, or privilege? How about military service?

See the diff?

[acmanko]

a cop will still take your gun away , if he wants to, after all the law does not apply to cops.

[jmac00]

I don't think so. As a matter of fact, there is a comma in between the two statements. That cases me to believe that the first, is precedent to the latter.

Or do you just want to be a "Bill Clinton" and parse sentences and words?:eek::eek::eek:

your right, the comma makes the sentence two separate thoughts. The first part of the sentence does NOT take precedent over the second part

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court just ruled that to be true.

Your view is that of classic ANTI-GUN rhetoric.:(

[Tool-Slinger]

a cop will still take your gun away , if he wants to, after all the law does not apply to cops.
I notice that is the second time you've said that... Got a personal experience you would like to share with the rest of us?

[acmanko]

I notice that is the second time you've said that... Got a personal experience you would like to share with the rest of us?not really , its just local police can do whatever they please, which is, they will confiscate guns found during a traffic stop. The second amendment does NOT, protect anyone from this, as it pertains to the Federal government . Local authorities may not pass laws forbiding a citizen from having a handgun or rifle, but local police can do whatever they desire, if they are concerned about their safety. I own my fair share of guns and believe everyone should have at least one. and I remind you, there is such a thing as States Rights, which cannot conflict with Federal law. However they can spell out conditions.

[Tool-Slinger]

not really , its just local police can do whatever they please, which is, they will confiscate guns found during a traffic stop. The second amendment does NOT, protect anyone from this, as it pertains to the Federal government . Local authorities may not pass laws forbiding a citizen from having a handgun or rifle, but local police can do whatever they desire, if they are concerned about their safety. I own my fair share of guns and believe everyone should have at least one. and I remind you, there is such a thing as States Rights, which cannot conflict with Federal law. However they can spell out conditions.
I understand what you are saying, but not sure what you mean by that. The laws do vary from state to state, I know, during hurricane katrina city police were confiscating guns and there have been laws passed or submitted to prevent such silliness because of that event[although I can't remember where/what states]. And by confiscating, I mean these guns were taken and I think most or many were never returned to the owners, I think they just disappeared. I think that was more a matter of police corruption than law, but I am probably wandering off-subject. If you mean in USA generally I suppose it is possible in some cities or states. I can't speak for california or maine or detroit.

'''''local police can do whatever they please, which is, they will confiscate guns found during a traffic stop.'''''''

I am trying to tell you that the law was changed in Texas last september. Before that there was a ''travelling requirement'' in Texas that was abused/mis-interpereted and got handguns confiscated and persons jailed until bail, sometimes defence-attorney bills. Fort-worth among some others. Thats history. It was a problem in some areas, hence the attention of lawmakers.


perhaps I miss your point, you say:
'''[confiscate]if they are concerned about their safety.''''
I have actually had kaufman county police 'confiscate' my gun, as I was involved in a shooting incident. The officer did say something about reason ''concern for his personal saftey'' and asked nicely but that was after they had arrived and the 'suituation' was long since diffused. No problem, the police just needed some time to sort-out what was going on and did not want persons involved walking around with guns until it was straightened-out. When they left, the officer handed my loaded gun back to me.

During a routine traffic stop, such as a defective tag-light or speeding-ticket, a legally owned and transported gun cannot be 'confiscated'. I think ''temporarily secured'' until the transaction is over, yes. I think that is correct and also a good policy for the saftey of the officers. I do not see any infringement of my rights here. [If pulled over for a DWI or burglary probably kiss that gun good-bye]

''confiscation'' of guns in Texas does not happen legally to law-abiding folks. Agree or disagree?

[ga-hvac-tech]

Well, well, well!

It has been a L O N G time since I have read a debate at ARP, the political forum of HVAC pro's.

And I find the same folks here defending their views; it is good to see some things do not change.

I did notice (at least on this thread) that the conservative side seems to have more posters than the liberal side... it appears some of the liberals have packed their bags and left. Good work folks... :D

In GA, it helps to have a CCW permit. We just passed a new carry law that gives the citizen even more rights! I surely hope this is a trend.

And as someone said earlier: Keeping the high court stacked with folks that have common sense is a major reason to be ABSOLUTELY SURE we do NOT make history this fall (elect Obama). Personally, I think the tide will shift by then, and the public will have a little more common sense.

Given, John McCain is not my first choice. But as usual, the election is two lesser qualified folks.

I just hope the Bob Barr crowd will wake up and realize that John McCain is a lot better than Obama, and that their third party candidate does not have a snowball's chance at the discharge end of a furnace... ;) Personally, I do not think splitting the conservative vote is a good idea.

Good to read all you die-hard conservatives, keep kicking the sensitive side of the liberals, it is GREAT entertainment!

Cheers!

PS--I will not be around much for a few days: I need to train and get some rest:
http://www.atlantatrackclub.org/at02000.htm

[k-fridge]

Howdy Ga-Teck. Good to see you around again.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Howdy Ga-Teck. Good to see you around again.

Hey Fridge! How goes it Bro?

Been reading tech and general for a few weeks, figured I would drop in and say 'HI' to the ARP crowd.

What ever happened to some of us HVACR folks having a lunch gathering? Seems we were talking about that last summer and it died??? Any possibility of getting it to happen this fall?

[k-fridge]

Hey Fridge! How goes it Bro?

Been reading tech and general for a few weeks, figured I would drop in and say 'HI' to the ARP crowd.

What ever happened to some of us HVACR folks having a lunch gathering? Seems we were talking about that last summer and it died??? Any possibility of getting it to happen this fall?
We sure need to. We've been crazy-busy and just haven't had time to put anything together. You guys help me remember though and we'll make something happen this fall.

We might even let Glenn come. :p

[ga-hvac-tech]

We sure need to. We've been crazy-busy and just haven't had time to put anything together. You guys help me remember though and we'll make something happen this fall.

We might even let Glenn come. :p

Glenn will have to pay his dues... LOL :D

Yeah, lets see if we can get some of us together this fall when things slow down a bit.

Time to get some ZZZ's. 5:00 AM on Friday will be mighty early for me... :cool:

[Tool-Slinger]

Good luck running, glad to see your input buddy.

[oloenneker]

your right, the comma makes the sentence two separate thoughts. The first part of the sentence does NOT take precedent over the second part


Wrong....


You missed it by a mile.


The point is... The comma makes it ONE sentence. ONE thought!

Without a Militia, there are no gun rights.


EGADS you guys are a pain....

[acmanko]

my little one acre plot has a well armed militia of 1:cool:

[bootlen]

my little one acre plot has a well armed militia of 1:cool:

All you lack is being regulated.:D

[k-fridge]

All you lack is being regulated.:D
A little fiber in his diet will fix that. :p

[bootlen]

A little fiber in his diet will fix that. :p

One thing's fer sure. He's full of it.:eek:

[acmanko]

All you lack is being regulated.:Dsee post 59:eek:

[bootlen]

:D

[ga-hvac-tech]

Just got back from the Peachtree, see post # 50. Good time this year, the weather was good!

The way I see it, some folks are more afraid of what they cannot control than they are concerned about defending themselves...

But when (not if) a government takes too many rights away from them, they will scratch their heads and wonder 'how did that happen?'... And us wiser conservatives will say 'I told you so, but you were too smart to listen'.

Then us wiser conservatives (as usual) will have to roll up our sleeves and fix things for the whiney liberals that caused the mess (again) with their fear of freedom and desire for big brother to take care of them...

There, that should stir the mud enough to either get this thread deleted or run up past 100 posts... :D

You all have a GREAT 4th weekend, I am going to go out and enjoy this wonderful God fearing FREE country I live in! :cool:

[acmanko]

What? Two words. Patriot Act. The biggest wholesale takeaway of rights in US History. Requested by a conservative President and passed into law by a conservative Legislature, upheld by a conservative Judiciary.

[mrs reb77]

Don't forget, most recently extended by a liberal congress!

Lots happens when people get scared of being attacked from within.

[k-fridge]

Don't forget, most recently extended by a liberal congress!

Lots happens when people get scared of being attacked from within.
This also just demonstrates once again that in spite of their rhetoric, the Democrats are as much behind the war and all that goes with it as Bush and the GOP are.

Obama is already hedging on pulling the troops out of Iraq. He, like everyone else in Washington, knows what will happen if we turn our back on that situation.

[acmanko]

Mr. President is talking about transfering the troops from Iraq to Afganistan, if Iraq continues to stabilize.

[whec720]

Face it, ac......Dems and Pubs feed from the same trough. That's why we still have the Patriot Act as well as NAFTA, no matter what party currently holds majority in Congress.
Yep...the deck is sure stacked, isn't it?

[acmanko]

Face it, ac......Dems and Pubs feed from the same trough. That's why we still have the Patriot Act as well as NAFTA, no matter what party currently holds majority in Congress.
Yep...the deck is sure stacked, isn't it?
exactly what I mean. there is no difference. both parties are full of politicians

[whec720]

exactly what I mean. there is no difference. both parties are full of politicians

And, I might add, full of......................:D

[ga-hvac-tech]

exactly what I mean. there is no difference. both parties are full of politicians

Gentleman, I agree with you! A year or so ago when I used to post a lot at ARP, I said: "Never trust a politician, NEVER". Seems there is more than one person with that view.

The reason I am supporting conservative principles currently is that I see it as a major issue to be SURE we do not make history this fall (elect Obama).

After the election is over (regardless of who wins), I will be hounding them relentlessly for explanations of everything they say and want to do. I think the best thing for this country would be for as many folks as possible to do the same.

BTW: Ackmanco; If I remember, you had a problem with your low back??? How is it doing? I hope you are getting stronger!!!

[whec720]

Hey ga...welcome back!:)

I think it boils down to the Supreme Court now. Which party will try to put in the most liberal of Justices. Some "republic" we live in, huh? We're ruled by lawyers...sheech.:rolleyes:

[acmanko]

Gentleman, I agree with you! A year or so ago when I used to post a lot at ARP, I said: "Never trust a politician, NEVER". Seems there is more than one person with that view.

The reason I am supporting conservative principles currently is that I see it as a major issue to be SURE we do not make history this fall (elect Obama).

After the election is over (regardless of who wins), I will be hounding them relentlessly for explanations of everything they say and want to do. I think the best thing for this country would be for as many folks as possible to do the same.

BTW: Ackmanco; If I remember, you had a problem with your low back??? How is it doing? I hope you are getting stronger!!!
thanks for asking. I do have a problem. I had surgery, it failed and I don't walk so good .:)

[The Doctor]

This also just demonstrates once again that in spite of their rhetoric, the Democrats are as much behind the war and all that goes with it as Bush and the GOP are.

Obama is already hedging on pulling the troops out of Iraq. He, like everyone else in Washington, knows what will happen if we turn our back on that situation.

November '08-- the Senator from AZ will win the election. Just a 50/50 shot, I think that McCain will win because of this non-difference on the war in Iraq, and the Supreme Court nominee.
It's going to be close, though.

[bootlen]

Dang, ac. I hate to hear that. I guess that's why you disappeared for a while.

What exactly was the original problem? Was it muscle or spine?

[acmanko]

Dang, ac. I hate to hear that. I guess that's why you disappeared for a while.

What exactly was the original problem? Was it muscle or spine? I dissappeared cause I was hanging out at Chllbilly site till he got flustrated and shut it down. I was in an auto accident, a person ran a red light and I hit them and messed up my back.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I dissappeared cause I was hanging out at Chllbilly site till he got flustrated and shut it down. I was in an auto accident, a person ran a red light and I hit them and messed up my back.

I am sorry your back issue was due to an auto accident that was not even your fault. I had thought (like many of us HVAC folks) that you worked too hard and had that one day when you did something (picked up too much, torqued your back, etc), and OUCH!

My low back can act up when I push to hard, I suspect this is both from working too hard when I was young, and from being 50+ (dang that age thingy :mad: :confused: :( ).

On a different note: I did not know Chilly (whatever his screen name is now) had a sight, I guess that is what happens when one is away for a while. Running one of these forums is a lot of work, I am not surprised some of the upstarts did not make it.

Take care of that back! It is one of those things we cannot trade in on a new model.

[acmanko]

yea, I'm 54 and basiclly crippled in my right foot. the dr said the s1 nerve might regenerate but who knows how long that will take, I went under the knife with a l5 radiculopathy and came out with a s1 radiculopathy. no more climbing, lifting or walking on uneven surfaces. I am now trying to cope with cronic pain syndrome(almost 2 years now) by going to pain management.

[bootlen]

I feel for you, ac. Hurt my back about 10 years ago by lifting incorrectly. Chiroprator made me better than I was before the screw-up. That took about 2 years of treatment at about 2% the cost of what surgery/therapy would have done with no promise of being better.

Sounds to me like you had no choice. And I totally understand the pain issue. Before I got treatment, I could not take 10 steps without having to lie down to try to find a less painful position. It is a MISERABLE situation.

[acmanko]

I feel for you, ac. Hurt my back about 10 years ago by lifting incorrectly. Chiroprator made me better than I was before the screw-up. That took about 2 years of treatment at about 2% the cost of what surgery/therapy would have done with no promise of being better.

Sounds to me like you had no choice. And I totally understand the pain issue. Before I got treatment, I could not take 10 steps without having to lie down to try to find a less painful position. It is a MISERABLE situation. there is nothing more constant than back pain. I just thank God every morning for letting me wake up and ask that He take care of the families of those that lost a loved one in the senseless accidents that happen daily on our streets:)

[controldude]

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
________________________________________
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

Part 2)

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?
Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
________________________________________
About the Author
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.
J. Neil Schulman may be reached through:
The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).
Mail address:
J. Neil Schulman
PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094.
GEnie address: SOFTSERV
softserv@genie.geis.com

[whec720]

Interesting. Long post but does a good job stating the obvious. Well...all except the Supreme Court.....5 to 4 decision.....c'mon......should have been 9 to 0.

[The Doctor]

there's a reason why the Founders wanted the judiciary to be not a a strong branch. It's not as though this is something new. If Congress would use the kahunas that God gave 'em and dissolve the federal judiciary every now and again and start over, it would sober up these activist types.

By the time they are on the Supreme Court, no legislators going to succeed in getting rid of them for bad behavior. It'll never happen IN THE CURRENT political CLIMATE. Not saying it's a bad idea. Re-election has its power, is all. :(

[jmac00]

there's a reason why the Founders wanted the judiciary to be not a a strong branch. It's not as though this is something new. If Congress would use the kahunas that God gave 'em and dissolve the federal judiciary every now and again and start over, it would sober up these activist types.

By the time they are on the Supreme Court, no legislators going to succeed in getting rid of them for bad behavior. It'll never happen IN THE CURRENT political CLIMATE. Not saying it's a bad idea. Re-election has its power, is all. :(

we need to dissolve congress every 6 years, and start over:cool:

[bootlen]

Should be limited to 2 terms and no lawyers allowed. Business men only. That way, any legislation they push through would have an effect on them when their term is up.

[daytonafan]

Thomas Jefferson came to me in a dream last night. He told me to shoot any liberals that like to argue comma placement.

[jmac00]

Thomas Jefferson came to me in a dream last night. He told me to shoot any liberals that like to argue comma placement.


I hope you have enough bullets :p:D

[controldude]

WHEC720,
I agree 9-0 only problem is Justice obviously isn't as blind as they claim to be.
Then again maybe like the 2 guys running for president if that's all we can come up with it's no wonder that was the outcome of the vote, what bothers me is our paper said it only gives you the right to protect you in your home.
At least here in colorado open carry is legal, people need to use these rights or lose them you get wierd looks from time to time but nobody has confronted me either.

[Remodeltdt01]

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
________________________________________
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

Part 2)

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?
Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
________________________________________
About the Author
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.
J. Neil Schulman may be reached through:
The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).
Mail address:
J. Neil Schulman
PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094.
GEnie address: SOFTSERV
softserv@genie.geis.com

I agree that the above analysis is correct, however I disagree with the 2nd amendment. My personal opinion is that anyone that has been convicted of a violent crime with a gun should not be allowed to own (or borrow) a gun, ever. The 2nd amendment doesn't allow for this and as such, I feel it is defective.

There should also be some additional limits. At some level automatic weapons should at least be licensed. IE A 50 caliber machine gun is probably not something anyone should be able to own without at least some regulation.

Any change though would require an amendment and any amendment would undoubtedly be worse than what we already have.

I also believe that if you own a gun you're fully responsible for the bullet you fire out of it. IE If you're attacked and start firing and accidently hit a bystander you are responsible. However if you happen to kill someone that was trying to kill you then their relatives should pay for his/her funeral. You, however, must replace any spent ammo out of your own pocket. :D

[bootlen]

I agree that the above analysis is correct, however I disagree with the 2nd amendment. My personal opinion is that anyone that has been convicted of a violent crime with a gun should not be allowed to own (or borrow) a gun, ever.

I agree.

The 2nd amendment doesn't allow for this and as such, I feel it is defective.

Not necessary. Some states already have laws like that in place. Problem is, lib judges put 'em back on the streets when they violate said laws. I think they (the criminals) should be shot. (Lib judges should be drawn & quartered.)

There should also be some additional limits. At some level automatic weapons should at least be licensed. IE A 50 caliber machine gun is probably not something anyone should be able to own without at least some regulation.

Laws already on the books. Does not require a Constitutional amendment. Just some determined people pushing for it in each state.

Any change though would require an amendment and any amendment would undoubtedly be worse than what we already have.

Exactly. So why do it? Leave it to the states. That was the purpose of the Constitution anyway...states rights and sovereignty.

I also believe that if you own a gun you're fully responsible for the bullet you fire out of it. IE If you're attacked and start firing and accidently hit a bystander you are responsible. However if you happen to kill someone that was trying to kill you then their relatives should pay for his/her funeral. You, however, must replace any spent ammo out of your own pocket. :D

Agree...except the dead criminal's family should have to pay for the ammo.:cool:

[jmac00]

I agree that the above analysis is correct, however I disagree with the 2nd amendment. My personal opinion is that anyone that has been convicted of a violent crime with a gun should not be allowed to own (or borrow) a gun, ever.

I agree.

It is all ready a federal crime for any convicted person to own or even handle a fire arm of any kind

The 2nd amendment doesn't allow for this and as such, I feel it is defective.

Not necessary. Some states already have laws like that in place. Problem is, lib judges put 'em back on the streets when they violate said laws. I think they (the criminals) should be shot. (Lib judges should be drawn & quartered.)

There should also be some additional limits. At some level automatic weapons should at least be licensed. IE A 50 caliber machine gun is probably not something anyone should be able to own without at least some regulation.

Laws already on the books. Does not require a Constitutional amendment. Just some determined people pushing for it in each state.

YES, any LEGAL LAW ABIDING CITIZEN may own an automatic weapon, the permit for an automatic weapon is well into thousands of dollars and requires EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECKS

Any change though would require an amendment and any amendment would undoubtedly be worse than what we already have.

Exactly. So why do it? Leave it to the states. That was the purpose of the Constitution anyway...states rights and sovereignty.

There are enough laws on the books, the individual states all ready have plenty of restrictions on weapons. What we need are few judges to ENFORCE the existing laws

I also believe that if you own a gun you're fully responsible for the bullet you fire out of it. IE If you're attacked and start firing and accidently hit a bystander you are responsible. However if you happen to kill someone that was trying to kill you then their relatives should pay for his/her funeral. You, however, must replace any spent ammo out of your own pocket. :D

Agree...except the dead criminal's family should have to pay for the ammo.:cool:

There is a law on the books for this, it's called "The castle Doctrine"

[ga-hvac-tech]

This reply is one of those IMO statements, therefore factual content may be second hand to the author's opinion:

I think Judges are no different than politicians. They like the power, and as such will do pretty much what the folks that voted them in want them to do...

Rather than...

A Judge being a person with high moral character and a sense of fairness and community, which is both not for sale and will not be compromised for ANY reason. This person will make a decision based on what is right and what is in the best interest of the whole community.

Now which one would you want making a decision that affected your life:

Person A; that is for sale to whatever political influence group will finance their election... or
Person B; that is indifferent to political gain or who is accused... they are committed to doing the right thing.

Personally, I think we should all consider these differences of motivation before we vote for judges, local government, state government, and especially national government.

Opinions???