I still think you hurt Habib's self-esteem pretty badly.

 

How should weapons laws be handled? No registration? No restrictions? What say y'all?

 

I say right to legally own a firearm with strong regulation. Registration a must. Training preferably a requirement for registration.

I say right to legally own a firearm with strong regulation. Registration a must. Training preferably a requirement for registration.

 

I would not have a problem with training being a requirement for ownership.

I say right to legally own a firearm with strong regulation. Registration a must. Training preferably a requirement for registration.

How do you classify "firearm"? Handguns, long guns, automatic weapons, weapons with exploding ordinance? Just wondering.

 

I have a friend who owns an M-60. He had to have a special license for it.

 

I'm in favor of regisrtation. My one concern is when the NSDAP (National Socialist Democratic American Party) takes over, they'll want all the guns turned in and will know where to find them.

How do you classify "firearm"? Handguns, long guns, automatic weapons, weapons with exploding ordinance? Just wondering.

 

I have a friend who owns an M-60. He had to have a special license for it.

 

I'm in favor of regisrtation. My one concern is when the NSDAP (National Socialist Democratic American Party) takes over, they'll want all the guns turned in and will know where to find them.

 

Nah, all the criminals will still have them.

I still think you hurt Habib's self-esteem pretty badly.

 

I think Habib could hurt me pretty badly.:lol:

 

:laugh:

 

I don't even have anything witty to say. :lol:

:laugh:

 

I don't even have anything witty to say. :lol:

 

This is too easy.

 

Why should Tuesday, November 27th be any different than the other 364 days?

How do you classify "firearm"? Handguns, long guns, automatic weapons, weapons with exploding ordinance? Just wondering.

 

I have a friend who owns an M-60. He had to have a special license for it.

 

I'm in favor of regisrtation. My one concern is when the NSDAP (National Socialist Democratic American Party) takes over, they'll want all the guns turned in and will know where to find them.

Different levels of training for different firearms. I would say that there would be certian weapons that have a "super" restrictive status like the M-60. There should be a certian level of firearms that cannot be owned except by the government, military, nat. guard, ect.

 

My biggest wish is that guns were not as easy to obtain illegally. While growing up as a teen, I had too many friends who were involved with gun violence. I just always have felt they are just too easy for some people to get. How do we correct that; I don't really know.

Different levels of training for different firearms. I would say that there would be certian weapons that have a "super" restrictive status like the M-60. There should be a certian level of firearms that cannot be owned except by the government, military, nat. guard, ect.

 

My biggest wish is that guns were not as easy to obtain illegally. While growing up as a teen, I had too many friends who were involved with gun violence. I just always have felt they are just too easy for some people to get. How do we correct that; I don't really know.

Well that is the proverbial $64 dollar question. Nothing the SC is considering will address the bolded at all.

How do you classify "firearm"? Handguns, long guns, automatic weapons, weapons with exploding ordinance? Just wondering.

 

I have a friend who owns an M-60. He had to have a special license for it.

 

I'm in favor of regisrtation. My one concern is when the NSDAP (National Socialist Democratic American Party) takes over, they'll want all the guns turned in and will know where to find them.

 

 

Any chance I can get to know this friend?

We MUST protect our rights!!

 

I haven't read anything about the case. However, if the issue is simply "Does the Second Amendment provide private citizens with the right to bear arms?" I expect the court to say

 

YES - In a 5-4 decision (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy - majority) (Lefties in dissent)

 

Scalia will be the key and probably right the opinion. Although he has USUALLY held true to his strict constructionist / plain langauge philosophy, I just wouldn't be shocked for him to fall back on his standby - "tradition/history" (originialism) to justify his position.

At the time of the writing of the Constituton something like 99.9% of Americans acknowledged the Judeo/Christian Bible and faith... (whether they follwed it to the letter or not.)

 

Virtually everyone believed in and in some way acknowledged a Creator.

 

As a result, human life had a much higher value than it does today.

 

Prayer was not only encouraged and practiced in schools then, the Bible was used as a history text, a reading text, and a source of study.

 

As a result, our society had much higher standards and expectations of conduct than we do today.

 

Today, we have banned Christian prayers in our schools. The name of Jesus is essentially forbidden in public prayers and speeches at our schools. We can teach our kids things with cucumbers and condoms, but we cannot teach them the flawless virtues of Biblically instructed abstinence. Abstaining from casual sex outside of a committed marriage is the only 100% certain method to avoid unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs, but we can't teach it to kids who really need to hear the truth. This is insanity IMO.

 

Since 1973, somewhere around 40 million babies have been killed in their mother's wombs. Do any of you really believe this fact alone has not told our kids that life is more a matter of convenience and perceived value than a God ordained gift?

 

Way back in the dark ages (the mid 1970s) when I was in school, guys would pull into the high school parking lot with a .30-.30, a .30-06 or a shotgun hung in the gun rack in the rear window of their pickup truck. Especially this time of year. No one thought a thing about it, because many of us did it too. We were hunters and outdoorsmen. Guys got into fights all the time. Eyes were blacked, teeth sometimes got knocked out, but no one ever went to their truck and pulled a gun. It just wasn't a consideration. Only a sissy would use a gun to square up a fist fight.

 

I own guns. Although I have had guns pulled and pointed at me on several occasions, I have never attempted to settle a dispute with a gun, much less even pulled one on someone else. I've had the opportunity, I would and I could, but I genuinely believe it is the option of last resort only.

 

Unfortunately, we are not allowed to teach all our citizens the same lessons I was taught that have governed my life with a deep and abiding respect for the sovreignty of God and the value of the humans He created.

 

Did I mention that I think this is insane?

Here is the ABA Journal article:

 

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a_shot_at_the_second_amendment

Prayer was not only encouraged and practiced in schools then, the Bible was used as a history text, a reading text, and a source of study.

 

As a result, our society had much higher standards and expectations of conduct than we do today.

 

Today, we have banned Christian prayers in our schools. The name of Jesus is essentially forbidden in public prayers and speeches at our schools. We can teach our kids things with cucumbers and condoms, but we cannot teach them the flawless virtues of Biblically instructed abstinence. Abstaining from casual sex outside of a committed marriage is the only 100% certain method to avoid unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs, but we can't teach it to kids who really need to hear the truth. This is insanity IMO.

 

 

Great post FB. I'll add that I have always found it interesting that some of those that believe in interpreting the 2nd amendment verbatim and thus arguing that the right to bear arms rests only with the militia are the same that have completely morphed the meaning of the 1st amendment from a "freedom of religion amendment" into a "freedom from religion" amendment.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

The 1st amendment may possibly be the most pummeled amendment in our history.

Great post FB. I'll add that I have always found it interesting that some of those that believe in interpreting the 2nd amendment verbatim and thus arguing that the right to bear arms rests only with the militia are the same that have completely morphed the meaning of the 1st amendment from a "freedom of religion amendment" into a "freedom from religion" amendment.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

The 1st amendment may possibly be the most pummeled amendment in our history.

Great post yourself there Titleist... :thumb: