Reply With Quoteyour second amendment will be in front of the Supreme court in the not too distant future.
Nice guns...used well.
CC
Mosin-Nagant 91/30
Click here to watch Mosin-Nagant-9130 (http://media.putfile.com/Mosin-Nagant-9130)
your second amendment will be in front of the Supreme court in the not too distant future.
Nice guns...used well.
CC
For a gun that is 60+ years old and shooting 30 year old ammo she was pretty darn accurate. I bought it surplus so that was the first time i had gottent to shoot it.
I tell you what thought. After shooting that and the 8MM Mauser shooting the M4 was like shooting a BB gun...
As far as the supremem court goes. every politician who has gone up against the NRA has lost so i i got not fear and the NRA coninues to get my annual donation.
I'm always amazed at how many of these collectables are still out there. Nice vid btw.
As far as the supremem court goes. every politician who has gone up against the NRA has lost so i i got not fear and the NRA coninues to get my annual donation.
this is a little different...we're gonna get a ruling if you can have guns only as part of a "well regulated state militia" or as an individual. The result could be quite far reaching.
This case stems from the near banning of gun, specifically handguns, ownership in DC. I hope they will rule such that other BS gun laws will be deemed unconstitutional.
Congress's power could be reigned in a bit.
We'll see.
CC
It reads,
"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."
To me and many others it is plain that the first part of this sentence,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
Is there to justify the second part of the sentence,
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In plain English, this sentence means, "Hey, we're going to need an organized volunteer Army, so we're not going to keep people from owning guns, so they can be in that organized volunteer Army"
In other words, the part about a well regulated militia actually means something. It means that the essence of the second part of the sentence (we can have guns) is justified by the first part of the sentence (we're going to need an organized volunteer Army).
HOWEVER, the more pro-gun violence among us argue that the clause about a well regulated militia refers to the fact that the government will maintain an organized militia to defend our nation, and thus the average citizen will be allowed to own guns of his own in order to keep that standing government militia from practicing tyranny over the citizen.
I'll keep my remarks short and simple here...that's pure fantasy. It's pure fantasy to believe that there is a line in the constitution granting you the right to maintain an arsenal in order to overthrow the government. If you were allowed to make preparations to overthrow your government, then the anti-sedition laws, the laws forbidding membership in a group which advocates the overthrow of the United States government by force, and the numerous state laws prohibiting the formation of "Private Armies" would've been declared unconstitutional. They haven't.
This was written before we had a massive military budget, millions of armed forces members and a massive supply of weapons of mass destruction. We no longer need Minutemen standing by in the woods with their muskets at the ready to defend our nation, we have a full time military for that. In the meantime, our inisitence on clinging to the gun has had no effect other than providing a rash of unnecessary gun violence and tragedy across this land; tragedies which strike women and minorities hardest.
It is time for the citizen to realize that guns are best held in the hands of those responsible for the safety of citizens, the steady hand of government.
Enjoy your time with your antiquated rifle, delemorte, and make sure you practice well enough that you'll be able to resist your government if it becomes tyrannical. I'd love to see what your Mosin-Nagant does against an Apache-Longbow.
Homeless
[QUOTE=homelessinaz;
It is time for the citizen to realize that guns are best held in the hands of those responsible for the safety of citizens, the steady hand of government.
Homeless[/QUOTE]
What most sane people already realize, is that the job of protecting ME, is best left up to ME. Where was law enforcement during the Virginia college killing spree? Waiting patiently by the phone for the call to tell them "send help we have umpteen people DEAD already", is where. ONE responsible gun owner could have saved 30+ human lives, but idiots think somehow we will be safe if we cant legally own guns. Guess what Einstien? CRIMINALS DONT GIVE A SHIT WHATS LEGAL AND WHATS NOT, THATS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS. DUH! If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them, and then everyone will be sitting ducks. Well no thanks, not me. My opinion is, the gov. doesnt have any business telling me whether or not I can own a gun, their business is executing me if I were to use it irresponsibly. IE, killing people.
You may see it as OK to be a potential victim of some loon. Well I dont.
If thats your choice, fine. Dont force it on the rest of us.
What Okie said!!!
What most sane people already realize, is that the job of protecting ME, is best left up to ME.
You may see it as OK to be a potential victim of some loon. Well I dont.
If thats your choice, fine. Dont force it on the rest of us.
Problem is that most of the people in power aren't of this same opinion, and that's what scares me.
"A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."
Posting Permissions