what is your position on gun control, one to ten. one being only the police should have guns, and ten being.., you hold the 1000 yard bench rest record. ? no heckling.

a seven

guns should be available to citizens

the types of guns should be regulated as well as the 'right' having the potential to be revoked,, like they do with certain rights when one is arrested,,,,

well that is just ridiculous. lol just kidding. here, inorder to conceal carry a pistol, one must attend a class, for 150.00, then apply for a licsence, which is 115.00 every two years. which part of infringement dont they get?

I'd be at the opposite end of the scale to only the police having guns.
I don't have any bench rest records so I guess I'd go for a 9.9.

10+

.. as for cats sniping out a window, however, mabe there should more regulation. lol

i competed in service rifle competition for over twenty yeaers, (locally), and was undefeated. ... wore out two ar 15s., two shotguns, a ruger 10/22, and a lyman turret press. so im a 9.9 as well.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

A natural right is a right that is not granted by society but is an inherent human right.

The text of the 2nd amendment actually says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "abridged".

"Abridged" means "changed", "altered", "limited", or "controlled".

Any measure that limits or controls the right to keep arms is therefore a violation of the second amendment. And more importantly it is a violation of the natural law that predates civilization, the right to defend oneself against oppression.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".

In other words the right to bear arms for the purpose of resisting oppression existed as a human right before the constitution was written and even the constitution has no authority to limit it.
---------
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to
infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
independent of the lawmaking power.

Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

any gun available to the govt should be available to those that pay
for the guns the govt has

the citizen pays for the govt weapon should not the citizen have the
same as those that are supposed to work for them


dont start on the nukes case those are not issued to those that work
for the taxpayer and are not able to be seyt off without major
protocol --- supposedly

a tank you ask -- absolutely if you can afford it -- they are issuing
them to local police forces thus you should be able to have them

when the govt become a threat to the liberties of the "people" it is
the responsibility of the "people" to remove said threat! if the "people" are drastically out gunned then how are they to remove the threat?

you say that will never happen. tell that to the peaceful protesters
that live in fergason mo. that are having their rights trampled on

Citizens should have access to any and all weapons and other armament supplied to third world countries.

I'll do like the progressive, liberturd, dimwitcraps and vote twice.

I rate it at a 20.

I'm from Texas and we take our gun rights more seriously than most. I do not think the US government has the right to infringe upon honest citizen's rights to own or carry arms.

There are many, many gun laws on the books which are not enforced. These laws apply to criminals, not law abiding citizens. If someone takes a gun and commits a crime, then their rights to freedom should be taken away for a very lone time ... along with their right to vote and their right to own arms. However, the revolving door legal system allows the criminals to be back on the street in no time.

The laws that Congress passes that affect honest citizen's rights, IMHO, violate the Second Amendment.

exactly

the govt seems to think since criminals do something they should
punish the law biding citizen

if someone's use of a gun to commit a crime how does restricting a law biding citizens right to that gun help stop crime

another example in dif area

if someone sells their prescription drugs or o d on those drugs how
does restricting the use of those drugs from those that truly need
them help stop this action

it appears the govt thinks punishing the law biding citizen is the
better answer than to make the punishment a big enough deterrent
to stop the criminal from choosing that profession

this country and all countries need to get back to caring about
rights of the law biding citizen more than the rights of the
criminal and remember they are not a criminal till convicted

Seventy-two killed resisting gun confiscation in Boston

BOSTON
National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambus...hed on April 19th by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington 's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.

Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.







































. . . And this, people, is how the American Revolution began .

April 20, 1775

sounds like waco hhhmmmmm