I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

[Bob Riebe]

Too right. People who feel the need to arm themselves are not free, they are scared.

People who fail to arm themselves in the face of a threat, are not free, they are stupid.

[race aficionado]

Bob. What are you afraid of?



Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

[Rollo]

You have more liberty by having freedom and rights removed.
Ah liberal big-brother think.

What use is one's Liberty if your Life itself is removed. The entire culture of American society itself has been shaped on the premise that people need guns.

It was an exceptionally muggy night last night in Sydney. It was 86° at 12:30am and raining. I left the back to open and only the screen door shut to keep the cats inside. I don't honestly expect that you'd be able to do that in the US.

[Firstgear]

.............This is because many Swiss men are issued submachine guns and assault rifles as part of their compulsory national military service which are stored at home until the men are in their 30..........

If this is the case, could it be that the large number of handguns in the US are the reason behind the difference in the stats between the two countries?
It's alot easier for a criminal or gangster to be walking the streets with a handgun than a rifle. If the Swiss were allowed to carry concealed weapons like people are in the US (or if handguns were as prolific as in the US), maybe the stats between the two would be similar.

[Rollo]

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from our government.
The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that need has never gone away.

The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that the American people implicitly and expressly believe in and trust their government. If you as a people were really that worried about "the tyranny of government" then why hasn't there been armed protests against it? How do you think that would actually work, sending a militia in to fight against Washington? How would a private militia fare against a fully mechanised and mobilised force worth $548bn/year in running costs?

Legally, what power do you have to rise up against the government anyway?
Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

The states have no right to secede, as held in Texas v White 1869:
"the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"
So if states can not seceed from the Union, then what chance does the individual have when it comes to rising up against "Tyrannical Goverment"?

The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

[janvanvurpa]

Or perhaps they are just unlucky if they find themselves in that situation in the first place. Arming yourself just in case you happen to be robbed or attacked with a firearm is just total madness where I am from. Where would I keep this gun just in case anyway? In my car, hall, lounge, kitchen, bedroom, childrens bedroom, garage?

The matter is even crazier when you think that the only way to really be certain that your gun will be effective is to basically ambush the baddie. Choose your position in good cover, wait till the baddie is in a distance where you can drop them with the first shot...not a firefight like all the John Waynes imagine.
In other words not as defensive weapons when the baddie already has his heater out, so basically it only would be effective if every time somebody knocks at the door, you send a few rounds thru the door at a little less than chest height, wait a second--cuase the baddie was probably standing to the side---then 2-4 rounds thru the door (cause after the first salvo, the baddie is probably now in front of the door ready to kick in in. The first 2 rounds were just a feint...)

Of get even bigger gun that you know will go right thru the wall and send 2 rounds thru the wall on each side of the door.

Simple.

then open the door to see who it was.

[race aficionado]

. . . .The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

Ouch!

mokin:

[schmenke]

... I don't honestly expect that you'd be able to do that in the US.

What, leave the cats inside? :

[Bob Riebe]

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.
...

Not one of those has one single thing to do with why we have the Second Amendmnet or firearms.

[Bob Riebe]

You need protection from your government? Use the power of the VOTE and forget about your gun(s).

That does what good when the government appoints Supreme Court judges not to defend the Constitution but to make it say what the Administration says?

Judges are appointed for life.
Those who ridiculed Gingrich for his statement on judges are either morons, or at best, socialists who realize how dangerous such a presidency, who defines the Supreme Court as just one part of the Federal Government, also subject to the will of the people, would be to their socialist engineering.