This is sad. Accidents happen everyday. Just have to always be careful and mindful when dealing with anything that can hurt someone or oneself.
Upvote 0
It's things like this that will bring problem to all airgunners
- Thread starter cmatera
- Start date
- Status
No offense, not jumping down your throat, but I can't see allowing our legislators to pass a pointless, ineffective, law just to make them feel better, like they're "doing something." The AR 15 has no greater rate of fire, and less power, than many other rifles that have been around much longer. I personally don't want an AR 15... I'm old, and I like blued steel and stained wood. However, if the AR 15 is banned, then what about my M1 Carbine? Or my M1 Garand? It won't stop.
Sorry, I don't mean to get "political."
Marty
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
<OPINION>
And so forth, some people would rather just go with the flow than actually confront the problem. I thank God (feel free to thank whomever you thank) the founding fathers were of sufficient courage to march into the gunfire, because without men like them, we would not be here playing with our air guns.
Most of this is plagarized from Wikipedia ...
So lets take a look at the evolution of the Second Amendment to the Contract between the governed and the government... It did not spring out of thin air.
James Madison first proposed this language ~~ "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"
That went to committee and came out like this "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms " Notice the crucially important use of the word FREE in both statements.
The House sat and finally sent this version to the Senate: " A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Here again we do homage to "compelled to render service". This CLEARLY indicates the founders believed the militia was a body conscripted by the government to form as a military and that the right of those people to keep and bear arms exists to serve in the defense of the FREE state. because we need a ready reserve of citizens who are capable with weapons and who exist to PRESERVE a FREE state.
Well who is the free state? Last night I was told I was the free state.
But the final wording is so succinct that I am GOBSMACKED when I hear some who actually believes "guns are for hunting", or "militia means military" or "well why not just give them what they want we already have what we want"... That right there is profoundly naive and I wonder that any adult does not understand that is exactly what we have been doing for FAR TOO LONG.
Finally: 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 .
This ain't rocket science people, Wake up!!! FFS!!! There is no debate. The founders had the debate, set down the rules, and gave you a mechanism to change them. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to modify the above statement by a vote of Congress OTHER THAN one to alter the Constitution. You want to change the rights the people have, you must change the CONTRACT you made between yourselves... PERIOD.
<\OPINION>
NOTE: Edit for clarity, apparently I did not make it obvious this was an opinion.
- Famous last words,
- "It's only a little inconvenient."
- "What would it hurt if we made a law that ..."
- "Why can't we all just go along to get along"
- "Two weeks to slow the spread"
And so forth, some people would rather just go with the flow than actually confront the problem. I thank God (feel free to thank whomever you thank) the founding fathers were of sufficient courage to march into the gunfire, because without men like them, we would not be here playing with our air guns.
Most of this is plagarized from Wikipedia ...
So lets take a look at the evolution of the Second Amendment to the Contract between the governed and the government... It did not spring out of thin air.
James Madison first proposed this language ~~ "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"
That went to committee and came out like this "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms " Notice the crucially important use of the word FREE in both statements.
The House sat and finally sent this version to the Senate: " A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Here again we do homage to "compelled to render service". This CLEARLY indicates the founders believed the militia was a body conscripted by the government to form as a military and that the right of those people to keep and bear arms exists to serve in the defense of the FREE state. because we need a ready reserve of citizens who are capable with weapons and who exist to PRESERVE a FREE state.
Well who is the free state? Last night I was told I was the free state.
But the final wording is so succinct that I am GOBSMACKED when I hear some who actually believes "guns are for hunting", or "militia means military" or "well why not just give them what they want we already have what we want"... That right there is profoundly naive and I wonder that any adult does not understand that is exactly what we have been doing for FAR TOO LONG.
Finally: 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 .
This ain't rocket science people, Wake up!!! FFS!!! There is no debate. The founders had the debate, set down the rules, and gave you a mechanism to change them. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL authority to modify the above statement by a vote of Congress OTHER THAN one to alter the Constitution. You want to change the rights the people have, you must change the CONTRACT you made between yourselves... PERIOD.
<\OPINION>
NOTE: Edit for clarity, apparently I did not make it obvious this was an opinion.
Upvote 0
If "there is no debate" was true, it wouldn't be an issue. And there are very few "PERIOD"'s in life. 
Upvote 0
G
Guest
Guest
If "there is no debate" was true, it wouldn't be an issue. And there are very few "PERIOD"'s in life.
Ok, you win.
Turn in your guns. I'll leave a barrel at the end of your street with an armed guard. He will give you $50.
Now, I do realize you are upset with me for some reason. I think it is a personality issue but on the remote possibility that you have a legitimate beef for seeking conflict WHENEVER I post, let's have it?
Feel free to PM me and I'll give you my phone number, we can work it out over the phone and we won't be troubling these poor folks with one "pissed over" thread after another.
So either look for your fights elsewhere OR PM me and I'll GIVE YOU MY PHONE NUMBER.
Hopefully you GROK that.
Upvote 0
- Status