<--16 year old owner of Ruger Mini-30 7.62x39mm with folding stock, semi-auto-3round-6round-and full auto secect fire trigger mechnism, 30 round clips, and a 50 round drum. 7.62x39mm full metal jackets very well known for peircing police vests, who wants to take this gun away from me? Im not crazy with my guns, but ill get that way if sombody tries to take them away from me.




Rick Baker
1992 F-350 4wd extended cab drw turbo diesel
1986 F-150 2wd 300i-6
looking to buy 70s 150 or 250 highboy 4x4 and make mudding truck, southern missouri area

 

Two words: Background Checks

I don't hunt and I'm not a member of the NRA. However, I feel it is every Americans right to own and operate a gun. The saying is solidly true, "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". I own a few REGISTERED guns, with my favorite being a Glock 45. I don't see the need for assault rifles being in the public's hands no matter how fun they are to shoot (and trust me, I travel to Nevada every once in a while just so I can let off some steam by unleashing a fully auto rifle in a controlled environment).

It is far too easy for anyone to get their hands on a gun without going thru the proper channels and this is where the system is failing. There needs to be strict(er) punishment for having in possession, an illegal or unregistered firing device. The activists thrive on the few wack jobs that go ballistic (no pun intended). It seems our society has allowed the activists to do all of the talking. I feel the quiet types, myself included, need to voice our opinions and let the activists know they are pissing a lot of people off.

Look at the latest moron that used his daughter as a crutch to try and get "IN GOD WE TRUST" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. If I ever was face to face with that puke, I'd put my foot into his chest and take his money from him. Being that he doesn't believe in what's printed on it. Go live in Afghanistan

Thanks for letting me rant. I feel much better now.

Graffe

 

"Gun control is no control"
the govt. wants to take our guns, but then they won't or can't) stop the 40,000 killings each year that occur because some punk jerk gets away with it, c'mon you people in congress, senate, whatever, see the light, taking OUR guns just aint gonna cut it, ya gotta get the bad guys guns

 

Dayton: I missed this one becasue I was on vacation and just noticed the thread. I hope I don't recover any ground in the other 50 or so posts on this thread, so here goes. This is one of my favorites, because it has all of the elements to get all sides worked up. I am not a hunter because I can't kill living creatures. I own several firearms and am trained in using them very well. However, with that said, it does not mean I will not protect and defend your right to hunt any game on the planet. The Second Amemdment has recently been attacked as only having to do with arming citizens in the state militias. I have never seen such a blatant outright attack upon any amendment in the constitution ever.

The second amendment clearly states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. This traces its roots back to English Common Laws and the fuedal society of Anglo Saxon England. The noblility had encouraged the commmon man to keep and bear arms for the protection of himself, as well as for the entire society. You see, the nobility relied upon the common man for everything. Without him, the nobles were finished and they knew it. They incorporated this concept into the Magna Carta for these very reasons. They were not being magnanimous, but rather self serving and selfish.

The founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, knew that governments could become corrupt and that the need for revolution could arise at any time. They had seen what the nobility and the clergy had done in England and hated them for it. Jefferson so much so, he would not travel to England, but only once, during his 8 years as Ambassador to France.

I don't want to get into a long historical discourse here so suffice it to say that no matter what any person, liberal or conservative, might say or argue, the second amendment was specifically drawn up and incorporated into the Bill of Rights to secure the ordinary American citizens their God given right to protect themselves. PERIOD. This is what the Bill of Rights guarantees and protects in the amemndment. No "if, ands or buts". The language is plain and clear, each paragraph a concept different from each other, and neither dependent upon each other.

I think Charleton Heston said: "out of my cold dead hand". We must be ever vigilant against those who would seek to diminish our God given rights, secured and guaranteed in any part of our constitution, because there are so many attacks upon our liberty comming from the ever changing society in which we live. We can not let social events, and those who would seek to munipulate them, promote hasty foolish changes to a document that has withstood the test of time for a free people steeped in liberty for over 200 years.

Brien

 

Karlsd: You are incorrect when you state that the founding fathers did not mean for the citizens of this country to be able to rebel against the current ruling government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson encouraged it. Example: he did so during Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts in the late 18th century. He disagreed with the motives for the uprising but he clearly states in his writings his approval for the citizens to be able to sometimes violently disagree with the government. Jefferson wrote to Abigal Adams:

"The spirit of resisitance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I LIKE A LITTLE REBELLION NOW AND THEN. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

He further wrote to Edward Carrington of Virginia:

"I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves."

He also wrote to William Smith, John Adams' son in Law with regard to the Shays Rebellion:

"God forbid that we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. What signify a few lives lost? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So Karlsd, you see that Jefferson, one of our most influential founding fathers disagrees with you most pointedly with regard to rebellion. I do not know where you find your historical references with regard to the second amemdment and rebellion, militias, and the right to keep and bear arms, but they surely are not with one of the most singular authors of our constitution.
Brien

 

I think some of the things I said in my post on page 1 were mis-understood. First of all, I never said firearms are bad, ban firearms, GUN NO GOOD....UGGH!.
The assault rifles that were of concern with many people years ago when the ban took place were of 2 types.
#1. Full auto rifles, such as the Uzi and M-16, and other semi-auto rifles that could be very easily converted to full auto, which includes the AR-15. For any one that doesn't know, the AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the M-16, and made for civilian use.
#2. Rifles, such as some made by Charter Arms, to name one company, that can be disassembled and stored within it's own stock, and then re-assembled without tools. These rifles were made so the owner could sneak them into places they aren't wanted.
I have absolutely NO interest in banning any semi-auto weapon, but when an angry person takes a modified AR-15 with a couple of 30 round banana clips and shoots down dozens of innocent people, I have to ask myself why we make a weapon like that so readily available? Full auto fire serves no purpose other than to kill or wound as many PEOPLE as possible in as short a time period as possible. You don't use full auto to go deer hunting.
Of course, some of you will respond that I can run over a dozen people with my truck, too. Sure, other things will kill people, but wouldn't it be nice to improve the odds?
I agree it is every persons right to own firearms. I also agree it is my right to make sure a weapon can be traced if it is used to commit a crime. It is my right to make sure a mentally unstable person or an angry person doesn't run out to the store to purchase a gun this very minute to go home and kill his wife and kids, or my wife and kids. That is what the waiting period is supposed to be for. If a hot head has time to cool down because he can't get a gun immediately, he may never use it. Of course this won't fix everything, but it helps, doesn't it? Will you still defend the use of full-auto assault weapons if your family is mowed down because some punk got a kick out of using his Uzi?
Now, please point out the holes in my reasoning. Maybe if I don't like what you say, I'll go out and get a gun that I can use right away, in a fit of anger, because there is nothing at all to stop me. That is the right you have left me with. Instant access. Remember, right now I still can! Maybe it's time for some changes. Control and regulation is not the same as elimination. You don't complain about license plates or a VIN for your truck, do you.

 

It has been my experience that people who beleive in "gun control" don't beleive in spanking there children. Let's not teach our children that there are serious consequences for doing wrong.

Let's just tech them that it isn't there fault. We will just place the blame on an inanimate object. Then we will sue the manufacturers of these inanimate objects. That is why we have lawyers, right?
No offense to the real lawyers who care about this country and not just their bank acounts.

Not even one of my guns has managed to load itself, point itself at anybobody or anything and pull its own trigger all by itself.

The right to a differing opinion and the "Freedom" to express it is one of the things that make this the greatest nation on earth.

The reason we are still a free nation is due to the 2nd ammendment guarranteeing the free man the right to "Keep and Bear Arms".

Every society has its share of freeloaders, trouble makers and do gooders. The thing is the freeloaders and trouble makers have a purpose. The do gooders are just blind to everything but what they want to see. Gun control supporters are do gooders. They somehow think removing guns from respectable law abiding American citizens
hands will stop viloent crime.

All we have to do is look to our british and aussie brothers to prove how wrong they are.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-Jul-02 AT 04:10&nbsp;PM (EST)]uncleBS
Are you a Bob and Tom Show fan? Just curious. A comedian does this uncle bs routine. Very funny. Anyway, to the point.

Why is it that those of you that are against "gun control" can't seem to understand that it isn't the same thing as banning all guns? Control?
Ban?
Control?
Ban?
Same thing? NO!
Is this the way the gun owners mind works? Do you read something and try to interpret it differently than it is written? I don't think so, but I had to ask. I believe in GUN CONTROL, not banning guns. Get it? Understand? I also have spanked my children on occasion. Guess that blows that theory all to heck, huh?

Also, if gun control people are do-gooders, does that make all of the others freeloaders, or are they the troublemakers? You have to be one of the three, right?

Splain it to me, Lucy!
(Don't get mad. I am not really calling you Lucy. It's just a comical phrase.)
I think people must be confused. It's kind of like the abortion issue. One side is pro-life, which gives you only one way to go. The other side is pro-choice. This side gives you 2 choices, but the pro-life side can't seem to get it. To them, it is anti-life. What about the people who CHOOSE not to abort?

 

Gentelemen: It is my humble opinion that there really is nothing to much argue about here. The Second Amendment is quite clear. There is no stretching the interpretation of either phrase. It says what it says, plain and simple. It reminds me of the saying: "What part of no don't you understand"?

For those who require help: The amendment protects and secures our GOD given right to "keep and bear arms". It further instructs us to maintain "a well regulated militia" because it is "necessary to the security of a free State". I fail to see what is so difficult to understand in these two totally separate statements. It does not mean that we must "keep and bear arms" to support a well regulated militia. It means we must have a well regulated militia and that the "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED". Surely the founding fathers did not mean for ALL people to be included in the "well regulated militias". They did'nt say "SOME people" , they said "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". It is an all inclusive term therefore, I think their meaning is quite clear. All people have the right to keep and bear arms(whether inclusive in the militia or not), and it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

Where is the room for debate? Brien

 

Enduringexplorer: I will try an "splain it to you lucy". The second amendment leaves no room for any interpretations except for what is written in black & white. Obviously, the founding fathers could not envision todays modern weapons nor would they get bogged down in doing so in even naming the weaapons of the day. They were much more clever and intelligent to get caught up in trivia. They stuck to the philospohy of the ideas because Thomas Jefferson was a trained philposopher as opposed to his fellow Virginian Patrick Henry who was a trained orator.
It is the philosophical meaning of the amendment #2 that is most important. Once one starts naming particular weapons, and the restrictions thereof, then one begins the dissolution of the meaning of the amemdment. It can be a slippery slope yet nevertheless,if the founding fathers wanted to use the word control, they would have selected it. They did not, and this leaves no room for the injection of palying "enee meene miney moe." We have modern arms at our disposal, and we should ,as a free people, be able to keep and bear those arms. Let us not be ridiculous about keeping nuclear warheads
or any weapons reserved for the milita. I think this is why both the word militia and the word arms wre placed in the same amendment. I don't think the founding fathers meant for citizens to keep canons in their barns. These were, obviously reserved, for the militia.

Where in the amendment are the exceptions? You think we should have the Bill Of Rights, void where prohibited by law? Since when does mere legislation supercede the Constitution of the United States.
Last time I looked,Article V says it takes 2/3 of the members of boths houses, and a constitutional convention, to effect changes in the constitution or make any amendment. When did this happen with regard to keeping and bearing arms?


Please splain that one to me Lucy.

Brien

 

Allow me to correct a couple of things.

Enduringexplorer wrote:

"The assault rifles that were of concern with many people years ago when the ban took place were of 2 types.
#1. Full auto rifles, such as the Uzi and M-16, and other semi-auto rifles that could be very easily converted to full auto, which includes the AR-15. For any one that doesn't know, the AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the M-16, and made for civilian use."

Not sure which ban you are talking about but there is no federal ban against owning full auto or selective fire weapons manufactured before a certain year (1968?)if you obtain a Class III license, register the firearm and pay the tax of around $200. If you are referring to the "assault weapons" ban, these were not affected. This ban applies to new manufacture of certain semiautomatic rifles and pistols, and magazines over 10 rounds.


"#2. Rifles, such as some made by Charter Arms, to name one company, that can be disassembled and stored within it's own stock, and then re-assembled without tools. These rifles were made so the owner could sneak them into places they aren't wanted."

These have not been banned and all that I know of are self loading .22 Long Rifle survival type guns meant for backpacking and convenient carry in other backwoods situations. Some also float when stored in their takedown configuration. I reject the idea that there was ever much concern that these would be "snuck into places they aren't wanted".


"Now, please point out the holes in my reasoning. Maybe if I don't like what you say, I'll go out and get a gun that I can use right away, in a fit of anger, because there is nothing at all to stop me. That is the right you have left me with."

I have left you with no such right. Your right to personal protection does not extend to harming others just because you do not agree with someone. I think the hole in your reasoning when you advocate waiting periods and the tracing of weapons is that you advocate giving up freedom for what you think would be a little safety. I would argue that you are taking away safety, not increasing it, until you can show me how any of the 20,000 gun laws already on the books reduced crime. Even if you could prove to me that such controls increase safety, I reject them because I think it is too high a price to pay to lose my freedom to protect myself and my family by whatever affordable means necessary. I will not give up safety for freedom. I would also agree with Benjamin Franklin who wrote

"They that give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."

I might agree with you that I would not be losing much freedom with certain legislation but many people in history who lost all their freedoms lost them a little bit at a time.

James Beaman
Friendswood, TX

 

A few quick comments in CAPS to differentiate. I am not YELLING in this case.


>The assault rifles that were of concern with many people
>years ago SOME STATES ARE NOW CONFISCATING AND ADDING TO THESE LISTS when the ban took place were of 2 types.
>#1. Full auto rifles, such as the Uzi and M-16, and other
>semi-auto rifles that could be very easily(MOST ARE NOT EASY TO CONVERT UNLESS YOU WANT TO DO SO ILLEGALLY. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO CONVERT ANY WEAPON TO FULL AUTO UNLESS YOU PAY THE APPROPRIATE FEES LOTS O $$$ AND REGISTER ACCORDING TO LAW) converted to full
>auto, which includes the AR-15. For any one that doesn't
>know, the AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the M-16, and made
>for civilian use. SO BASICALLY UNLESS YOU PAY THE FEES AND REGISTER THE WEAPON IT IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE THESE INTO "MACHINE" GUNS. I BELIEVE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW PERIOD TO CONVERT. ENFORCE THE LAW ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, NO ADDITIONAL LAW IS REQUIRED FOR THIS CASE.
>#2. Rifles, such as some made by Charter Arms, to name one
>company, that can be disassembled and stored within it's own
>stock, and then re-assembled without tools. These rifles
>were made so the owner could sneak them into places they
>aren't wanted. YES, LIKE BACKPACKS, TRAVEL GEAR, CANOES ETC(THEY FLOAT) FOR BACK COUNTRY TRAVEL. THE PURPOSE OF THE GUN WAS NOT TO SNEAK ONE INTO MCDONALDS. THE PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE A WEAPON HANDY FOR SITUATIONS WHERE COMPACTNESS IN TRAVEL WAS IMPORTANT IF YOU WANTED TO GATHER SMALL GAME OR PLINK. IF A CROOK WANTS TO SNEAK SOMETHING INTO SOMEWHERE, HE CAN DO FAR BETTER WITH A NICE LITTLE PISTOL, NOT A FOLDED DOWN RIFLE SHOOTING A MARGINAL CALIBER(22 IN MOST CASES). WHAT IS SO SINISTER ABOUT A WEAPON THAT IS FOLDED INTO THE BUTSTOCK? IT TAKES SEVERAL MINUTES TO PULL IT OUT OF THE STOCK AND PUT TO GETHER AND THEN LOAD. IN THE MEAN TIME, IF YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE SOMEONE AROUND WITH A CONCELEAD CARRY PERMIT, THE THUG IS DOWN.
>I have absolutely NO interest in banning any semi-auto
>weapon, but when an angry person takes a modified ILLEGAL, BUST HIM AR-15 with
>a couple of 30 round banana clips and shoots down dozens of
>innocent people INSTANT JAIL SENTENCE, I have to ask myself why we make a weapon
>like that so readily available WHY DO WE SELL BIG MACS, CIGARETTES, BEER, FAST CARS, KNIVES? BECAUSE WE WANT OR NEED THEM AND ARE WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE RISKS OF RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP. Full auto fire USUALLY ILLEGAL, BUST EM serves no
>purpose other than to kill ILLEGAL, or wound A FELONY as many PEOPLE as
>possible in as short a time period as possible. You don't
>use full auto to go deer hunting. CORRECT, BUT THEN IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL ONCE AGAIN
>Of course, some of you will respond that I can run over a
>dozen people with my truckTHATS ILLEGAL, too. Sure, other things will
>kill people, but wouldn't it be nice to improve the odds? ALWAYS, LETS PUT NERF BARS ON YOUR TRUCK, THE ACTIVE HOOD SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCELLENT ALTHOUGH PERHAPS COSTLY OPTION. MAKE SURE DRIVERS ARE QUALIFIED BETTER THAN THEY ARE NOW. TRAIN GUN OWNERS, TEACH SAFETY IN SCHOOLS LIKE THEY USED TO BEFORE GUN CRIME ROSE. WHEN I WAS A KID WE WERE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AND AT HOME THAT GUNS WERE A TOOL , BUT DANGEROUS. WE WERE TAUGHT TO RESPECT THEIR POWER AND LEARN NOT TO USE THEM IMPROPERLY. NOW KIDS SEE ON TV THAT THEY ARE COOL AND LIKE TOYS, THEY GET NO PROPER TRAINING. MAYBE THIS HAS LEAD TO INCREASED YOUTH KILLINGS? SOME STUDIES POINT THIS WAY.
>I agree it is every persons NO, ONLY LEGALLY ALLOWED PERSONS right to own firearms. I also
>agree it is my right to make sure a weapon can be traced if
>it is used to commit a crimeABSOLUTELY, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW OTHERWISE. It is my right to make sure a
>mentally unstable person or an angry person doesn't run out
>to the store to purchase a gun this very minute to go home
>and kill his wife and kids, or my wife and kids YUP, THEY MUST BE LEGALLY ELIGABLE AND IT IS ILLEGAL TO KILL ANYONE. That is
>what the waiting period is supposed to be for OR THE PROMISED INSTANT CHECK WHICH WOULD REPLACE THE WAITING PERIOD. HAS THAT PROMISE BEEN FULLFILLED YET?. If a hot head
>has time to cool down because he can't get a gun
>immediately, he may never use it OR HE MIGHT FIND ONE OF MANY OTHER WEAPONS AT HAND. AS I SIT HERE AT MY DESK, WITHIN EASY REACH AND NOT GETTING OUT OF MY CHAIR, I HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS I CAN USE TO KILL OR MAIM A PERSON. I DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE I AM A SANE RESPONSIBLE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. IT IS THE CRIMINAL YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT. MY PHONE WOULD MAKE A GOOD CLUB, MY PEN IS METAL, MY BELT COULD CHOKE, MY SHOES ARE A BLUNT INSTRUMENT, ANTIRAPE CLASSES TELL ME THE KEYS IN MY POCKET CAN BE USED TO GOOD EFFECT. I HAVE MORE THAN I CAN COUNT, WHO NEEDS TO WAIT? CERTAINLY NOT A THUG. SOCIETY HAS A BIGGER PROBLEM WITH ME IF I WOULD DO SUCH A THING, THAN WHETHER I HAVE GUNS OR NOT, AND IF I AM JUDGED INSANE IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR ME TO OWN THE GUNS, YES? Of course this won't fix
>everything, but it helps, doesn't it? THIS IS THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, IT HASN'T FIXED THINGS HAS IT? IN MANY CASES, INFACT IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES IT IS NOW MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN IT WAS BEFORE THE GUNS WERE CONFISCATED FOR SAFETY REASONS, THIS POINT SEEMS TO BE KEPT BEING CONVENIENTLY IGNORED, THERE IS SOME REAL WORLD PROOF THAN GUN LAWS DON'T WORK ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T ENFORCE THE CRIMINAL STATUTES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. GUNS LAWS HAVE BRED LIKE FLIES IN SUMMER, YET THE CRIME RATE IS STILL HIGH. THE RATE DOES SEEM TO DROP WHEN LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS ARE ENFORCED HOWEVER, INTERESTING CONCEPT. Will you still defend
>the use of full-auto assault weapons if your family is mowed
>down because some punk got a kick out of using his Uzi? NO I WOULD INSIST THAT ANY MURDERER BE PUT TO DEATH, BUT I AM NOT PC, FAR MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TAKING AN UNRELATED PERSONS GUNS AWAY. THE MURDERER DOESN'T PAY ATTENTION TO THAT LAW. AND WHY WOULD HE GET A KICK, PERHAPS THERE ARE OTHER LAWS TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALLY INSANE?
>Now, please point out the holes in my reasoning. I HOPE I HAVE POINTED OUT A FEW HOLES BUT THEN ANTIGUNNER PUTTY USUALLY FIXES ALL THINGS, BESIDES MORE LAWS WILL SURELY FIX IT RIGHT? Maybe if I
>don't like what you say, I'll go out and get a gun that I
>can use right away, in a fit of anger, because there is
>nothing at all to stop me. GOOD THING YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE WE LIVE. That is the right you have left
>me with. Instant access. Remember, right now I still can! NOT LEGALLY YOU CAN'T.
>Maybe it's time for some changes. Control and regulation is
>not the same as eliminationHISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS THE SAME IN MANY CASES, GERMANY, GREAT BRITTAIN, AUSTRALIA, USSR, CHINA, VIETNAM SHALL I GO ON?. You don't complain about
>license plates or a VIN for your truck, do you. GUNS HAVE A VIN, CALLED A SERIAL NUMBER, IT IS ILLEGAL TO REMOVE IT. A LICENSE PLATE IS NOT REQUIRED ON A GUN. LICENSING THE OWNER MIGHT MAKE SENSE IF IT WERE NOT SHOWN TO LEAD IN MANY INSTANCES AS MENTIONED ABOVE TO LEAD TO CONFISCATION. THAT IS THE FEAR OF THE GUN COMMUNITY, REGISTRATION HAS OFTEN LEAD TO CONFISCATION. WOULD YOU LICENSE YOUR TRUCK IF GOVERNMENTS WERE KNOWN TO TRACK DOWN THE OWNERS WHEREABOUTS AND CONFISCATE THE TRUCK. LUCKILY THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE GOOD OLD USA, BUT IT HAS HAPPENED ELSEWHERE.


SORRY FOR THE CAPS, I AM NOT YELLING. I will stop now and use normal.
But like I have said above, pro gun facts are often ignored even in the face of statistical and real world data, in favor of "facts", often made up, that support an anti viewpoint. And like good old Sister Annette told me once long ago in a less PC time, "stop using the what if questions and arguments, use your common sense, we could what if for ever". This argument will go on for decades, unless the USA goes thru drastic changes. The changes that could swing this argument either way will probably be nasty.

Law abiding citizen, and not normally considered insane.

Jim Henderson

 

My .02
Gun ownership is a guaranteed right afforded by the Second Amendment.
If I choose to own a gun it is my responsibility to see that it is used,stored,protected and serviced in a responsible manner.If I fail to follow these responsibilities within reasonable limits and something happens because of my failure to be responsible,then I should be held accountable.Not the government,not the manufacturers,not drugs,or whoever we may want to point fingers at.Please don't punish or infringe upon the rights of responsible,law abiding citizens because of the criminal and inexcusable acts of others.
Thank You

 

Jim, I edited your post so I could read it.

Those letters just run into each other.
This way they are differentiated(sp).


[font color=red]Dennis

FTE Assistant Adminstrator
[/font]

[link: motorhaven.autoanything.com|How YOU Can Support This Site]

http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/canada_flag_animated.gif

[link:www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Mil1ion.html|My Website,"North Of The 49th"]

[link:www.ford-trucks.com/guidelines.html|Club FTE]
http://www.clubfte.com/users/mil1ion/Minimorleytruck.JPG
[font color=blue]78 F-150 429CJ,Silver,Explorer Pkg.
64 1/2 Mustang Pre-World's Fair Car #8092
68-Mustang 289 2v-Sunlit Gold
[/font]

 

I agree that handguns should only be sold to those with the right certification and background checks, and that they cannot leave your home without a timed permit for some gun range shooting. (kinda like it is here in Canada)
I own a .303 British Lithgow SHT.LE III, 1920 model, and I acquired it when I moved onto a farm a few years ago, to protect my dog from wild animals, and myself from roaming night freaks.
I don't think rifles should be controlled in the same way as handguns. They are pretty tough to conceal in your glovebox, making them less handy when someone makes you mad on the freeway right after your wife screams at you about something and you are not in the best mood anyway... It can happen that easily, leaving you with regret and remorse for the rest of your life because you flew off the handle for one, brief moment.
I think y'all get what I'm saying. A rifle is good for every man to protect his family in his own home. Sincs 9-11, anything can happen!
Mark


https://www.ford-trucks.com/user_gallery/displaythumbnail.php?&photoid=5362&.jpg
Ford started it; Ford will finish it!