Posted by Seventh Stage I want to possess the gun primarily for self defense, meaning that if someone breaks into my house at night they will find themselves at the business end of one of my guns. If you watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit on firearms there's a nice piece with a Texas politician that had her parents murdered in front of her by a madman with a gun. It was in a restaurant, and she had a legally owned pistol and a conceal and carry. Unfortunately the law mandated she keep it in her car while in restaurants and like a typical gun owner she obeyed the law. Because of that she is hateful of the laws that prevented her from defending her family from someone who did not care to follow the law.

Don't worry the terrorists aren't out to get you. What is it with everyone's paranoia, that everyone is out the get them, because of random isolated incidents. In regards to "gun fearing pussies," from what I read by pro-gun manly men, they are "people fearing pussies." This whole self defence arguement seems like such bullshit, an attempt to buffer up the fact that you just think guns are neato! How do you think the scene would've turned out had that woman taken the law into her own hands? I doubt it would be as simple as K KILLED HIM, GG. More like further provoking someone crazy and having a show down.

I used to be very pro-guns, but since a good friend of mine shot & killed himself in april, not so much anymore. He was 16 years old. I think the regulations should be tighter on who gets guns. Partial to blame probably was the family itself for having guns so available in a house with a 16 & 10 year old. He'd still be here today. I do think guns are good, for protection and hunting, but not everyone should just be allowed to have one.

Posted by MutantMandias By the way, what is the name of your well regulated militia?

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and also the right for people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Also, just liking guns is an ok reason to buy them. Just like having multiple cars or houses or any other luxury you may like. Like with all of them you are responsible to possess and use them responsibly.

Posted by Skold How do you think the scene would've turned out had that woman taken the law into her own hands? I doubt it would be as simple as K KILLED HIM, GG. More like further provoking someone crazy and having a show down.

I mean this as civilly as possible: do you honestly believe that it is safer for a madman with a gun to indiscriminately shoot people unobstructed, or for that same madman to encounter opposition from a sane person carrying a gun legally? If given the chance would you hold the sane person back and let the madman continue shooting people?

I agree that many people do not need a course to know how to handle a gun. With that being said how do you decide who should have the course and who should not? Not a good idea to even try. I am not sure what the laws are where you live but if you want something for protection do you have to have permits for all guns, or can you purchase long guns at a sporting goods store without a permit? Yes I know that you have other guns and want them for recreation, you have to decide if the extra money is worth the fun.

Off the soap box and can say that I agree the rules tend to really suck! The government has to stick their noses in everything. I don't like it but if I want to do something I have to do what they say or I don't do it and get nailed for not following the rules. I snowmobile, I have to belong to a club or pay a ton more to register the damn thing. The extra money goes to a fund for the benefit of the clubs for trail maintenance and young driver training. Every year they give a good chunk of the money to something to fund something else that ran short. Ok now more time invested to have club raffles to make more money to pay for the groomer that we bought and have to pay gas for. Now for courses, if you are 17 or 18 with a license to drive a car you still need to take the course. Now you can have an ATV no rules or extra fees and clubs to join. Own a boat? ya there are courses but you don't have to belong to a yacht club to benefit clean water. ARGH!!!! I feel your pain.

Posted by Seventh Stage The second amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and also the right for people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, it does not. The 2nd Amendment, as it was passed by the House and Senate, does not state that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. Quite distinctly, it includes a clause that simply asserts that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and then follows it with the statement that the right shall not be infringed.

Is the simple assertion that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state a right that you claim? It is not a right, it is a clause, and the right that follows is dependent upon it, therefore indicating that arms are to be used as part of a well regulated militia.

There is really no other rational way to explain it, no matter what you have been told.

But, I have never said that I think the Constitution is all that. Look at how much they fucked up that one. Why should we trust anything they said?

Posted by MutantMandias But, I have never said that I think the Constitution is all that. Look at how much they fucked up that one. Why should we trust anything they said?

Interesting point of view.

The only problem is that liberals didn't exist back in the 1700's. People didn't need or want the government to take care of them back then. What a noble idea. We've twisted the constitution to our modern day wants anyway so really, it a meaningless piece of paper at this point.

Posted by MutantMandias No, it does not. The 2nd Amendment, as it was passed by the House and Senate, does not state that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. Quite distinctly, it includes a clause that simply asserts that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and then follows it with the statement that the right shall not be infringed. Is the simple assertion that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state a right that you claim? It is not a right, it is a clause, and the right that follows is dependent upon it, therefore indicating that arms are to be used as part of a well regulated militia. There is really no other rational way to explain it, no matter what you have been told. But, I have never said that I think the Constitution is all that. Look at how much they fucked up that one. Why should we trust anything they said?

I do not want to start a flamewar, but in the interest of posterity:

this is the second amendment:

"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."

I said:

"The second amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state..."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

and:

"... and also the right for people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yeah, and mandias said the same thing, and said that the one supports the other. He just repeated himself and made it complex to try to confuse you so he could feel better about himself.

But since the amendment doesn't state that gun owners have to join a militia, only that they have the right to bear arms because banning that would cripple the ability of militias to exist, we can all go back to hating liberals.

Posted by Seventh Stage "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

is not a right, is it?

Therefore, the right that is granted subsequently follows from it.

Posted by Wilky The only problem is that liberals didn't exist back in the 1700's. People didn't need or want the government to take care of them back then. What a noble idea. We've twisted the constitution to our modern day wants anyway so really, it a meaningless piece of paper at this point.

They didn't need or want the government to take care of them, because they took care of themselves and each other, by doing things like forming and participating in well armed militias, so as soon as you get your militia going, you will have fulfilled your responsibility that earns you the right to bear arms.

Or are you just going to leach off of the rest of us and take your entitlement?


But, more to the point, they people who founded the country WERE FUCKING LIBERALS, you idiot.

Posted by MutantMandias But, more to the point, they people who founded the country WERE FUCKING LIBERALS, you idiot.

I think liberal meant something different then than it does now. I somehow doubt most of the liberals I know today would start an armed revolution against our government due to the aforementioned pushing of gun laws. ;)


Also, I think that the gun laws are would be better if more states employed reciprocity. For example, when Seventh and I moved to MA we were licensed drivers and gun owners. I have conceal and carry in one state and FID in two. Now I have to start the whole process all over again (for about $400 + all of the tangential expenses such as gas to get to all of the paper filings, time off from work and practicing to pass that target test), despite my proving worthy in two other states and having no record. In contrast, when I moved to MA my driver's license took 10 minutes to transfer over (yay, off peak hours!). This just seems like common sense.

we dont take kindly to gun totin' mamas round here:

http://www.ldnews....source=most_viewed

i own guns but I dont think they belong here.

im enjoying reading the comment section.

Posted by MutantMandias But, more to the point, they people who founded the country WERE FUCKING LIBERALS, you idiot.

The fact that you compare our founding fathers to modern day liberals just shows how fucking stupid you really are. Modern liberal thinking wasn't established until the 19th century. Go look it up on Wikipedia, I think you can probably figure out how to do that for yourself.

Here is a quote for you in case you can't figure it out.

"The "process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."

let me put this out there before everyone gets worked into a frenzy.

I live in the most heavily armed county in New York State. Yep, Essex County NY has more rifles, shotguns and pistols per household than ANY OTHER county in NY. Clinton and Warren Counties are close 2nd and 3rd. Why? People like to hunt here, I like to target shoot. It's a good skill to have.

See everyone wheels out there own reason for gun laws and it just always struck me as funny. Ok, everyone who had a post on this topic, how many of you actually own a firearm or have owned a firearm?


Why did you have it?
What regulatory hoops did you have to jump through?

As for the constitutional provision for keeping and bearing arms, i am all for it. I feel that the private citizen should at least know HOW to use a firearm if they did not want to own one. Why? I think that the average citizen should be called upon to defend their country, domestic or foreign aggressor and that includes politicians that need to be deposed. I think that is what those rebellious found fathers had in mind when they included that provision. If you recall your American history class, the British tried to confiscate rifles from the average Joe in the days just before and just after the Revolution started.

Do I personally own an weapons? No. Not because I am making a socio-political statement. It's because I have a wicked temper and could easily lose a gasket or two and cap someone. It's just better to not have firearms at the handy.

Now, here is the bitter bitter irony... people that have obtained their weapons legally are not the ones on the six o'clock news. it's the folks that got theirs off a street corner, or the trunk of a car, or some other shady outlet. Some of you had mentioned friends that ended their own lives. I want to put this delicately, but you can't be responsible for everyone. If that person had truly been on a mission of self-destruction, they would've found another method if the gun had not been available.

Posted by Wilky Blah blah blah

Sorry, I can't take the time to read your whole post, since I am driving as fast as I can to get a beer with Ophie before bed.

From the bit I read however, I'll just mention how I didn't compare them to "modern liberals." I meant that theyb were liberals like me, who were opposed to the presiding government's religious afectations and oppression.

Also, I should point out that I like guns and gun ownership, for the liberal reason of keeping the goverment in check, not for the flawed and grammaticaly meaningless justification of the 2nd Amendment.

Anyway, have a nice night.

All I have to say is that you chose the wrong state to live in for gun ownership. Thank god I'm a non-resident and don't have to go through that crap.

Guns are for pussies in the first place. Real men use flamethrowers... swords? bare hands!!

Posted by ActionSatisfaction Esq. Guns are for pussies in the first place. Real men use flamethrowers... swords? bare hands!!

...but then what do real women use?

Posted by Seventh Stage The second amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, and also the right for people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment originated from a section of the English Bill of Rights in 1689 which declared that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law". This law was put in place because at the time, there was no regular army or police force, and the government saw it as every man's duty to protect the community, because there was nobody else to do it. At this point, I'm pretty sure America has a police force and army, so there should be no reason for well regulated militias.

Edit: oops!

Posted by MutantMandias Anyway, have a nice night.

Aw, that was awfully nice of you. I wish you a nice night as well.