Exercising my 2nd amendment over the weekend.

[homelessinaz]

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.
OH MY GOD!!! How come with people like you, the answer is always a bigger gun, or more guns, or more bombs or bigger bombs? Is it so outrageous to think that maybe we could solve a problem without killing people?
Instead of seeing the problem as it actually is (two guns too many on the campus of Virgina Tech) you imagine some other problem, in this case NOT ENOUGH GUNS ON THE CAMPUS OF VIRGINA TECH!!!
I know, I know, if you were there and you'd had your gun...yada yada yada, WHATEVER!!!
If we all lived in your world and everyone on campus actually had a gun, what would happen would look something like this:
Gunman pulls out gun and starts shooting people,
Redneck #1 sees opportunity to be on FOX news as a great American gun toting hero, takes out his Chuck Norris gun and starts firing wildly at gunman,
Redneck #2, #3, #4 and on through redneck #400 see redneck #1, #2, #3 and all the others shooting and begin shooting at each other, all of them believing that they are shooting at someone who is on a shooting spree, all of them missing their targets and shooting innocent bystanders.
How would any of them know who was the real "bad guy"? Are we going to put bad guys in uniforms? Is it going to be like a first person shooter game, with a flashing red arrow over the head of the bad guys and a circle slash over the good guys when you have one of the good guys in your sights?
I'm sure that the rednecks would most likely just shoot the person with the darkest skin, which would make the end result of this policy the same as all conservative policies, impacting minorities the harshest.
Nevermind, I forgot, you've watched all the Dirty Harry movies, you know what you're doing. Just make sure you speak loudly enough for all the hot chick bystanders to hear your clever one-liners as you cooly dispatch the bad guys with your big ass gun.
Here's one, "Schools out, mother****er", or how about, "Class dismissed, bitch boy", and then you shoot him right between the eyes.
That would be tight, huh?
Wow, you must be the baddest mofo to ever post on a political rhetoric forum.
Homeless

[AzMandella]

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
Well thank you for that lesson on the 2nd amendment. On the other hand the Supreme court doesn't agree. And for how many years? I guess I have no right to defend my home and family if it be necesary. I do believe that is what our forefathers meant. But you libs keep working on stripping all of our rights and soon you will have your socialistic utopia. This guy sure reminds me of Bag Head.

[homelessinaz]

I guess I have no right to defend my home and family if it be necesary. I do believe that is what our forefathers meant.
Oh, of course that's what they meant, that's why they didn't say ONE WORD about self defense, skeet shooting, deer hunting, etc.
The Supreme Court hasn't made a 2nd amendment ruling since 1980, and has only made 5 2nd amendment rulings. Most of those rulings have dealt with the question of what constitutes a true militia. In no case has the Court ruled about a person's right to own a gun for self defense. At this point, the Court has left the decision up to the states about laws about gun ownership. That's why some cities like NYC have been able to reduce their per capita crime rate through sensible gun control measures.
You're welcome.
Homeless

[OKIE-JET]

OH MY GOD!!! How come with people like you, the answer is always a bigger gun, or more guns, or more bombs or bigger bombs? Is it so outrageous to think that maybe we could solve a problem without killing people?
Instead of seeing the problem as it actually is (two guns too many on the campus of Virgina Tech) you imagine some other problem, in this case NOT ENOUGH GUNS ON THE CAMPUS OF VIRGINA TECH!!!
I know, I know, if you were there and you'd had your gun...yada yada yada, WHATEVER!!!
If we all lived in your world and everyone on campus actually had a gun, what would happen would look something like this:
Gunman pulls out gun and starts shooting people,
Redneck #1 sees opportunity to be on FOX news as a great American gun toting hero, takes out his Chuck Norris gun and starts firing wildly at gunman,
Redneck #2, #3, #4 and on through redneck #400 see redneck #1, #2, #3 and all the others shooting and begin shooting at each other, all of them believing that they are shooting at someone who is on a shooting spree, all of them missing their targets and shooting innocent bystanders.
How would any of them know who was the real "bad guy"? Are we going to put bad guys in uniforms? Is it going to be like a first person shooter game, with a flashing red arrow over the head of the bad guys and a circle slash over the good guys when you have one of the good guys in your sights?
I'm sure that the rednecks would most likely just shoot the person with the darkest skin, which would make the end result of this policy the same as all conservative policies, impacting minorities the harshest.
Nevermind, I forgot, you've watched all the Dirty Harry movies, you know what you're doing. Just make sure you speak loudly enough for all the hot chick bystanders to hear your clever one-liners as you cooly dispatch the bad guys with your big ass gun.
Here's one, "Schools out, mother****er", or how about, "Class dismissed, bitch boy", and then you shoot him right between the eyes.
That would be tight, huh?
Wow, you must be the baddest mofo to ever post on a political rhetoric forum.
Homeless
LMAO!...."Schools out mofo"....instant classic.....to be a forest dweller you watch too much TV.LOL! Oh, and only limp wristed buffons such as yourself would have to shoot that much.

[STV_Keith]

Mr Homeless. May I simply ask how many guns you own?

[havasu5150]

Well thank you for that lesson on the 2nd amendment. On the other hand the Supreme court doesn't agree. And for how many years? I guess I have no right to defend my home and family if it be necesary. I do believe that is what our forefathers meant. But you libs keep working on stripping all of our rights and soon you will have your socialistic utopia. This guy sure reminds me of Bag Head.
I agree!
Why is it that the libs have a very narrow view of the scope of the 2nd amendment, yet want to interpret the 1st amendment in the absolute broadest terms.

[Kachina26]

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
Wow, how long did it take for you to type that out? I've been on the floor laughing my ass off for 10 minutes after reading it!
Mr Homeless. May I simply ask how many guns you own?
Probably afraid of them......
BTW delemorte, nice piece, but you might consider some hearing protection.

[TonkaDriver]

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
You call yourself a Libertarian at the same time as you spout this crap.
What I know of Libertarians is that they don't support government interference in the lives of the citizens as long as they do no harm to other citizens. Therefore if a citizen wants to own and operate a gun it is none of the government's business unless the gun is used improperly against another citizen.
No wonder you are homeless. You have no clue what you are. What your posts say of you is that you confused the spelling of liberal with libertarian.
Maybe you should do some research concerning what libertarians truly believe before you call yourself one..
P.S. The murder rate in Australia went way up when the government confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens. Either Sweden or Switserland requires all households to have a working firearm at the ready for national defense and you can check their crime rate. A small town in redneck central (Georgia) passed an ordinance that required that all homes be armed and the criminals went elswhere.
None of the criminals were sure they would live if they broke into a house.
By the way, because of hunters the health of the game herds in this country has never been better.

[YeLLowBoaT]

and the country that has the most guns per capita, and also has the lowest crime rate is... switzerland. Kind of wonder why... more so since thier nat'l sport is target shooting.
Then thier are countrys like the UK... where they don't have guns, and a very low level of gun violance, but thier crimes against a person( murder, rape, mayhem, assult, robbery.... etc) are almost 4x higher then the US.
ever notice how all of the mass murder events, always happen in "no gun zones"? every thing from post offices to schools... kind of makes you wonder.
Fact is the VT thing should have never happend, as the nut job was already precluded to owning firearms, but do to a goverment agency not reporting that info to the proper goverment agencys he was aloud to legally buy them.
Maybe we should just enforce the gun control laws...
then there are people like Roise O'donnell.... Who firmly beleaves no one should have guns, but her body gaurds carry... hmmm link (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5rhuLnrrwJQ)
So she can protect herself and her family, but Since I make a middle class wage and can't aford proffessional body gaurds... I should not be able to defend my family?

[homelessinaz]

Mr Homeless. May I simply ask how many guns you own?
How many guns do I own? I wonder why you'd ask that. Isn't that one of those questions you gun whackos get really sensitive about people asking?
Okay, I'll play along. Of course I don't own any guns. I have trained local, state and federal law enforcement officers whom I pay taxes to train and equip. So far I've never had any mishaps due to one of their guns being used against me or any of my housemates, nor have any of those firearms been involved in an accidental shooting. I'm quite comfortable with that.
If you're going to make the argument that I can't comment on gun control issues since I'm not a gun owner, I'd be willing to go along with that so long as everyone without ovaries will recuse themselves from the abortion debate.
Homeless