praise the lord & pass the bullits!!!

I'll sic my attack cat on 'em!

Have been Armed and Ready for the last couple of years. Have some guns and ammo hidden away, just in case anyone has any ideas of taking it away. All honest citizens need to arm themselves, because the criminals are armed already.

thats why they make double barrel shot-guns if one misses the other will git-r-done!

There is no chance that guns used for average home protection will be confiscated by anyone, so drop the hysterics. If ,on the other hand, you are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - you get no sympathy from me.

P.S. I keep weapons for home protection. They do not include automatic assault weapons. I am not expecting to have to kill 60 or 70 home invaders.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no chance that guns used for average home protection will be confiscated by anyone, so drop the hysterics. If ,on the other hand, you are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - you get no sympathy from me.

P.S. I keep weapons for home protection. They do not include automatic assault weapons. I am not expecting to have to kill 60 or 70 home invaders.

Not that it matters but no one can legally own a automatic assault weapon without a federal permit. As far as "no chance of guns used for average home protection not being confiscated" one only has to to look at England, Canada etc to see it is a real possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no chance that guns used for average home protection will be confiscated by anyone, so drop the hysterics. If ,on the other hand, you are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - you get no sympathy from me.

P.S. I keep weapons for home protection. They do not include automatic assault weapons. I am not expecting to have to kill 60 or 70 home invaders.

Not that it matters but no one can legally own a automatic assault weapon without a federal permit. As far as "no chance of guns used for average home protection not being confiscated" one only has to to look at England, Canada etc to see it is a real possibility.

Those nations have no Constitutional provisions which protect the "right to bear arms" as we do in the United States. Both the nations you cite have lower crime rates than the United States - and far fewer cases of gun related violence. Also, I have been in gun shops in England AND Canada (my father and grandfather have hunted in both countries). It must also be pointed out that both Canada and England seem to be quite comfortable with their gun laws.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER:

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no chance that guns used for average home protection will be confiscated by anyone, so drop the hysterics. If ,on the other hand, you are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - you get no sympathy from me.

P.S. I keep weapons for home protection. They do not include automatic assault weapons. I am not expecting to have to kill 60 or 70 home invaders.

Not that it matters but no one can legally own a automatic assault weapon without a federal permit. As far as "no chance of guns used for average home protection not being confiscated" one only has to to look at England, Canada etc to see it is a real possibility.

Those nations have no Constitutional provisions which protect the "right to bear arms" as we do in the United States. Both the nations you cite have lower crime rates than the United States - and far fewer cases of gun related violence. Also, I have been in gun shops in England AND Canada (my father and grandfather have hunted in both countries). It must also be pointed out that both Canada and England seem to be quite comfortable with their gun laws.

That depends on who you talk to most I talk to lately do not like their gun laws. While gun violence went down in Canada home invasions and robberies went way up.

quote:

That depends on who you talk to most I talk to lately do not like their gun laws. While gun violence went down in Canada home invasions and robberies went way up.

I see no evidence which indicates a great public outcry concerning gun laws in either nation.

Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.

It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives but the permit is very rarely issued. Only about 50 permits had been issued in all of Canada as of 2000. In the same year there were approximately 1 million hand guns in Canada, compared to 77 million in the United States.[10] Defensive use of firearms is uncommon in Canada.[11]

Canada has more guns and fewer controls on them than most nations in Western Europe (exceptions being Finland, Norway and Switzerland which have comparatively fewer restrictions) or Japan. Gun ownership rate is about 27% of households with great regional variations, rural much higher urban, west higher than east. Guns are also illegally brought into Canada.

There were 2,452,787 crimes reported in 2006; 48% were property related crimes and 12.6% were violent crimes. At a rate of 7,518 reported incidents per 100,000 people, the crime rate in 2006, the latest year for which there is statistics, was the lowest crime rate in twenty-five years. [1] The crime rate has been in general decline since 1991.

The province with the lowest crime rate in 2006 was for the third straight year Ontario with 5,689 per 100,000, followed by Quebec with 5909 per 100,000. The province with the highest crime rate for the 9th straight year was Saskatchewan with 13,711 per 100,000. Saskatoon is the city with the highest crime rate following by its provincial counterpart Regina. Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, and Saguenay have the lowest crime rates of any city and are all located in Quebec.[2] The three northern territories have higher crime rates per capita than any province.

The murder rate dropped in 2007 to 594, 12 fewer than the previous year. One-third of the 2007 murders were stabbings and another third were by firearm. In 2007, there were 190 stabbings and 188 shootings. Handguns were used in two-thirds of all firearm murders. Seventy-four youths were accused of murder, down 11 from the previous year. About eighty-four percent of murders were done by someone known to the victim. Male victims of homicide were most likely to be killed by an acquaintance, someone known to them through a criminal relationship, or a stranger. Female victims of homicide were most frequently killed by a current or former intimate partner, or another family member. The province with the highest crime rate was Manitoba while the lowest crime rates occurred in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. Saskatoon has the highest murder rate at 3.6 per 100,000 people.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no chance that guns used for average home protection will be confiscated by anyone, so drop the hysterics. If ,on the other hand, you are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction - you get no sympathy from me.

P.S. I keep weapons for home protection. They do not include automatic assault weapons. I am not expecting to have to kill 60 or 70 home invaders.

Wow. I did some homework on this and found some distributing insight into the minds of the folks running the show now. It's no secret that Sarah Brady her husband Jim along with HCI (Handgun Control) now help shape public policy. I try to be objective, but with quotes like these it's hard not believe they differentiate much between high-capacity rifles and your trusty .38 for “average home protection.” What part of ALL (as noted below) doesn't include our “reasonable” guns? I'm asking seriously here. No snide remarks or personal attacks please, just looking for a reasonable answer.

quote:

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

"For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments."
James Brady, Parade Magazine 6/26/94

"...When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly....[However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
President Bill Clinton on MTV "Enough is Enough" 3/22/94

"Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
HCI President Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, p.3

A simply web search of Gun law and crime in Canada tells a much different story than your post snake even wikipedia agrees Link

You are free to believe what you want, that is what is great about America. Blackacre you are right scary times are coming from the current elected group towards gun owners.

I guess Canada needs to outlaw knives and clubs next...

quote:

The 2006 rate of violent crime involving the use of firearms in Canada remained stable for the fourth consecutive year, according to a new study examining trends in gun violence.

Canadian police services reported just over 8,100 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide, accounting for 2.4% of all victims of violence. Handguns made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used.

Violent crimes were more often committed with other types of weapons than guns. Knives accounted for 6.2% of violent victimizations and clubs or other blunt instruments were used against 3.0% of victims.

Canadian Violent Crime Statistics

Sarah Brady is not an elected official - she is a gun control advocate. I support gun regulation and strict application of existing laws. Little will change. It must be pointed out that there are hysterical individuals on BOTH sides of this issue. The gun-huggers and the gun-haters will never be totally happy.

quote:

Those nations have no Constitutional provisions which protect the "right to bear arms" as we do in the United States. Both the nations you cite have lower crime rates than the United States - and far fewer cases of gun related violence. Also, I have been in gun shops in England AND Canada (my father and grandfather have hunted in both countries). It must also be pointed out that both Canada and England seem to be quite comfortable with their gun laws.

Both countries (as well as Australia) used to enjoy the right to carry, own and use firearms, until restrictive legislation took that right away.

Both countries had lower crime rates than the US before their weapons ban, and the weapons bans did nothing or little to lower the crime rates.

Yes, there are gun shops in both countries, but just try to walk in and purchase a firearm without months worth of paperwork and legal hassles.

Perhaps the circle of people you associate with are "comfortable" with the Draconian gun laws set forth in those countries, but many are not. I correspond with several who actually own firearms that are stored in the US, so they can shoot on vacations, as they cannot do so in their own homeland. The constantly warn us to do all we can to prevent such laws from passing in the US.

My uncles and my Daddy always told me to keep a gun but never register it because they were in WW2 and when the Nazis started to take over they took the lists of registered gun owners and disarmed them. I believe my right to bear arms is a personal right and should not be mandated by the government. And as far as owning a fully automatic rifle-any semi-automatic can be changed with a little work.

quote:

Originally posted by Psychomom63:
My uncles and my Daddy always told me to keep a gun but never register it because they were in WW2 and when the Nazis started to take over they took the lists of registered gun owners and disarmed them. I believe my right to bear arms is a personal right and should not be mandated by the government. And as far as owning a fully automatic rifle-any semi-automatic can be changed with a little work.

I am all for gun rights but you get caught with a illegal modified full auto or illegally owned full auto you deserve what you get. I have no problem with legal full auto weapons being legally owned.

There are many good responses. There is very little common ground (as my friend snake pointed out) between those that see guns as instruments of evil (worthy of outright banishment) and those of us who see them as tools to be used in a responsible manner (to protect our homes and families). In many cases the divide is cultural..urban perceptions vs. rural (or at least southern) perceptions. I think we can probably all agree on that.

I continue to be astounded at the laws already on the books that fail to be enforced. For instance, there are already laws on the books prohibiting "assault weapons" (e.g. fully automatic, large capacity military weapons). In many cases, the term is now tossed around to describe semi-automatic (one trigger pull-one shot) rifles that are made to resemble military rifles. Inside they are EXACTLY the same as your grandfather's old Marlin squirrel rifle. Sadly, the term has been bastardized and thrown around to include "spooky looking" rifles with big magazines. Believe it or not, they are even manufactured in very popular standard hunting calibers (and that kind of negates the whole "no sporting purpose" argument). I also know people who have used them exactly for that purpose.

I would also like to ask a general question to those not in favor of concealed carry or handgun rights who might happen upon this thread. It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. Any of you are also free to post a response as well.

Suppose you and I were checking out in the same flower shop after picking up flowers (mine for my lovely wife and you perhaps for a special dinner with friends or bridal tea). The door opens and we (along with the store owner) are met with an armed assailant threatening our lives and demanding money ("or you all die"). At that moment would you still be opposed to my legally concealed .45 or would you (deep down) at that defining moment be (heaven forbid) thankful that I chose to be a responsible gun owner and excercise the rights granted to me by state and federal law? I think I know the answer. I have always heard that there are no athiests in foxholes...and I would bet that there are probably very few gun control advocates who would oppose concealed carry while crouched on their knees in the back room begging for their lives during an armed robbery in the above hypothetical.

By the way...I want you to know that in that defining moment I would gladly (and in a very deliberate and unapologetic manner) defend your life just as I would defend mine or any member of my own family.

How would you answer...yes or no?

.

In August of 1999, Donna Dees-Thomases, a New Jersey mother, read with horror about a gunman who randomly shot at a group of children in Granada Hills, California. Seven days later, on August 17, Donna decided to apply for a permit to march on Washington to protest this country's lack of meaningful gun laws.

In September, Donna was joined by a group of 25 Tri-State mothers at a news conference in Manhattan, where she announced that a grassroots movement of mothers called the Million Mom March was planning to march on Washington on Mother's Day in May 2000.

After nine months of organizing, mobilizing, advertising, and energizing, the day finally came. On May 14, 2000, approximately 750,000 mothers and others gathered on the National Mall in Washington, DC to demand sensible gun laws. An additional 150,000 to 200,000 people marched in support events across the country. View the Photo Gallery from Mother's Day 2000.

Following the event, the Million Mom March participants became a chapter-based organization to promote sensible gun laws in state legislatures, merging with a victim led organization called the Bell Campaign, but keeping the name Million Mom March as the new organization.

On October 1, 2001, the Million Mom March merged with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. By combining the experience, talent, and resources, of two powerful organizations, the new organization is better positioned to encourage Congress to pass national laws that prevent gun violence in this country, rather than legislation to placate the gun lobby.

As part of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence), the national network of Million Mom March Chapters is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

quote:

Originally posted by shimara12:
In August of 1999, Donna Dees-Thomases, a New Jersey mother, read with horror about a gunman who randomly shot at a group of children in Granada Hills, California. Seven days later, on August 17, Donna decided to apply for a permit to march on Washington to protest this country's lack of meaningful gun laws.

In September, Donna was joined by a group of 25 Tri-State mothers at a news conference in Manhattan, where she announced that a grassroots movement of mothers called the Million Mom March was planning to march on Washington on Mother's Day in May 2000.

After nine months of organizing, mobilizing, advertising, and energizing, the day finally came. On May 14, 2000, approximately 750,000 mothers and others gathered on the National Mall in Washington, DC to demand sensible gun laws. An additional 150,000 to 200,000 people marched in support events across the country. View the Photo Gallery from Mother's Day 2000.

Following the event, the Million Mom March participants became a chapter-based organization to promote sensible gun laws in state legislatures, merging with a victim led organization called the Bell Campaign, but keeping the name Million Mom March as the new organization.

On October 1, 2001, the Million Mom March merged with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. By combining the experience, talent, and resources, of two powerful organizations, the new organization is better positioned to encourage Congress to pass national laws that prevent gun violence in this country, rather than legislation to placate the gun lobby.

As part of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence), the national network of Million Mom March Chapters is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

So, do as I say not as I do?

quote:

Million Mom Marcher Barbara Graham shoots innocent man Kikko Smith - also known as Barbara Lipscomb

"You can't tell the kids to stop the violence with the mothers running around like this." --- Mary Ann Smith, after her son was shot by a Million Mom Marcher

After helping to organize the Million Mom March, and even speaking at the event, Barbara Graham was convicted of shooting an innocent man. Now he is paralyzed for life.

The Washington Post reported that "Police recovered three handguns and a TEC-9 submachine gun at her home." Note that the TEC-9 was banned by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).

Definitely got them some bad press. But, it was one person out of the entire organization. She was grieving for her own child and deep ended. What a tragedy for both families.

mean, I'm not in an organized militia. How about you? Sassy has already told me that he comprised a militia of one.

I almost hate to tread here, but since John first brought it up... John, you mentioned a previous felony conviction. You do know unless your right to own a gun has been restored by the ATF of Alabama that your weapon(s) is/are illegal?

Aww man, the cops are gonna get here before the pizza.

Actually I read somewhere that replicas of weapons made before 1880 are okay. I have no idea if that is true or not, but that could be what John has, considering his avatar. Every state may be different.

In all seriousness, Sassy is an authority on this subject and he can fill us in.

Pizza? I thought I asked for chicken tenders. Men never listen.

Federal law exempts antique firearms from all gun controls. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 921(a)(16) defines antique firearms as all guns made prior to 1899 as well as all muzzleloaders made anytime, and replicas of pre-1899 cartridge firing guns made anytime, provided that such replica uses cartridges "not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade." (Note: Cartridge firing machine guns and short-barreled shotguns are still illegal regardless of when made, under Section 5861 of the IRS Code, Title 26, U.S. Code.)

In line muzzle loaders, and cartridge firing guns and replicas where cartridges are still readily available are prohibited.

quote:

Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
mean, I'm not in an organized militia. How about you? Sassy has already told me that he comprised a militia of one.

I almost hate to tread here, but since John first brought it up... John, you mentioned a previous felony conviction. You do know unless your right to own a gun has been restored by the ATF of Alabama that your weapon(s) is/are illegal?

I stand with sassy now there are 2 and since it is the U.S. you do not have to join or even own a gun. Your right to do so is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights which ensures the rights of the people. I feel it is wrong to burn the U.S. Flag but it is protected by the same Bill.

The Militia statement was defined by the recent D.C. Supreme Court decision, where they held the 2nd amendment was a individual right.

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."[31] This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.[32]

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

For what its worth, even Queen Pelosi has informed Obama, the House does not wish to enact any gun laws. At least, at this time!