Destructo

I'll be headin for the hills, they won't take my guns!

statjunk

Unfortunetly no matter what anyone thinks no militia would ever unseat the federal government unless it was extrodinarily large. They have amazing weaponary these days that render standard firearms completely inadequate.

For me it's about my right to own firearms and hunt.

So Destructo, run for the hills. These days they could likely fire some kind of sound wave into the hills that would make you cramp up and crap yourself. Just make sure you bring plenty of tp.

Tom

Destructo

I wouldn't doubt it, i'v been watching those shows on disovery military, who knows what they have that we don't know about!

But I say they have to find me first!

cjwink

If they are trying to interpret what the founding fathers meant. They only need to ask themselves.. Did these men own guns? The answer is simple, and so should this case. If any of the people in DC had any common sense at all..[:@]

salukipv1

Speaking of convicted felons.....not owning a firearm, I hate when a crime takes away a right unrelated to what the crime was. If you committed armed robbery using a firearm, sure that guy shouldn't be able to own a firearm legally, but simply lumping all felons into the category of not being able to use a firearm is ridiculous. Many crimes that are felonies can be non-violent, and non-drug related as well, I know many guys like to point to drugs as a non-violent and some disagree with that but there are many other non-violent, non-drug felones. My point is that the punishment should relate to the crime, if you get a DUI they take away your license, they don't take take away your right to buy cigarettes. Of course I guess asking for that is too much, I must be crazy to want crimes/punishments to be related, just, and fair.

HEAD0001

IMO the Supreme Court is going to come down on our side on this one. Bush may or may not have done thing's that some of us like or dislike. But IMO his Supreme Court Judge appointments are going to help us out. I just hope the Supreme Court comes out with their decision when they said they would(June). If this comes out before the election then Gun Control may again become an election issue. If the Supreme Court does not come down on our side, and A democrat gets elected to the White House, then you better start running to the hills. Tom.

thndrchiken

Ok everyone, just remember what happened in 2000 when Al Gore said he wanted all guns. That is essentially what lost him the election. The days of common sense in government are definitely over. Just like the military, the more formal education the more severe the lack of common sense.

zuren1cs

I can't see firearm ownership being outlawed, but everything else in this country seems to be going to hell so who knows. You would think bankers would have been smart enough to not loan money to people who would never be able to pay that money back. I don't have much faith in these so called "great minds" with prestigious pedigrees that are making the decisions and running the show.

If ownership is banned, the Supreme Court and the Government are going to have ~55 million voting, gun-toting Americans pretty p*ssed off.

Harry3142

I remember reading an article which gave a longer version of what those who argue against individuals owning firearms are saying, and it should concern us all. Here is the gist of it.

The founding fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights were landed gentry in a societal framework which has since all but disappeared. Their attitudes were conditioned by their environment, but the environment itself has altered so drastically during the ensuing 200+ years since their time as to be an entirely new environment, one which they could never imagine and did not plan on during the authorship of the Bill of Rights. Therefore the Bill of Rights should be seen as an historical document, but its contents should be adapted to fit our modern era.

Do you see where their argument could take us if it is accepted? It is my observation that those who are most rabid concerning the disarming of the citizenry are in phase one of a multiphase objective. The second amendment is, in their eyes, the weak link in the chain of amendments which our founding fathers saw fit to start this country off with. But if the enemies of this amendment can get it severely amended, if not repealed altogether, I am seriously concerned that the legal arguments they use in order to accomplish this will then be used to attack the other amendments, with the end result being to replace all ten of them with an elitist oligarchical manifesto which will give rights only to a privileged few, while demanding abject subservience from the majority.

ipscshooter

I'm a lawyer. I don't have an English degree. Yet, somehow, I understand exactly what it means. Those who don't "understand" actually do understand. They just have a political agenda which mandates that they ignore the plain meaning.