Alias

You're funny. I always need more range time but I didn't learn that fact by watching TV....more like exposure to reality ....plus, only the kids watch our tv Carpe Diem

no time now, but I'll ditto your pick apart and address your comments later....without making assumptions on your opinions But why do you draw the line at RPG's? What is the difference to you between RPG's, M-777A1's or FIM 9's and the shotgun with a barrel length under 18" And do you think the outcome of US vs Miller would have been different if one of the above was the issue? AND....are you applying for our class 3? Carpe Diem

Where did you get the idea that I thought the militia was the only reason for the 2nd? maybe because I haven't conveyed that idea? Again, you based this entire argument for the need to have weapons that match the modern military on US vs Miller that dealt with a shotgun with a barrel less then 18". Not exactly an HK416 is it? Argument based on case none the less. But you draw the line at a RPG? So yeah, I draw the line at machine guns. Partly because I don't think that the founding fathers would have been as vague about the "militia" term and it's relation to a "person bearing arms" ,if they knew that the difference was single action vs an MP5 that shoots 800 rnds/m. These being the same guys who thought "militia" meant something along the lines of early defence against the British. That "militia" is history. There are two different species of military force. One is historical. The one you tie your entire argument on. Sorry Dude, I don't want to take away your guns, or anyone else's. I'm just that law abiding citizen we all talk about. And I aint got no problem with the current provisions dealing with the subject at hand a) The term 'firearm' means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition, [The Act of April 10, 1936, c. 169, 49 Stat. 1192 added the words] but does not include any rifle which is within the foregoing provisions solely by reason of the length of its barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if its barrel is sixteen inches or more in length. Just go get your class 3 - your problems solved Carpe Diem

First, lets put this one to rest. I first said You have a problem with this?. You seem to think I'm being contractive. How does it limit your freedoms by applying. It doesn't. But once the application is approved by the ATF, and you now have the "right" to a machine gun, you are also subjecting yourself to unannounced inspections of your place of biz, or if just a collector, your place of residence if that's where you have "listed" as the address the class 3 weapon is stored. And by the way, once they are there and you have shown them what they came looking for, they then have the right to search the entire place for anything they think should NOT be there. The reason why I did not apply - certainly felt like limiting my personal freedoms. Your main point seems to be: The second was intended to cover military arms of the "average" infantry soldier. And although it does not spell it out as such, yes, you can rely on US vs Miller as the only reference to that connection. And that case relies on the VA Act of 1785 to support it. Most states address the right to bear arms and differences in the language employed have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. While I'll agree that the Constitution should remain in tact- it should adapt where the courts see fit. If it didn't as you would wish, standing on verbiage alone, blacks, women or anyone unhealthy or under or over the ages provided would not be able to the right to bear arms. What does the 2nd mean to me? It means the right to bear arms is available to me and cannot be diminished. It does not say that I should have a dual 50 to do so. And relying the on the VA Act of 1785 to support that, which it can to some degree, is still a stretch in my opinion. BTW, being a card carrying NRA lifer doesn't mean I have to subscribe to inappropriate actions I believe to be overkill....as in, why is it appropriate for any citizen to posses a weapon equal with the current military to feel the right to bear arms is being exercised. So, that's it for me. Carpe Diem

Also don't forget that in order to do biz with Wall Mart. YOU have to front the goods. The will not purchase until the items are sold. Sweet deal Yep, they put small biz out of biz (90 % of biz in US are "small biz"). Just think, the small jeweler you father bought his wedding ring at is no longer there because WM now is in town. But don't worry, you can still go see Mr and Mrs Jones who ran the store - she is a greeter at WM and he works the watch counter - both can't get full time or good benifits. But hey, they can get all the xmas shopping done and some groceries for under 50.00 lucky them! Carpe Diem

Can you explain what you meant with this comment c'mon Dude, you get it. Yes, The NRA does a damn good job challanging gun control laws through every legal means possible. At local and federal levels. I could go on about NRA ILA and Grassroot efforts, but you get the point. Duh Your pont is that the 2nd allows the avg citizen military weapons. An extreme in my opinion. I also think the NRA tries extreme measures in some cases, and yes to combat the extreme gun control freaks. By allowing the avg citizen the availability to Full Auto and the ability to fire on a crowd(Bday party, mall, hang out, Friday night etc) with a MP5 vs a 1911, we allow them a higher kill rate. I ment what I said. By not being rational in applying the vauge verbage used, I consider that extreme IMHO. What action do you perceive as protecting gun owners that harms the lives of citizens? The above example. You want anyone to have the ability to have fulll auto "Protecting gun owners" I think, _insert crazy scenario here_ with a MP5 would do much more damage - but not allowing it, hence saving lives of citizens... ....because TODAY, there is a difference between military and civilian firearms----unlike in the past. The 2nd can still be preserved without allowing every one SAW's Carpe Diem

Still meat though - and that's the debate, not the form it comes in. >my Bull Mastif would have shit that expensive tofu/daisy mix right >on my pillow if he saw that instead of his bag of rendored animal parts . . . Trust me, D.B. would have shit on the pillow - who ever was in charge of the food would not matter Carpe Diem

Oh, here we go. You blame all guns and all gun owners for crime. ______________________________________ 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" I've put as many if not more down range....and being a NRA life member with a known face at many local ranges should speak clearly on my opinion on the second admendment and the NRA's efforts I am debating your point that civilians should be allowed current military weapons because the 2nd mentions a militia. I disagree You admitted that military weapons used in the 1700's were the same as what that average citizen could obtain. You will also easily admit that is not the case today. That is my point. There is a difference TODAY. No need for overkill, we're on the same side. I just have grown older and tired of being the radical on the subject. And you're right. I did mis-speak in regards to Class 3. I was attempting to connect the current ability (right) to posses a fully suppressed machine gun and the extent you allow your personal privacy to be penetrated because of it. I am in favor of personal firearms rights but not to the extent that the "right" includes matching the military.... I think this is the point we disagree on. Carpe Diem

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. A decision made by politicians but not by a political situation. Unless you consider the situation in the Philippines where the .38 could not effectively stop the Morra's (sp) thus leading to the devopment of a caliber that could to be a political situation Carpe Diem

yep - another "super religious" attitude. By using Pat Robertson as an example, I'll guess you agree that Delay could have ment "God"? And I also agree that it could touch off religious freaks to retaliate - but doubt that was the intention Carpe Diem

You're right. The issue/question was whether PETA followers offer they're pets non meat meals. It was answered yes and an example given. I simply disagree with the practice of being "politically correct" and denying a carnivore with the appropriate diet - while paying more to do it - 5 times more. Free country - but silly in my eyes. ....my Bull Mastif would have shit that expensive tofu/daisy mix right on my pillow if he saw that instead of his bag of rendored animal parts

The NRA and other gun groups have consciously steered away from 2nd Amendment arguments and have put money into research hoping to change the legal landscape -- and eventually winning judicial respect for the right to bear arms. What one may take away from all this is that the 2nd Amendment does not protect either side of this debate. Every gun control law and safeguard for society is going to be challenged by the NRA through the court. NRA lawyers are finding ways to get around the 2nd Amendment while they search for judges who can be "persuaded" that this nation needs to protect the rights of gun owners rather than save the lives of its citizens. THE NRA IS NOT IN FAVOR OF AVERAGE CITIZENS HAVING FULL AUTO MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS.....REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU INTERPET THE 2ND. And I would say the NRA has spend much energy on the subject. Thus providing a very educated and current look on the subject At the time of conception, personal and military weapons were very close in effectivness when the 2nd was authored. You would agree times have greatly changed in the two classes of firearms. I think what it ment and what it means are two different things for two different times and social environments. While I'll agree with personal firearms being legal(second part of the second) I do not think that it is limiting our freedoms as gun owners to have to file for a class 3 to posses "some" military grade weapons. IT SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE CITIZEN. < I guess what you are calling "Militia" Kind of a stretch in my eyes.... btw....A Class 3 is not like a driving permit....you are giving up many liberties and freedoms by having an application approved. Does that answer your question on my opinion?

[reply"Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow."." Keeping in mind Delay's religious background, I do not think it a stretch to assume he ment God's judgement...as in answer to GOD? missed that one didnt you guys? Carpe Diem

I've got a very nice Glock 21 (.45 acp). It's my favorite.

To want the average person to be able to own full auto military weapons is ridiculous! The level of responsibility is just not there. I'm a lifer in the NRA, a collector, shoot competitively, past NRA Pistol Instructor and have trained citizens for CCP. Things have changed. As mentioned before, even the NRA reconizes regulations that makes sence. It seems you are as radical on the pro side as are the radicals on the control side....I guess we need one side to balance the other....still isnt logical to allow military grade weapons to the average citizen - Like you would really feel safer Carpe Diem

Sure pay .10/oz for Science Diet's smallest size or .55 (5 times more) for the vegan crap's largest. What a deal.....and deter your K9 a nice meat meal at the same time. Ri - god - damn- diculious Carpe Diem

"This settlement was dictated by economic and business realities," Ann Makkiya, corporate counsel for the Springfield, Mass., gunmaker, said in the statement. What a bunch of Shit! Stand your ground! Carpe Diem

C.B. Crossfield The wife is Pinky Water Hole Staring in: C.B. does Pinky Carpe Diem

'fellatrix' Love it! Never heard it before, but love it! Carpe Diem

I guess I'll be checking profiles next time I jump in Carpe Diem

It'll be alright there Speed. I do business with Dietrich and SAIC-NCIFRC. Fredneck is a quite area getting busier. You have a few turbine DZ's with-in a few hours, the Chesapeake Bay and the beaches... It's nice.....I think Carpe Diem

phew! Carpe Diem

You're a hoot! Carpe Diem

I am very very sad.........sad! Carpe Diem

A person WITH faith will ALWAYS be stronger then the person WITHOUT! Just one more edge for that person.....IMHO And by the way folks...it's all about faith, nothing more or less.