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

[Bob Riebe]

Bob. What are you afraid of?

Nothing as it stands, nor do I intend to let things ride till I have reason to be.

Any one who waits till misery, evil or the enemy has arrived is a fool who deserves anything either of the tree can bring down on that one's life.

[Bob Riebe]

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.

That is where you rhetoric falls apart.
It is based on the premise that they have the right to have or not to have as they see fit, not as any government force of any type should be able to decide.

I know people who have tens to dozens of firearms, most of which have not been fired nor ever will be.
Many of the ones unfired, both rifle and handgun, are the ones that make bullet proof vests worthless but would work well on a Cape Bufflalo.

I fired a 20mm Solothurn anti-tank rifle that was for sale, with ammunition.
IF I had the, substantial, money for the rifle, all I would have to do is pay the two hundred dollars, file the paperwork and I could take it home and have it sitting fully-loaded in the living room should I so decide.

If I filed the proper paper work, payed the four figure permit fee, I could buy and sell without the two hundred dollar fee, most any military/poliice weapon I could afford, at prices a minimum of one half of those payed by people without that permit.
There is a pilot in the U.S. who recently recieved ATF permissiom tp have fully functional machines gun in the wings of his WWII fighter.
Even in the comparative sad state we are in, God bless the fact I live in the U.S. of A.

[Bob Riebe]

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.

Any one who would be that stupid deserves to be shot dead by the baddie, fortunately such fairy tale things are just that fairy tales created by liberals.

At the same time, when as a landlord I was threatened with firearm violence in front of the police we had called, I asked later how long I had to wait if he was serious.
The police officer said shoot him through the door.

[Bob Riebe]

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.

The winner of ANY conflict determines what is, or is not, just.

He lost.

At the same time, Koresh lost, but in the aftermath, a great deal more than a few peole, believe the government was the evil agressor in that case.
Of course when the Feds. burn alive women and children, it is not hard to see why.

[Bob Riebe]

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?

Why would it be madness?

Do you have some paranoid fear of a firearm?

Do you live fully believing some sort of Bogey man nightmare will have if one has firearms in the house?

If it is never used in defense, one can A: leave it sit til the day he dies, B: Go out and practice with it, C: Every now and then clean and service it, so it function properly or D: make part of a collection.
In your world there is E: live in constant state of nightmare fear that the gun will suddnely rise up and shoot innocent women and children.

[Rollo]

The winner of ANY conflict determines what is, or is not, just.
He lost.

Would you say that the courts acted justly?

[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.
...

I said in a previous post none of those apply, number three does and what you said is bs.

[Bob Riebe]

Would you say that the courts acted justly?

Yes -but honetly only if Muslim terrorists convicted, related to attacks that caused death, also recieved the same sentence,

[Rollo]

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

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.

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.

schmenke's argument is that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state". I think that's entirely fair and reasonable. Every single one of those statements has to do with the first clause of Second Amendment.

[Bob Riebe]

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

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.




schmenke's argument is that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state". I think that's entirely fair and reasonable. Every single one of those statements has to do with the first clause of Second Amendment.

The National Guard, which is legally under the control of each Governor of a State or Territory, is considered the modern equivalent of a militia.
As happened in the civil war, if this country had another full scale internal war, it would probably not be just private firearms against the military.
They are called civilian soldiers, and will choose their own masters.


The militia statement is a separate point from the right of the people to keep and bear arm but both are addressed by the closing statement-- SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Only bearing arms is an absolute right.
The Supreme Court made that absolute definition just recently. To do otherwise makes grammar in law worthless.

The commas that separates the militia from the right to keep and bear arms and from "shall not be infringed" makes them separate points.