I wonder how some of you users of this website felt about the rampant misuse of firearms and the lack of punishment for such acts.
I am a responsible owner of firearms that I use for hunting, and recreational shooting. I feel that anyone whom is and has been a law abiding person should have this right; all being subject to background checks and all guns owned by permit. Convicted criminals should be scrutinized as to the nature of their crimes before being granted this privilege. (I mean, why shouldn

Iggy, if we were to model our laws after the rest of the world's, no one would be allowed to own guns, much less be allowed to own anything that remotely resembles or could be used as a weapon.  If you or anyone else would check it out, you would see the truth of the matter.

The ownership of weapons is an extension of the RIGHT to life; it is NOT a privilige, unless you want to put yourself in the position of "Distributor of Priviliges."  Anyone who want to revoke your RIGHT to life by declaring illegal anything that promotes your ability is a tyrant.  Anyone who tries to revoke your right to life by use of force is a criminal.  Both of those types need to be resisted, by any means possible.

Make no mistake:  tyrants and criminals prefer you to be unarmed, because it makes working their will upon you much easier.  When a criminal breaks into your home to kill you, steal what you own, and destroy what cannot be taken, you need to counter his force with equal or greater force.  Such force can only be applied with a firearm (handgun, shotgun, rifle).  When a jack-booted thug breaks down your door to take you and yours away for some infraction of the law that you didn't know that you broke, the only way to counter his force is with equal or greater force.  Again, such force can only be applied with a firearm.

Please don't tell me that such things don't happen.  The do, with surprising regularity in 2nd and 3rd world nations, and are happening with greater frequency in the 1st world.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is NOT to allow for hunting.  It is to guarentee that when (not IF) the government becomes tyrannical, the people will have the recourse necessary to alter or abolish it.

If you want to ensure that misuse of a firearm is NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, then you need to do 3 things:  1)  You need to teach the 4 laws of firearm safety (they are
    a) Always assume that a firearm is loaded until you have inspected it for yourself and made it safe for others;
    b) Always point a firearm in a safe direction;
    c) Always be aware of your target AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT;
    d) Never put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.);
2)  You need to enforce the laws against rape and murder and theft, NOT invent new crimes that are useless against criminals but make life difficult for regular people;  3)  You need to get the government out of people's personal lives, interfering ONLY when someone has done something wrong, and then ensuring that punishment will be swift and certain.

Iggy, if we were to model our laws after the rest of the world's, no one would be allowed to own guns, much less be allowed to own anything that remotely resembles or could be used as a weapon.  If you or anyone else would check it out, you would see the truth of the matter.

The ownership of weapons is an extension of the RIGHT to life; it is NOT a privilige, unless you want to put yourself in the position of "Distributor of Priviliges."  Anyone who want to revoke your RIGHT to life by declaring illegal anything that promotes your ability is a tyrant.  Anyone who tries to revoke your right to life by use of force is a criminal.  Both of those types need to be resisted, by any means possible.

Make no mistake:  tyrants and criminals prefer you to be unarmed, because it makes working their will upon you much easier.  When a criminal breaks into your home to kill you, steal what you own, and destroy what cannot be taken, you need to counter his force with equal or greater force.  Such force can only be applied with a firearm (handgun, shotgun, rifle).  When a jack-booted thug breaks down your door to take you and yours away for some infraction of the law that you didn't know that you broke, the only way to counter his force is with equal or greater force.  Again, such force can only be applied with a firearm.

Please don't tell me that such things don't happen.  The do, with surprising regularity in 2nd and 3rd world nations, and are happening with greater frequency in the 1st world.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is NOT to allow for hunting.  It is to guarentee that when (not IF) the government becomes tyrannical, the people will have the recourse necessary to alter or abolish it.

If you want to ensure that misuse of a firearm is NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, then you need to do 3 things:  1)  You need to teach the 4 laws of firearm safety (they are
    a) Always assume that a firearm is loaded until you have inspected it for yourself and made it safe for others;
    b) Always point a firearm in a safe direction;
    c) Always be aware of your target AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT;
    d) Never put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to fire.);
2)  You need to enforce the laws against rape and murder and theft, NOT invent new crimes that are useless against criminals but make life difficult for regular people;  3)  You need to get the government out of people's personal lives, interfering ONLY when someone has done something wrong, and then ensuring that punishment will be swift and certain.


Hei IanWinn!
Were on the same page!  I was unclear and I guess you have misunderstood my view. Firstly, I am one of the biggest ultra right wing conservative, anti big government, anti government intervention, and anti over regulation, Richard M. Nixon , Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. & Jr., Rush Limbaugh, and Seann Hannity LOVING, Bill and Hillary, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Bono, Barbara Streisand HATING, gun toting, lifetime NRA member, Americans you will ever meet!!
  I was mainly trying to convey how the left wing liberals are whittling away at the right (and yes, I am aware of the Constitutions intent in reference to the right to bear arms) of gun ownership instead creating severe penalties for the misuse of them by criminals. Here in NY State it is EXTREMELY difficult to obtain a handgun permit. What

WEll, I guess I'm one of those "left wing liberals" mentioned in Iggy's last post, and I'm here to tell you that I fully support the 2nd Amendment.  When it was written, however, your typical hunting rifle (a Kentucky long rifle) was a much better weopon than the muskets supplied to the military, and during that time every able bodied male was required to take military training with his state militia.  The result was (in addition to both Shay's and the Whiskey rebellions) that an armed citizenry stood some chance at least of mounting a credible opposition to the armed might of the state.  Now a bit more history.  Jump to June 1973 in Salvador Allende's Chile.  Following a small military uprising, some members of Allende's coalition advocated arming the masses in order to defend their gov't against the coup everyone knew was coming.  Allende's rersponse was "how many masses does it take to stop a tank?"  I would ask you that same question.

By the way, when my back problems are solved I intend to buy a kit to build a working facs. of a Kentucky long rifle and join a gun club so that I can shoot it (at targets, not people).  Might even try a bit of black powder hunting

I also agree that the government should stay out of our personal lives, like our bed rooms (so-called "sodomy" laws) and out of our wallets as much as possible.  On  the other hand, I do believe that the gov't should be deeply involved in providing for and protecting the basic rights and well being of the average working stiff.  How many Enron employees lost their jobs and pensions because Ken Lay & Co. were allowed to pull the crap they did?  How about WorldCom or Adelphia?  Meanwhile, workers' wages have been stagnant for years while you right wing dudes are more interested in what gays can and cannot do than in the fleecing of the working and professional classes, and the erosion of others of our basic rights which are under attack through the so called Patriot Act.  You laud Tricky Dicky, President Jelly Bean, Big and Lil' Georgie, the Gas Bag and the rest of them, but you don't seem to see that they don't give a rat's hind parts about your rights or your well being.

It irks me that seemingly intelligent and knowledgable people can't see through the sham that is right wing politics today.  As a leftist (My guess is that I am the most leftist of anyone on this board), I think I am more concerned with the real issues of freedom, liberty, and democracy than all your Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters and the rest of them put together. 

Stop the killing: ban murder!

Indeed, you are so right, Don Carlos.  Limbo and Vanity used to be voices in the wilderness, calling for reason.  Then they sold their souls for fame and fortune and national airwaves.

Government needs to be in the business of protecting EVERYONE'S rights, not just those of the rich.  Sadly, the industrialists took power back in the 1850's, and they've had nearly everyone in their pocket since then...or in some cases, they've put themselves BETWEEN THE BACK POCKETS!

As for taking out a tank, you can use napalm in a Molotov cocktail (60 of them should do it), or a thermite charge (creates a mass of molten metal that destroys other metal parts; put a couple of them on the shoes of each tank tread!); OR, you can take it out indirectly (take out the supply line of gas/food/tools/parts, take out the mechanics or even the tankers themselves! As the venerable Kurt Saxon said, "They gotta come out to pee SOMETIME!").

Don Carlos, the best skill that one can develop today is hunting.  When the JBT's and/or foreign troops come over here, that skill will be invaluable.  You can track a squad, find a straggler, take him out, get his equipment, and move on to the next one.  If you have friends, perhaps you could take out a whole squad, and you could get even more goodies.  You might win, and you might lose, but either way, you'll make it costly for them.

  I feel that anyone whom is and has been a law abiding person should have this right; all being subject to background checks and all guns owned by permit.


What about areas which still have "Frontier Law", where carrying a handgun is allowed without a permit? I lived in one of these areas and the murder rate by guns was almost non-existent. Apparently a bunch of people packing a Colt in their holster is a strong deterent too.

What about areas which still have "Frontier Law", where carrying a handgun is allowed without a permit? I lived in one of these areas and the murder rate by guns was almost non-existent. Apparently a bunch of people packing a Colt in their holster is a strong deterent too.


Did you know that in most areas of the country, you can carry a firearm?