Kennedy

Those are the ones that were bred with asian big cats, right? They're about the size of medium dogs, and they seem to act more like dogs than cats, plus they've still got some 'hunter' in them. If I ever had a cat, that'd be it (assuming I've got the right cat and I'm not making a fool of myself) edit: Nope, I've got the right one http://www.donamae.com/images/lexus.jpg (no, that's not me and I have no idea who it is) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

H.R. 654 S. 935 Feinstein and her fellow hoplophonbes in congress are showing themselves to be either fools, liars, or both once again. They define a "fifty caliber sniper rifle" as any "rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in .50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of .50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.'." I'm going to completely ignore the idea that any rifle firing 50 BMG ammunition is a "sniper weapon." (idiotic as the idea is, the following are far more demostrative) First, let's jst consider other ammunition that fits the desciption. There is the .50 Beowulf. Hardly a sniper rifle. You can see pictures of the gun here and pictures of the ammo here A rifle whose intended use is 200 yards or less. Does that sound like a sniper rifle to you? ---------- Even more telling, their talking points show that this is just the foot in the door, anoter "incremental step" towards banning guns. How do I know? I read the tripe they routinely publish. The people pushing this ban suggest themselves, in plain English, that this is only their first step. Their next step, and they freely admit it, is to ban "intermediate sniper weapons." Want to know how they define those? They define them as .30 caliber bolt action rifles that mght have free floated barrels, fiberglass stocks, match- or bull barrels (heavy barrels), or any .30 that is more accurate than the shooter is capable of utilizing. For anyone who doesn't know, that "intermediate sniper rifle" defintion just included every hunting rifle I can think of. A very wise man once said "They'll never ban your hunting rifle; they'd call it a sniper rifle frst." Well, he's be proven correct. This is one more anti-gun law that would have no effect on crime whatsoever, and they want to push it just so that when they offer the next gun ban, it will seem a little less extreme, a little more palatable to the general public. ---------- Oh, the best part of the bill (worst, really) is what they want to do with all modern .50 caliber rifles. The bills want to treat all .50 cal rifles as class three weapons for the current owners. That requires very intrusive FBI and ATF checks, and giving up your fourth amendment rights. However, the most disgusting part of the bills is that they want to make all transfer illegal. They want to treat these rifle harsher than machine guns. The laws say that no one may sell, give, or in anyway transfer the guns to anyone else, EVER. Upon the death of the owner, the guns become property of the US government. Think they'll never come for you hunting guns? They've already gone after semi-auto shotguns and hunting firearms. Do you think your rifles aren't next? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You have to consider that this is the country that made McDonalds it's number 1 "restaurant." Anyone else remember that survey fast food joints conducted a while back, where they asked a LOT of people whther they wanted better food or more food, given an equal price? Yeah, those idiots opted for quantity over quality, and can we expect anything less of them when they go out and consume other products? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Have you read US v Miller?!? "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." "And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Can you truly read that to mean anything other than 'weapons appropriate to a miltia and military are covered by the second amendment?' What, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States aren't good enough for you when discussing constitutional law? There is nothing vague about "militia." It was a clearly defined teerm then, just as it is now. Again I ask, since you have failed to answer, do other amendments only cover technology that existed when they were written? Does the first amendment only cover quill pens and crude printing presses? Does the fouth amendment not cover electronic searches? Search the US Code for the word militia. You'll find Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, § 311. The militia exists today. It is still supported by the congress, as evidenced by the CMP and National Matches, and it is still regulated at the state level. Also, if you are to engage in intelligent conversation you need to understand the definition of a "subordinate clause" and how it applies to the second amendment. The militia clause demonstrates, as stated in US v Miller, the firearms appropriate to the militia are covered by the second amendment. however, the need of the militia to be armed was one reason for the amendment, not the only one. No one in the late 1700s ever wrote that the militia was the only reason, now did they? The constitution and the bill of rights are limits on governmental power, not the limit of public freedom, right? Finally, you never answered my other questions: You oppose automatic firearms because they are "too fast." Do you oppose .50 caliber firearms because they are "too big?" Do you oppose certain handguns because they are "too small?" ps - if you think the amendment is outdated, go aheaad and pass a new one repealing it. Until then, the amendment stands, and you ignore it at your own peril. If one amendment can be bypassed by simply ignoring, what stops congress from doing the same thing to the other amendments? Do you want to risk them all because you are happy to limit one? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Incorrect. As has been disucssed, the militia clause is a subordinate clause. Any meaningful study of the English language leads directly to understanding that. The militia is one explenation, but not the only one. However, even if I accept your flawed conclusion that the militia is the only reason for the second amendment, then one must come to the realization that at the very least all men 18 to 45 must have the right to weapons appropriate to a miltia: select-fire rifles and handguns. Remember, the constitution and it's amendments are limits of government action, they are not the limits of all rights. That statement contradicts your idea that the militia is the only reason for the second amendment. If militia weapons are what it covers, then it must cover weapons such as the M16 and M4. I'm still waiting for any significant reason why it is not appropriate to trust citizens. I can't understand why you think something must be banned just because it could be dangerous. That is the logic used by people who want to ban all guns. How is your idea truly different from theirs? Why is prior restraint the only answer you can offer? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

OK, so now I understand where you draw the line. I'm curious as to why. When did things change? Was practical full auto the distinguishing charateristic? Is that was changed the meaning of the second amendment for you? No sacasm, I just want to know how you draw the line that full auto is too fast. Separate question: do you support the bans on .50 caliber weapons that congress is considering? (wondering if there is a "too big" to go with that "too fast") Is there a "too small" in your second amendment? (so-called "saturday night specials) Do you believe other amendments are subject to this "new technology is too much and outside the scope" concept? e.g. Does the first cover computers? Does the fourth cover computers and high tech surveillance? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

My grandfather had athritis bad enough that he couldn't open those bottles. Just because something might be a good idea a lot of the time, that doesn't mean it's a good idea all the time. So maybe requiring it of everyone isn't a great idea, no matter how wonderful it sounds at first. Nope, this one is actually about the company tryign to kill itself. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

My uncle used to have this saying about making something idiot proof, and underestimating the power of idiots... There is only one thing more common than hydrogen in this universe: stupidity. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I've just been laughing at the perfect parallels between this and any gun thread. A few people want to ban everyone from something based on the problems caused by a few, and they cherry picked their statistics. Everyone else wants freedom to choose, a little more education, want the mysticism taken out, and the socialists to buzz off. But "it's for the children." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It's too bad that logic doesn't often make an appearance in the court room. Just think about it. If a gun owner is so irresponsible that he leaves his firearm lying around where children will find it, so uncaring that he doesn't educate his children about firearms, and so incompetant that he doesn't check the chamber for the last round, does anyone really think a tiny metal post will prevent problems? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's their job, and I'm glad they do it well. I was more interested in hearing you explain how and why you think the NRA is saying we need to First you say Class III proceedures don't threaten liberty, then you say how it restricts freedom and liberty. First you say I'm extreme for my position because the NRA doesn't support it, then to support a bash of the NRA you use my position as an example. Do you see why it's hard to even follow, let alone refute your posts? You still haven't stated legal grounds for why that difference is not in contention with constitutional law. Bill of rights is written. Second amendment covers military arms for populace. Laws are written that ban military arms for populace. This creates a line between military arms and arms legal for populace. Laws are challenged as not obeying second amendment. You use the fact that a line exists as reason why the laws should exist. Do you see the circular logic there? It seems like you are aginst changing the status quo, no matter what it means or how we got there. You know, people with that position wore white hoods once... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Does the phrase "subordinate clause" mean anything to you? They could've replaced "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," with any random group of words and the meaning of the amendment would not change. It could've read "the earth being round, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Of course, then anti-gunners would argue that the earth isn't really round, so there are no gun rights... Do you really not see that the method you're using to read second amendment rights out of existance can be used on every other constitutional protection?' If you really believe that because circumstances have changed an amendment doesn't apply anymore, then you just don't believe in the idea of a constitution. bottom line: You think it doesn't apply any more? Go ahead and repeal it with a new constitutional amendment. Until then, it stands. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Looks deceptively like a toy gun, no wonder the kid picked it up. That Ruger is not the gun that was involved in the accident. The gun was a Smith and Wesson, unknown model. edit: it was a Smith & Wesson Model 915 9 mm pistol I used the Ruger as an inllustration because it has all the features the vultures sued for, but a 12 year old couldn' tell me if it was loaded or not. Not little post or lever would make one damn bit of difference. ps - do you really think that looks like a toy? Are you not around firearms that much? That's a fairly traditional design for these days. You should see some of the stuff on the market that really looks cheap. Besides, the Ruger weighs over two pounds unloaded. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Personally I have no interest in an M16 due to cost, space, and lack of familiarity. I'm not even suggesting that we up and make them legal today. I understand the political landscape. ...though you're still having trouble with the constitution, I see. If you read the constitution, it becomes clear you are reading the second amendment incorrectly. The militia des not get "shipped out." That is why we have armies. US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Those purposes are clearly spelled out. The militia does not serve in foreign wars. It's not called the Bill of Priviledges. It is a RIGHT. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I think they want a big flashing neon sign that says "I'm evil, don't touch me," whether the chamber is loaded or not. Hoestly, what are they looking for? I got my hands on a Ruger KP345. see attached It has the most obvious loaded indicator I've ever seen or heard about. see pic 2 Well, I loaded in a dummy round and inserted a fake magazine. Then I handed it to a 12 year old who doesn't know barrel from bullet, and is unfortunately related to me. I asked him if it had a bullet in it. (he didn't know what I meant when I said "round" and "cartridge") He couldn't tell me. He also didn't know he could pull the slide back just a little to find out the old fashion way. Yeah, sheltering him from guns definitely made him safer in the real world. In case you can't see it in the picture, the LCI has two large red spots and says "LOADED." It sticks up at least an 1/8 of an inch, probably more. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You do understand why people don't want that feature on their defense firearm, right? You understand that many police agencies refuse to purchase firearms with that feature, right? -The gun was sold with a lock that would've prevented this accident. -There are other models available that had the extra safety feature. -The NRA offers tailored education to all ages The gun owner had every tool available to prevent this tragedy and chose to use none of them. There is no way this could've com e down against them. They handed victory over to the peole filing these abusive lawsuits. They don't expect to win any of these suits, they just want to make legal fees so costly that companies give in or go under. And once again, Smith & Wesson was the company with the poor logic, weak stomach, and missing spine. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Please don't start putting words in my mouth. And also do not group me with the anti - gun enemies you challenge with "absolute overkill" Can you explain what you meant with this comment What action do you perceive as protecting gun owners that harms the lives of citizens? Do you advocate restricting every citizen's options based on the acts of criminals? Do you believe making certain guns illegal keeps them off the street? Is gun control somehow the exception to the rule that governments can't stop the black market? Do you support prior restraint laws? (rather than laws that punish bad acts) Have you read US v Miller or any writings by the men who wrote our founding documents? You might want to review the first page of this thread. Miller is quoted and explained. Do you understand teh concept of circular logic? You are using the existance of laws today as justification that those laws should exist. Your point is that there is a difference. My point is that that difference should not exist. You have not shown why is should exist, only that it does. How does the second amendment support a difference in arms used by the military and arms owned by the public? The words in the amendment have not changed, and neither have their definitions. I am still waiting for you to explain what the second amendment means to you. So far you have only stated what you support. You have not explained how the second amendment supports your view. Oh, I get it. I just want to know why, and how you can support that stance with constitutional law, rather than waht you "believe," or "favor." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Granted. I don't know how scripted or rehearsed that speech was, but it seems like a small change in sematics would've conveyed the same sentiment without starting a shitstorm of "he might've meant." Well, he is an outspoken politician.... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Oh come on, have you heard the comments some politicians have saida bout gun owners? Don't you think that the "threat they made might be enough to motivate some anti-gun nut to go after the innocent and law abiding gun owners?" You can't base condemnation on what some nut might do with it. There is a lot more to the law than that. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

In post 13 you seemed to be suggesting that we should accept double standards in the legal realm. If you agree that men and women should be held to the same standard in teh eyes of the law, as you implied in post 85, then we've been arguing for nothing. However, if you think that a man is wrong for filing charges when he suffers unwanted sexual acts, but a woman is justified in filing charges for those same acts, then you are suggesting double standards, and could agree a great deal more with Bill. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The NRA isn't moving away from second amendment arguments, it is simply bolstering them with other supporting arguments. Do I need to provide you with links where the NRA and other pro gun rights groups mntion the second amendment? The problem is that we're facing opposition that isn't bound by facts or truth, so the simple meaning of the second amendment does not deter them. Since that is the case, we have to answer every challenge with absolute overkill. And when you think of the NRA using other arguemnts, it could be because the NRA is interested in more than just things covered by the second: hunting, education, competetion, recreational shooting, and more. Do you really think that the second amendment doesn't recognize the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms? Oh, here we go. You blame all guns and all gun owners for crime. Yes, the NRA recognizes the utility of laws that punish offenders for crimes, without penalizing every gun owner in America. By that "things have changed" logic, how hard would it be to argue that the first amendment stops at feather pens and printing presses? The NRA is working slowly and methodically to regain the gun rights we never should have lost. They have to work in the political realities of the day. Compare the post-Columbine NRA position to the post-Red Lake position. In just fifteen years things have changed enough for the NRA to modify it's stance to further support our rights. I'm still waiting for oyu to tell me exactly what you think the second amendment means. They weren't close. They were the same weapons. The idea that there should be separate classes of firearms for the military and the rest of the citizens is a new idea, and one that does not fit with the second amendment. The second amendment meant specifically for citizens to have access to the same weapons as the military (at infantry level, as decided by US v Miller). Ah, lovely. More "living breathing document" drivel. More and more I'm starting to believe you don't give a damn for gun rights, and entered the discussion as a sheep in wolf's clothing. What personal firearms do you believe should be legal? How do you draw the line? You said: and then: Which is it? Not at all. It raised far more questions than it answered. Do you really believe that the second amendment has no place in gun rights vs gun control discussions? What is the second amendment, then, if not a recogniztion of rights? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What, like you expect anything else from the freaks at PETA? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Tell that to the men who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. I never said it fit the (unfortunate?) realities of today, just that that's what the second amendment means. You could also notice that I'm not out ther suggesting required ownership, or suggesting that WMDs are covered, or any of te truly radical ideas thrown out by extremists. OK, so you've disagreed with me. What do you think it means? How do you interpret the second amendment? Does it only cover technology that existed when it was written? If so, does that apply to all other amendments? Or is the constitution "just a good place to start, and kind of an outdated bit of parchment" to you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It's worth noting that he first created the design for a .38 caliber handgun, as that was what the military was using in it's revolvers at the time. WHen the brass and politicians came tot he conclusion that they wanted a .45, Browning adapted his design and helped create the .45acp. So, in a sense, it was a political decision. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It's not likely things would change all that much. (A) firearms manufacturerscan't contribute that much money because they don't make that much moeny. Their income is not large in the corporate world. (B) US Military and Law Enforcement contracts would still buy US firearms. (C) As long as there are four million card carrying NRA members, countless other Americans who agree more or less, and other groups who think the NRA doesn't fight hard enough, politicians will still have plenty of people (and money) telling them to support gun rights over gun control. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*