I remember when I was about 8 yrs old,, I had a BB gun,
I was out playing with it one day and started shooting at this squirrel.
The BB gun was not powerful enough to kill the squirrel out right, but I
kept following it and shooting it over and over. Finally it fell out of
the tree. Thinking I had killed it I went over there and when I came
around the side of a tree, there he was, alive, but bruised and worn out
trying to regain his strength and climb back up the tree. I put the BB
gun to my shoulder, took aim from about 10 ft away, and was going to
finish him off. Then looking at the poor lil guy, with his chest rising
and falling, I felt guilty and ran away, crying, I couldnt do it. From
that point on I knew it took something far more evil than me to kill in
cold blood.....

Only shoot for protection, vermin clean out & meat.
All other targets paper, have walked a combat course, fun.

walked a combat course?

fun?

you must be talking about one of those reflexive fire ranges, i think.
yeah those are pretty cool, lets you let off some steam.

I think this "right to bear arms" thing is oftentimes taken just the
teensiest bit out of context.

yes by those that want to remove it

Nope, not the way I see it.

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.
__________________

what does it say

Kennesaw, GA had the only gun control law that actually worked. Not sure
if they still do or not.

You just said it.

does it say

as long as it has less than a 14 round clip
no

does it say you can not fire more than one projectile
pure trigger pull
no

does it say you can not carry it on your body at all times
no

does it say you have to pass a test
no

(actually it says shall not be infringed[which really means
no rules to limit the people of bearing arms])

Key word: "MILITIA."

key phrase

the right of the people

if the people have no arms then they can not have a milta when the need
arises

a well regulated milita is not needed until the
govt oversteps their bounds

one of which is removeing the rights of the people

once they (which they aare doing) this

then a militia may organise

of those that have tried to organise and train a militia

how many have been jailed and their arms confiscated

interesting that was post (Posts: 911)

kinda neat maybe we should begin to help with this

interestin

No arms for the Venus Di Milo!

(Just a little art d' humor there)

you know jean

i am beginning to thing you are a pro gun activest

trying to get more amo to argue with to slow gun control
legislation

but seriously, folks...

****

Court Says Right to Bear Arms Meant for Militia
by David Kravets

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court, upholding California's
assault-weapons ban, decided that the Second Amendment does not
guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.

The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling Thursday conflicts with
Attorney General John Ashcroft's interpretation of the Second Amendment
and with a 2001 ruling by the federal Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San
Francisco, said the right to bear arms is intended to maintain effective
state militias and is not an individual right.

''The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was
not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to
private gun ownership or possession,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote.

Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said
it was too early to know how Thursday's ruling will affect the
gun-rights debate.

''For 131 years we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms
of all law abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second
Amendment is an individual right - and [we] will continue to do so,''
Arulanandam said.

The amendment reads, in full: ''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.''

In its ruling last year, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
in New Orleans, said that the Second Amendment does protect an
individual's right to bear arms but that those rights are subject to
narrowly tailored restrictions.

Ashcroft has said that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right
to bear arms, prompting a flood of defendants to petition federal judges
to vacate their weapons convictions. Many of those cases are on appeal.

Attorneys for the gun owners who sued in the case decided Thursday did
not return telephone calls seeking comment on whether they would appeal
to the US Supreme Court.

In Thursday's case, weapons owners challenged 1999 amendments to a
California law passed in 1989 that outlawed 75 high-powered weapons.

The initial law, enacted in response to a 1989 schoolyard shooting in
Stockton in which five children were killed and 30 were wounded, banned
certain makes and models of firearms. The amendments banned additional
''copycat'' weapons based on a host of features.


© 2002 The Associated Press


****

To me, there is a perfectly logical reason for gun "control." Guns to
not belong in the hands of "just anyone."

Let the record speak for itself: how many people have been injured or
killed (whether intentionally or accidentally) by direct misuse of a
firearm in situations that were NOT using self-defense?

I rest my case.

Adj, as Ive stated many times before, I think that people who can prove
themselves responsible enough to use one should be granted a license to
use one. I don't think that "just anyone" should be able to "go armed."
No way, no how. And I don't mean that that should exclude ONLY criminals
and the mentally ill, either.

There are a LOT of people who have "no business" handling a firearm.

how many people have been injured or killed

by automobile drivers at no fault of their own

and automobile use is not in the constitution
_______________________

but set that aside

you did not address the issue of

the govt squashing those organising a well trained militia

your argument is far from case closed