FINALLY!!!! a good decision

From : chris thompson

Q: washington - district of columbia officials warned a federal appeals court monday that its rejection of the citys handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control. a three-judge panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled 2-1 last month that some of the districts gun control provisions are unconstitutional. the court rejected the citys argument that the second amendment right to bear arms applies only to state militias. it was the first time a federal appeals court struck down gun control regulations on second amendment grounds. http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18026496/ found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

Replies:

From : steve b

rarely are crimes foiled by a gun owner. i have never seen any stats more guns less crime john lott maybe you just didnt look. steve .

From : miles

beryl wrote but you can see again that the purpose was to constrain the federal govt. the anti-federalists wanted to constrain the government. madison was a federalist. the amendment was reworded several times in order to get it passed because they needed the anti-federalists to sign on to some form of compromise or it wouldnt pass. .

From : miles

steve b wrote not! the facts are there for you to read if youd care to. i did and told you those facts. you chose to ignore them because they didnt fit your own opinions. .

From : azwiley1

on apr 12 832 am roy r...@home.net wrote on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! very true. as thought. if a teacher had a gun at one of those school shooting the lose of life may have been less. but i am also in favor of big time background checks before a gun is sold. further the person that buys a gun should be required to complete a course on the use of it. -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd- hide quoted text - - show quoted text -- hide quoted text - - show quoted text - i like the way that they do it here in az well at least in the south eastern part of it. when you go in to buy a hand gun there is no cooling off period they run you right on the spot and if you have any dv related conviction a tro of any kind warrant for arrest regardless of issuing state etc. they tell you have a nice day! now i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. .

From : geekboy

on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! yeah check this old story out. it was shortly after colombine shooting. the loonies wanted all guns banned and now most schools bann the wearing of trench coats ---------------- sunday 28 november 1999 1844 gmt a naked man burst into st andrews roman catholic church in thornton heath south london during a sunday morning mass and attacked members of the congregation with a samurai sword. one man suffered severe hand and face injuries and 10 other people were hurt in the attack and the panic that followed. police said the casualties ranged in age from 16 to 78 and included four men and seven women drawn from the white black and asian communities. the man was overpowered by members of the congregation including an off-duty policeman who used an organ pipe and a large crucifix. police said they arrested a 26-year-old local man and were questioning him at croydon police station. http//.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : azwiley1

on apr 12 257 pm tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcie...@earthlink.net wrote i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. what would stop some jackass from taking said gun off his property and some place where he shouldnt have a car you cant hide in your waist band. i know where you are coming from and i agree with you 100% but there has to be some common sense applied something we know our govt will never do. .

From : miles

chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. .

From : chris thompson

on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : tom lawrence

i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. .

From : roy

on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! very true. as thought. if a teacher had a gun at one of those school shooting the lose of life may have been less. but i am also in favor of big time background checks before a gun is sold. further the person that buys a gun should be required to complete a course on the use of it. -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : craig c

on apr 12 813 am miles n...@nopers.com wrote i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. youre an idiot. the evidence has been posted many many times right here in this ng. states that have embraced chl you have to own a gun before you can carry it have seen the violent crime stats drop time and time again. stick to what you know. i have no idea what that is but it certainly isnt environmental issues alternative energy or guns which is what you have wasted my time arguing about. craig c. .

From : tom lawrence

what would stop some jackass from taking said gun off his property and some place where he shouldnt have what stops the criminals from obtaining guns today and committing their robberies rapes and murders more laws more restrictions on the good people - the ones who respect and follow the laws a car you cant hide in your waist band. so are you worried about the bad guy who hides a gun and that somehow putting a mandatory training requirement is going to prevent him from packing heat or are you worried about the good guy who might accidentally shoot his prick off while bending down to tie his shoes you 100% but there has to be some common sense applied something we know our govt will never do. so what current problem would mandatory firearm training solve or would it simply be one more condition placed on a right that was intended to never be infringed i hear you on the common sense issue larry... but ive also come to realize that you cant give these anti-gun anti-freedom zealots one single inch. the problem with the common sense approach is that you assume the other side is just as reasonable. they arent. remember the words of sen. fienstein if i could have gotten 51 votes in the senate of the us for an outright ban picking up every one of them guns mr. and mrs. america turn them all in i would have done it. think you can work out some common sense gun laws with someone like that .

From : bill dunkenfield

miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. is it ok for left wingers like me to own a gun to protect me and mine from the right wingers jam .

From : azwiley1

lets get real tom we both know that absofuckinglutely nothing will ever stop the bad guy from getting a gun whenever where ever they want. no i do not want nor do i think there needs to be more laws but i do thing that a slight change to current ones would not be bad. as an example i think that hand gun laws should be a bit more equal from state to state. i.e. i can walk in to a gun store here in az drop my money on the counter buy it and carry damn near any where. when i live in ny i couldnt sneeze at a hand gun with out a 80 hour class a federal back ground check and a state issued carry permit. what i worry about it is the woman legal age kid or elder person that buys one for personal protection that cant handle it properly. or the crazy drunk ass that is multiple dui and dv convictions. see where i am coming from .

From : miles

chris thompson wrote i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. i agree. like i said i have no desire to take guns away i own one. but i do not think if everyone in the usa owned a few guns that violent crime would be reduced. people would think twice about breaking into a home and stealing your goods but violent crimes that are not pre-meditated may rise. these days it seems that people settle disagreements through violent means. .

From : chris thompson

on thu 12 apr 2007 215708 +0000 tom lawrence wrote i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. i could agree on this point whole heartedly -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : max dodge

i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. .

From : roy

i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. yup the world seems to be upside down of late. pretty soon sharpton jackson and theyre ilk will be running the country by intimedation. roy max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. .

From : ron

chris thompson kf4drr-nospam@alltel.net wrote in another gun kooky american... as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! theives will never know which house does or doesnt maybe they will break in for the gun over anything else .

From : max dodge

theives will never know which house does or doesnt maybe they will break in for the gun over anything else bullshit. in 20 years weve had 2-3 serial robberies in town. none came near my house despite the immediate neighbors being hit and my back door being unlocked. most people know i have some decent stuff including a bunch of tools and audio video equipment. they also know i have a 30.06. same with a buddy of mine that lives a block away. so how is it that we both have neighbors that got robbed but we didnt one thief admitted he knew which house not to bother. the other... well i suppose it could be coincidence. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author chris thompson kf4drr-nospam@alltel.net wrote in another gun kooky american... as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either!

From : tbone

i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tom lawrence

i think that would be a good idea. i think its a good idea too. lets also require people to register and pay a yearly fee in order to speak freely. how about fees to vote both the us constitution and the pa state constitution guarantee the right to keep and bear arms without infringement. requiring an annual registration fee is an infringement and should it pass into law will quickly be shot down as unconstitutional. the majority of gun owners have less than a dozen guns - therefore the effect of discouraging large collections would be fairly minimal. and like max says your typical gangbanger isnt going to bother registering the gun he just bought illegally on the street corner... so whats the point other than to create a central state-wide registry of every legally-owned firearm.... hmmm... wonder what that could be used for remember katrina .

From : lugnut

on mon 16 apr 2007 091417 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. the problem with a fee is it becomes a defacto annual gun registration program which i oppose in any situation. what makes you think a criminal would comply in any way with this i think it would simply produce more criminals of otherwise decent citizens who believe the second amendment is exactly what it says it is. lugnut .

From : azwiley1

on apr 16 657 am lugnut lug...@roadkill.net wrote on mon 16 apr 2007 091417 -0400 tbone tbonenos...@nc.rr.com wrote i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. the problem with a fee is it becomes a defacto annual gun registration program which i oppose in any situation. what makes you think a criminal would comply in any way with this i think it would simply produce more criminals of otherwise decent citizens who believe the second amendment is exactly what it says it is. lugnut- hide quoted text - - show quoted text - the problem here as it has been stated many times in this thread as well as in any thread we have had where gun control has come up is plain and simple yet a lot of your liberals and who ever want to ignore and over look. no criminal gives a shit!! this is why they are criminals!!! any law addition modification deletion will only affect those that are not criminals .

From : chris thompson

on mon 16 apr 2007 144255 -0700 azwiley1 wrote - show quoted text - the problem here as it has been stated many times in this thread as well as in any thread we have had where gun control has come up is plain and simple yet a lot of your liberals and who ever want to ignore and over look. no criminal gives a shit!! this is why they are criminals!!! any law addition modification deletion will only affect those that are not criminals exactly right. a fee or any other gun control measure will do absolutely nothing to remove the guns from criminal hands. -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : napalmheart

that being said from what i have heard on the and read in it i think the school needs to be held seriously accountable for the second shooting as they felt an fucking email was sufficient enough to get the notice out some 2 hours later. again this type of shit is why i carry and have a ccw. in some places i carry open but most of the time it is concealed. i just dont look like the type that would carry so why show it off and make myself an instant target should anything ever happen. i agree with you 100%. this sad incident in va is an illustration of the efficacy of gun control laws. ken nra endowment member mcrgo member www.mcrgo.org . 222 333229 13283mj12johg86@corp.super.com on mon 16 apr 2007 091417 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. the problem with a fee is it becomes a defacto annual gun registration program which i oppose in any situation. what makes you think a criminal would comply in any way with this i think it would simply produce more criminals of otherwise decent citizens who believe the second amendment is exactly what it says it is. lugnut all of lugnuts comments plus for my self i could put $250+ dollars to better use than the govt. would. ken .

From : max dodge

i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. what you and many others fail to understand is this legal gun owners are responsble gun owners. the guns are locked in safe locations safety rules are followed and caution is taken at all times. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. im sure im already good friends with whomever would enforce this law locally. im also sure that my representitive and senator to harrisburg will both vote against this silly law. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. the argument against this will be that the gun can project power beyond the property line without going beyond the property line. here in pa were facing legislation that would levy a $10 yearly fee on each gun not owner each gun that a person owns. this is being pushed by the democrats from pittsburgh and philadelphia in an effort to cut down on illegal guns. to which i say um guys... if they are already illegal.... why would a fee on legal guns change that i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. what you and many others fail to understand is this legal gun owners are responsble gun owners. the guns are locked in safe locations safety rules are followed and caution is taken at all times. this is an assumption that you simply cannot back up because it simply isnt true. while you may in fact be this way many others are not. even miles seems to think that as long as the gun is on his property that is all of the responsibility required and it may as well be hanging from the key ring by the front door. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. im sure im already good friends with whomever would enforce this law locally. im also sure that my representitive and senator to harrisburg will both vote against this silly law. its good to have friends in the right places. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i agree 100% with roy about a manditory class that would be great. i can support the requirement for training when it comes to carrying in public - just like we require training for people to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways. however youre free to drive your vehicle around on your own property all you want.... shouldnt be any different for guns. now this is just being silly. a gun is a weapon any way you want to spin it and as max said it can project way past your property line. if you are going to own something thats primary purpose is to kill then you should damn well know how to use it and use it properly. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

i think that would be a good idea. i think its a good idea too. lets also require people to register and pay a yearly fee in order to speak freely. how about fees to vote we already do. they are called taxes. you do pay them dont you both the us constitution and the pa state constitution guarantee the right to keep and bear arms without infringement. requiring an annual registration fee is an infringement and should it pass into law will quickly be shot down as unconstitutional. dont count on it. the majority of gun owners have less than a dozen guns - therefore the effect of discouraging large collections would be fairly minimal. then the fee upon them would be minimal and they are not usually not the cause of the problem anyway. and like max says your typical gangbanger isnt going to bother registering the gun he just bought illegally on the street corner... so whats the point the point is to reduce the availability of these guns on the street. other than to create a central state-wide registry of every legally-owned firearm.... hmmm... wonder what that could be used for remember katrina i dont have a problem with that either. why do you -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : azwiley1

ok here is one for you all. we all know that each state holds their own laws for buying owning and carrying hand guns example i can buy own and carry in az with out a permit a cool off period etc. i can not however even transport into ny said hand gun in any manner as i do not own a ny issued permit or a federal trades permit. what would you all feel if some one were to suggest a more even federal law on this issue such as a federally issued permit goo anywhere in the us required renewal every few years a manditory and renewable hand gun safety course .

From : azwiley1

outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. these laws already exist tom. i dont know about where you live but i know where i do when i buy a fire arm the info make model sn et all is recorded and reported. if said fire arm is stolen or lost and some one gets killed with it it is my ass on the line assuming i did not report it lost or stolen. so this being the case as i know it to be in numerous but not all states what more do you think or feel could be done only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. so you are saying that my home would not/could not be targeted or hit when some one is home how is some one to know if some one is or not unless they are casing it when i leave to go to work my wife and step son are home we only have one vehicle which i have she likes to keep the drapes closed. so at 645am when i leave there is no vehicle in the car port and you are not casing it do you know if anyone is here or not so you can think about hitting it some meth head is feening for a hit gets confused at midnight and breaks into the wrong house your house because it is near a meth house. opps sorry didnt mean to kill you mr. and mrs. wrong person i though this was a meth house. tom you really amaze me with some of the shit you say at times. a petty thug will not likely hit an occupied house but that doesnt mean it doesnt and cant happen. it does.. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : Annonymous

on mon 16 apr 2007 215226 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. and you know this how tom are you some sort of a master burglar or something what used to be called cat burglaries are becomming very common. additionally a lot of people walk in on a burglar in their home. and the desperate ones that you talk about are usually meth freaks and if they had a fucking gun they hocked it long ago to buy some more meth. doesnt mean they wont hurt you just means that if you got a gun you got a much better chance to live through it. tom you do this all the time. you talk about shit like this like you know what youre talking about but it is clear to everyone else that you dont. the reason it is so clear to everyone else is that you dont know what you are talking about. .

From : lugnut

on mon 16 apr 2007 195224 -0700 azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. these laws already exist tom. i dont know about where you live but i know where i do when i buy a fire arm the info make model sn et all is recorded and reported. if said fire arm is stolen or lost and some one gets killed with it it is my ass on the line assuming i did not report it lost or stolen. so this being the case as i know it to be in numerous but not all states what more do you think or feel could be done only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. so you are saying that my home would not/could not be targeted or hit when some one is home how is some one to know if some one is or not unless they are casing it when i leave to go to work my wife and step son are home we only have one vehicle which i have she likes to keep the drapes closed. so at 645am when i leave there is no vehicle in the car port and you are not casing it do you know if anyone is here or not so you can think about hitting it some meth head is feening for a hit gets confused at midnight and breaks into the wrong house your house because it is near a meth house. opps sorry didnt mean to kill you mr. and mrs. wrong person i though this was a meth house. tom you really amaze me with some of the shit you say at times. a petty thug will not likely hit an occupied house but that doesnt mean it doesnt and cant happen. it does.. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving a problem we have in my neck of the woods is home invasion. they tend to come in shooting. i lived in a neighborhood about 20 years ago where it happened to my neighbor one evening when the owner was obviously home watching tv. my neighbor won the gunfight and survived to go thru hell for a while. meanwhile i put my own home up for sale to get the hell out and had it happen to me before i could get out - not exchange of gunfire in my case as they got the drop on me. a couple of weeks later burglars took the rest of what i owned making the moving van unnecessary. nowadays i keep most of the firepower in the safe. around the house i keep a 12ga persuader and a g23 with 3 mags close by. the g23 goes where i go. if i see them coming they better hope the dogs get them first - they arent too aggressive unless you push them.. lugnut .

From : miles

tbone wrote even miles seems to think that as long as the gun is on his property that is all of the responsibility required and it may as well be hanging from the key ring by the front door. where the heck did that come from id appreciate you not attempting to quote me without a quote especially when its counter to my own views. .

From : miles

tbone wrote outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. we have countless gun laws already with more passed every year and yet you think its not enough we dont need any more laws. whats needed is enforcement of the ones we already have. .

From : azwiley1

tbone wrote even miles seems to think that as long as the gun is on his property that is all of the responsibility required and it may as well be hanging from the key ring by the front door. where the heck did that come from id appreciate you not attempting to quote me without a quote especially when its counter to my own views. what you dont hang it on a hook when you come home like they did back in the great ole tombstone days shame shame! .

From : miles

azwiley1 wrote ok here is one for you all. we all know that each state holds their own laws for buying owning and carrying hand guns example i can buy own and carry in az with out a permit a cool off period etc. i can not however even transport into ny said hand gun in any manner as i do not own a ny issued permit or a federal trades permit. i thought az had a 2 week wait period with mandatory background check .

From : azwiley1

azwiley1 wrote ok here is one for you all. we all know that each state holds their own laws for buying owning and carrying hand guns example i can buy own and carry in az with out a permit a cool off period etc. i can not however even transport into ny said hand gun in any manner as i do not own a ny issued permit or a federal trades permit. i thought az had a 2 week wait period with mandatory background check maybe i maybe wrong as when i bought my hand guns i was still in the army. all i had to do was pick it out show my mil id a copy of my orders assigning me to an installation in the state and give them the money. i do seem to recall though some folks i worked with since i have been out buying and leaving with in the same day. i could be wrong.. .

From : tom lawrence

i thought az had a 2 week wait period with mandatory background check no waiting period in az - just the nics requirement .

From : azwiley1

i thought az had a 2 week wait period with mandatory background check no waiting period in az - just the nics requirement thats what i thought thanks t.l. .

From : tom lawrence

no waiting period in az - just the nics requirement thats what i thought thanks t.l. thank the brady bunch... it was their website that confirmed it for me. those brady people are so helpful .

From : tbone

we already had this conversation miles and i think that roy was involved as well. i said that part of obtaining a gun permit should be proof that you have a secure place for each gun that is owned and you complained about that saying that as long as it is in your house that is all that should be required. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote even miles seems to think that as long as the gun is on his property that is all of the responsibility required and it may as well be hanging from the key ring by the front door. where the heck did that come from id appreciate you not attempting to quote me without a quote especially when its counter to my own views. .

From : tbone

where did i say that more laws were needed all i said was that they need to be directed toward responsibility of ownership rather than just restricting it. the problem with enforcing them is that it requires personnel and money and that equates to higher taxes. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving tbone wrote outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. we have countless gun laws already with more passed every year and yet you think its not enough we dont need any more laws. whats needed is enforcement of the ones we already have. .

From : tbone

that would take away form the states ability to govern themselves. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving ok here is one for you all. we all know that each state holds their own laws for buying owning and carrying hand guns example i can buy own and carry in az with out a permit a cool off period etc. i can not however even transport into ny said hand gun in any manner as i do not own a ny issued permit or a federal trades permit. what would you all feel if some one were to suggest a more even federal law on this issue such as a federally issued permit goo anywhere in the us required renewal every few years a manditory and renewable hand gun safety course .

From : tbone

outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. these laws already exist tom. i dont know about where you live but i know where i do when i buy a fire arm the info make model sn et all is recorded and reported. if said fire arm is stolen or lost and some one gets killed with it it is my ass on the line assuming i did not report it lost or stolen. so this being the case as i know it to be in numerous but not all states what more do you think or feel could be done not a thing but not every state is like that. only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. so you are saying that my home would not/could not be targeted or hit when some one is home how is some one to know if some one is or not unless they are casing it when i leave to go to work my wife and step son are home we only have one vehicle which i have she likes to keep the drapes closed. so at 645am when i leave there is no vehicle in the car port and you are not casing it do you know if anyone is here or not so you can think about hitting it and how would they lnow if you or your wife even had a gun the answer is that they wouldnt so what exactly is your point. if i am going to rob a house and guns are easy to get then im damn sure going to make sure that i have one of my own and will have it ready when i break in and if i were to see either you or anyone else with one or looking like they are trying to get on i would shoot first and steal later. some meth head is feening for a hit gets confused at midnight and breaks into the wrong house your house because it is near a meth house. opps sorry didnt mean to kill you mr. and mrs. wrong person i though this was a meth house. lol i think that they would know the difference and there would be no need to break into a meth house as they are always open and have pleanty of people around them and even if they did why would they kill anyone and if they were that desperate for a hit then do you really think that they will come in unarmed and try and kill you bare handed lol at least get real with your examples. tom you really amaze me with some of the shit you say at times. a petty thug will not likely hit an occupied house but that doesnt mean it doesnt and cant happen. it does.. so what if it does. are you going to shoot them then you become the criminal especially if this thug has friends because no it is up to you to prove that your life was in danger and if this thug was unarmed.... and if the thug is armed and sees a gun do you not think that he will shoot you first. i am not saying that people should not have guns but thinking that gun ownership will prevent crimes is just pure ignorance. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on mon 16 apr 2007 195224 -0700 azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. these laws already exist tom. i dont know about where you live but i know where i do when i buy a fire arm the info make model sn et all is recorded and reported. if said fire arm is stolen or lost and some one gets killed with it it is my ass on the line assuming i did not report it lost or stolen. so this being the case as i know it to be in numerous but not all states what more do you think or feel could be done only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. so you are saying that my home would not/could not be targeted or hit when some one is home how is some one to know if some one is or not unless they are casing it when i leave to go to work my wife and step son are home we only have one vehicle which i have she likes to keep the drapes closed. so at 645am when i leave there is no vehicle in the car port and you are not casing it do you know if anyone is here or not so you can think about hitting it some meth head is feening for a hit gets confused at midnight and breaks into the wrong house your house because it is near a meth house. opps sorry didnt mean to kill you mr. and mrs. wrong person i though this was a meth house. tom you really amaze me with some of the shit you say at times. a petty thug will not likely hit an occupied house but that doesnt mean it doesnt and cant happen. it does.. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving a problem we have in my neck of the woods is home invasion. they tend to come in shooting. then again unless you keep your gun on your lap at all times you will probably get killed before you ever get to use it. i lived in a neighborhood about 20 years ago where it happened to my neighbor one evening when the owner was obviously home watching tv. my neighbor won the gunfight and survived to go thru hell for a while. meanwhile i put my own home up for sale to get the hell out and had it happen to me before i could get out - not exchange of gunfire in my case as they got the drop on me. which points out that had you had the gun available someone may have been killed and that someone could have been you which further proves my point that gun ownership does not reduce crime. a couple of weeks later burglars took the rest of what i owned making the moving van unnecessary. nowadays i keep most of the firepower in the safe. around the house i keep a 12ga persuader and a g23 with 3 mags close by. the g23 goes where i go. if i see them coming they better hope the dogs get them first - they arent too aggressive unless you push them.. i can only hope that where you live now makes worrying about such things unnecessary. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : miles

tbone wrote we already had this conversation miles and i think that roy was involved as well. i said that part of obtaining a gun permit should be proof that you have a secure place for each gun that is owned and you complained about that saying that as long as it is in your house that is all that should be required. not exactly. i dont go to the extremes you do but i also dont think guns should be left out anywhere in a house especially if kids are in the house. .

From : chris thompson

on mon 16 apr 2007 215226 -0400 tbone wrote on thu 12 apr 2007 061343 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! there has been countless debate on what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is. im not sure the intent of the writers was such that individuals could have guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from each other. maybe thats what it should have said but it doesnt seem that was the intent of those that wrote the amendment. i disagree with those that want to take guns away. however i also dont like those that seem to promote gun ownership with the idea that they cut crime. i can appreciate your opinion. but at the same time we have to realize that if we outlaw guns then the only people with guns are the outlaws. outlawing guns simply does not work but creating gun control laws focusing on gun responsibility can. how so when was the last time you seen a criminal say oh!!! im resisting arrest driving 120 mph in a 35mph school zone in the wrong lane you realize there are laws on the safe and responsible use of an automobile right how well have those worked out in regards to those that dont or wouldnt follow the laws as far as gun ownership cutting crime yea i believe to a degree it does lets be honest. if your a crook and youve got a choice between a house where you know there are probably firearms and a house where you know there arent.. your going to rob the house without cause you dont want to get shot either! only an idiot or someone desperate would target a house where people were home so for the average criminal gun ownership means nothing as nobody would be home to use it anyway. as for the desperate ones they will simply carry a gun of their own and use it first if possible and in that case gun ownership increases the level of violence. well! your right someone shoots at me your damn straight im going to shoot back. -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : chris thompson

on tue 17 apr 2007 022509 -0400 tbone wrote which points out that had you had the gun available someone may have been killed and that someone could have been you which further proves my point that gun ownership does not reduce crime. here ya go tom. http//www.tysk.com/depts/2ndamend/crimerateplummets.htm from website gun ownership mandatory in kennesaw georgia crime rate plummets the citys population grew from around 5000 in 1980 to 13000 by 1996 latest available estimate. yet there have been only three murders two with knives 1984 and 1987 and one with a firearm 1997. after the law went into effect in 1982 crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981 and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. and it has stayed impressively low. in addition to nearly non-existent homicide murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year the annual number of armed robberies residential burglaries commercial burglaries and rapes have averaged respectively 1.69 31.63 19.75 and 2.00 through 1998. with all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. it isnt. the fact is i cant remember a major media outlet even mentioning kennesaw. can you the reason is obvious. kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. this is not the message that the media want us to hear. they want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. the facts tell a different story. what is even more interesting about kennesaw is that the citys crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. the bad guys didnt force the residents to prove it. just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. most criminals dont have a death wish. /website now surely if what you say is true and that gun ownership increases the danger and level of violence in the event of a crime then surely the most dangerous place in the world would be kennesaw ga. here ya go again. in march 1982 responding to the passage of a handgun ban in morton grove illinois and the fawning media coverage that accompanied it the city council of kennesaw georgia decided to make a statement of its own. with exceptions duly made for convicted felons the disabled and those with religious objections the council passed unanimously an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mim1282/isn15v46/ai15729634 twelve years after it began kennesaws experiment in crime control does not present itself as an easy way to arrest the killing in americas streets. it does however suggest where the problem doesnt lie. as mayor stephenson told a national gun rally in kennesaw a few years back were the town that proves more guns doesnt have to mean more crime. the above is quoted out of a web page...now its more like 15 years. http//www.cityrating.com/citycrime.aspcity=kennesaw&state=ga the above website lists both the national crime rates along with those of kennesaws... looks to me that gun ownership detours crime in kennesaw why wouldnt it some where else -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : max dodge

marsh monster wrote ===== ===== on apr 16 601pm hone...@radix.net beekeep wrote keep in mind that i am one of this places elders. i can remember back when i went to college and students openly carried guns. one physics class the project was to calculate the speed of a bullet. to do this a wood 6x6 was hung by two strings from the ceiling and a line with a piece of paper was strung along the 6x6. by measuring the distance the paper was moved one could calculate how much the 6x6 was raised etc. in the previous class the professor asked if anyone would bring in a gun along with extra ammo so we could weigh the projectiles for the experiment. one student ageed and we fired the gun into the 6x6 a 38 i believe inside the class room! it made one hell of a noise but i cant remember anyone even coming to the door to see what was going on. my point is back when it was easy to pack shit like what happened today just didnt happen. flame away. beekeep ======== ======== god we ask that you be with these families come into their hearts tonight be with them let them feel your presence. we pray god that those who have fallen come unto you and your mercy be shown. in the name of our lordjesus christ. amen would that be the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen jam .

From : lugnut

tbone wrote where did i say that more laws were needed all i said was that they need to be directed toward responsibility of ownership rather than just restricting it. the problem with enforcing them is that it requires personnel and money and that equates to higher taxes. you said but creating gun control laws. tell me how you can create gun control laws without having any new laws our taxes are already too high. the problem is our government has always been extremely wasteful and inefficient at all levels with just about anything they do. .

From : azwiley1

on apr 16 1011 pm tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcie...@earthlink.net wrote no waiting period in az - just the nics requirement thats what i thought thanks t.l. thank the brady bunch... it was their website that confirmed it for me. those brady people are so helpful thanks marsha brady lol i had a site link that listed all the the laws for all states but couldnt find it. it was extremely useful to me when i drove from az to ny a few years ago. .

From : miles

this is an assumption that you simply cannot back up because it simply isnt true. while you may in fact be this way many others are not. even miles seems to think that as long as the gun is on his property that is all of the responsibility required and it may as well be hanging from the key ring by the front door. find the number of incidents where a gun in the home caused injury or death and find the number of homes with a gun in them. im betting the number of incidents is less than 1% of the number of homes with guns. ive made the claim twice. if you wish to disagree i encourage you to find proof. i can tell you for a fact that in this county that 1% guess is high its probably lower. if you were to go with number of guns owned by private citizens legally compared to number of incidents the percentage would be even lower. im sure im already good friends with whomever would enforce this law locally. im also sure that my representitive and senator to harrisburg will both vote against this silly law. its good to have friends in the right places. it certainly is. its a small town when youve worked on the vehicles of the two local police chiefs taken the civil service exam with one of them gone to church at the same place the sheriff goes and have a direct line to the comm center a county commissioner and one of the police cheifs. what that all means is my name actually means something when a representitive comes to town. by the way my representitive to harrisburg who is pro second amendment is a democrat. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author i think that would be a good idea. the fee is not huge but big enough to prevent people form collecting huge numbers of guns that tend to get lost and become illegal guns. it forces people to take responsibility for the weapons that they aquire. what you and many others fail to understand is this legal gun owners are responsble gun owners. the guns are locked in safe locations safety rules are followed and caution is taken at all times. this is an assumption that you simply cannot back up because it simply isnt true. while you may in fact be this way many others are not. even miles seems to think that as long as the gun is on his property that is all of the responsibility required and it may as well be hanging from the key ring by the front door. looks like im going to become an illegal gun owner. you might want to make it a point not to admit to possible crimes in a public forum. something tells me that if they pass this the next one will be severe punnishments for those that do not follow the rules. im sure im already good friends with whomever would enforce this law locally. im also sure that my representitive and senator to harrisburg will both vote against this silly law. its good to have friends in the right places. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : azwiley1

they are casing it when i leave to go to work my wife and step son are home we only have one vehicle which i have she likes to keep the drapes closed. so at 645am when i leave there is no vehicle in the car port and you are not casing it do you know if anyone is here or not so you can think about hitting it some meth head is feening for a hit gets confused at midnight and breaks into the wrong house your house because it is near a meth house. opps sorry didnt mean to kill you mr. and mrs. wrong person i though this was a meth house. tom you really amaze me with some of the shit you say at times. a petty thug will not likely hit an occupied house but that doesnt mean it doesnt and cant happen. it does.. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving a problem we have in my neck of the woods is home invasion. they tend to come in shooting. then again unless you keep your gun on your lap at all times you will probably get killed before you ever get to use it. i lived in a neighborhood about 20 years ago where it happened to my neighbor one evening when the owner was obviously home watching tv. my neighbor won the gunfight and survived to go thru hell for a while. meanwhile i put my own home up for sale to get the hell out and had it happen to me before i could get out - not exchange of gunfire in my case as they got the drop on me. which points out that had you had the gun available someone may have been killed and that someone could have been you which further proves my point that gun ownership does not reduce crime. just proves i was lucky. others confronted in that crime spree were shot without provocation. i suppose it depended on how high they were at the time. a couple of weeks later burglars took the rest of what i owned making the moving van unnecessary. nowadays i keep most of the firepower in the safe. around the house i keep a 12ga persuader and a g23 with 3 mags close by. the g23 goes where i go. if i see them coming they better hope the dogs get them first - they arent too aggressive unless you push them.. i can only hope that where you live now makes worrying about such things unnecessary. i now live in a heavily wooded rural setting perceived to be safe. my friends are always close and the dogs alert. i have developed considerable self defense skills with firearms as part of my job since my last encounter at home. at my age i have less to lose then some young thug and will quite willing take as many of them as possible with me if confronted in my home. all they have to do is leave me alone and no harm done to anyone. i dont dwell on the problem but i remain aware of my surroundings and refuse to be a willing victim. i think i have that right. lugnut . 222 333288 4624dcea$0$492$815e3792@.qwest.net anyway back to the reason for the post. do i have to worry about any of the fluids seals or anything else on this truck since it has been mostly just sitting for over a year on the dealers lot first thing id do is change the engine oil but id do that after a few hundred miles on a new vehicle anyway grease anything greasable which in your case is only the outer tie rod ends and i believe the cv joint on the front driveshaft im also wondering about any non-typical to a gass engine guy maintenance. i already noticed that the 2500 actually has a few zerk fittings ill have to grease once in a while didnt have any of those on the 2002 1500! maintenance is pretty straight-forward.... basic fluid changes when called for in the service manual. the only thing new for you is going to be the fuel filter - should get changed every 10-15k depending on fuel quality. also for the first couple of months drain the water separator at least once a week until you get a feel for how much if any water you get from your fuel again varies based on quality of the supply. the little yellow lever at the base of the fuel filter canister drivers side of the engine low and near the firewall will drain the fuel/water down the clear plastic hose. another tip get a 3/8 double-ended hose barb sold as a hose repair kit and a length of 3/8 hose clear vinyl tubing will do fine and extend that factory hose. i have mine tucked up under my front bumper - this way i simply reach under the bumper pull the tube out and can drain the fuel into a can. otherwise you get diesel spilling all over your front axle. i recommend only fleetguard oil and fuel filters as does cummins. buy them a few at a time at http//www.genosgarage.com - good prices and they always have them in stock. use a good quality 15w40 diesel-rated oil - several popular brands are shell rotella-t chevron delo 400 mobil delvac 1300 or valvoline premium blue. ones just as good as the other though many including myself find an unpleasant odor after an oil change with rotella that lasts

From : max dodge

on tue 17 apr 2007 135744 -0700 steve b surdo2diver@neptune.com wrote btw i saw a lot of cops standing around for a lot of time yesterday too. steve i saw a bunch of them running too. must have been free doughnuts somewhere! beekeep .

From : azwiley1

on apr 16 1010 pm tom lawrence tnloaswpraemnmcie...@earthlink.net wrote anyway back to the reason for the post. do i have to worry about any of the fluids seals or anything else on this truck since it has been mostly just sitting for over a year on the dealers lot first thing id do is change the engine oil but id do that after a few hundred miles on a new vehicle anyway grease anything greasable which in your case is only the outer tie rod ends and i believe the cv joint on the front driveshaft im also wondering about any non-typical to a gass engine guy maintenance. i already noticed that the 2500 actually has a few zerk fittings ill have to grease once in a while didnt have any of those on the 2002 1500! maintenance is pretty straight-forward.... basic fluid changes when called for in the service manual. the only thing new for you is going to be the fuel filter - should get changed every 10-15k depending on fuel quality. also for the first couple of months drain the water separator at least once a week until you get a feel for how much if any water you get from your fuel again varies based on quality of the supply. the little yellow lever at the base of the fuel filter canister drivers side of the engine low and near the firewall will drain the fuel/water down the clear plastic hose. another tip get a 3/8 double-ended hose barb sold as a hose repair kit and a length of 3/8 hose clear vinyl tubing will do fine and extend that factory hose. i have mine tucked up under my front bumper - this way i simply reach under the bumper pull the tube out and can drain the fuel into a can. otherwise you get diesel spilling all over your front axle. i recommend only fleetguard oil and fuel filters as does cummins. buy them a few at a time athttp//www.genosgarage.com- good prices and they always have them in stock. use a good quality 15w40 diesel-rated oil - several popular brands are shell rotella-t chevron delo 400 mobil delvac 1300 or valvoline premium blue. ones just as good as the other though many including myself find an unpleasant odor after an oil change with rotella that lasts about a week or so. thank you tom your help and suggested is/are appreciated! cliff .

From : napalmheart

other than to create a central state-wide registry of every legally-owned firearm.... hmmm... wonder what that could be used for remember katrina i dont have a problem with that either. why do you central registries are the first step to future confiscation. .

From : miles

azwiley1 wrote what you dont hang it on a hook when you come home like they did back in the great ole tombstone days shame shame! lol! i put mine under the doormat so i can find it easy. .

From : tom lawrence

that maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but thats about it. wont do a thing for gun related crimes. nope it wont - because criminals dont worry about silly little gun laws. see heres the crux of the problem here unless firearms are banished from the planet the criminal element will have weapons to use against their victims. and if you cant completely eliminate the problem then the next best thing is to level the playing field a little more. want a real-world example japan bans all civilians from owning firearms except for hunters. ammunition is very tightly controlled and handguns are absolutely banned. therefore there shouldnt be any gun violence right then why was the mayor of nagasaki shot and killed yesterday by a civilian with a handgun didnt he know that handgun was illegal for him to have oh yeah he didnt care - since he was about to commit murder. using the logic that banning guns will prevent gun crime one could argue that had they painted a big no parking zone in front of the murrah building timothy mcveigh wouldnt have blown it up. .

From : jimbo

| ok here is one for you all. we all know that each state holds their own | laws for buying owning and carrying hand guns example i can buy own and | carry in az with out a permit a cool off period etc. i can not however | even transport into ny said hand gun in any manner as i do not own a ny | issued permit or a federal trades permit. | | what would you all feel if some one were to suggest a more even federal | law on this issue | such as a federally issued permit goo anywhere in the us | required renewal every few years | a manditory and renewable hand gun safety course | | go with it...i would only add to your renewal requirements etc everyone purchasing a gun would be charged an additional fee that would pay for that mandatory course on gun safety and a practical class in firing for proficiency need not make one a dead eye dick. -- pcolaphil when you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth think of algebra. will rogers .

From : tom lawrence

go with it...i would only add to your renewal requirements etc everyone purchasing a gun would be charged an additional fee that would pay for that mandatory course on gun safety and a practical class in firing for proficiency need not make one a dead eye dick. why make the person applying for the permit pay the class and range fees just like it works now in all states that issue ccws and have a training requirement. once you have the training and certification why the need to keep paying for every subsequent purchase .

From : miles

jimbo wrote go with it...i would only add to your renewal requirements etc everyone purchasing a gun would be charged an additional fee that would pay for that mandatory course on gun safety and a practical class in firing for proficiency need not make one a dead eye dick. that maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but thats about it. wont do a thing for gun related crimes. .

From : miles

tom lawrence wrote want a real-world example japan bans all civilians from owning firearms except for hunters. ammunition is very tightly controlled and handguns are absolutely banned. therefore there shouldnt be any gun violence right then why was the mayor of nagasaki shot and killed yesterday by a civilian with a handgun bad example. gun crimes per capita are far lower in japan than the usa. .

From : bob g

the problem here as it has been stated many times in this thread as well as in any thread we have had where gun control has come up is plain and simple yet a lot of your liberals and who ever want to ignore and over look. no criminal gives a shit!! this is why they are criminals!!! any law addition modification deletion will only affect those that are not criminals i do not need to add anything to the above ! i do not belong to the nra i have not hunted in 15 years so i am no gun nut...but i think if one checks crime rates you will find that states that allow carring the crime rate is a hell of a lot less.. i wish at least one professor at vt was carring... just an old mans opinion... bob g. .

From : azwiley1

on apr 17 916 pm miles n...@nopers.com wrote jimbo wrote go with it...i would only add to your renewal requirements etc everyone purchasing a gun would be charged an additional fee that would pay for that mandatory course on gun safety and a practical class in firing for proficiency need not make one a dead eye dick. that maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but thats about it. wont do a thing for gun related crimes. miles and everyone else that doesnt get it short of doing like t.l said and banning all forms of fire arms there is absofuckinglutly nothing that is going to stop gun related crimes. though it may not be the best comparison look at drugs they are illegal people piss and moan about them ruining our neighborhoods schools etc. well there is a way to stop that but no one wants to do it make them legal and tax the shit out of them. what i would love to see concerning current gun laws is a level playing field across the states. hench my thought of a federal level regulation. i think it may be a little to easy in az to get one yet it is damn neat impossible to get one in ny yadda yadda.. .

From : chris thompson

on wed 18 apr 2007 060835 -0700 miles wrote tom lawrence wrote want a real-world example japan bans all civilians from owning firearms except for hunters. ammunition is very tightly controlled and handguns are absolutely banned. therefore there shouldnt be any gun violence right then why was the mayor of nagasaki shot and killed yesterday by a civilian with a handgun bad example. gun crimes per capita are far lower in japan than the usa. key word here was any. meaning that if they are banned there will be no gun violence. his example holds true. they are banned and there was gun violence. thus banning guns are not the answer never has been never will be. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -u.s. constitution 2nd amendment -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : miles

jimbo wrote oookay so what good is a piece of metal with ammunition in it if the holder doesnt know squat about it or the safe handling that should be exercised when using it so the holder again doesnt shoot themselves or someone who doesnt deserve shooting and if they cant shoot the thing why have it what i am stating simply is that they should know how to use it the most effective way. then they can blast the shit out of the bad folks that they may encounter thru life. and they should pay for a mandatory course up front else said course will not be attended. whoa here!! i agree a gun safety and use course is a great thing! i just dont understand why its brought up in the context of gun crime. it wont do a thing to help crime. criminals wont take the course and could careless. rarely are crimes foiled by a gun owner. i have never seen any stats that show that gun owners are less common to be a victim of a gun related crime against them. .

From : miles

azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote i made a statement about .357 i did not specify magnum or otherwise as the people in here that know me which i have discussed firearms with would know what i meant. never assume. damn thats scary. you claim to own a handgun yet dont know or cant state its exact caliber. you though blindly jump to an incorrect conclusion about something with out know all the facts why youre ingnorant youre a retard you wanted to start shit for no reason who knows who cares. is english your second language it must be difficult for you not being able to write sentences spell correctly and to communicate clearly. are you sure you went through the proper channels to buy and register your firearms your knowledge of ballistics safety and anger management speak volumes about yourself. hell i went so far as to post a link to you for you education that took you to the exact hand gun i own. and still failed to describe the shell correctly. did the big words confuse you how in the world did you get it right on the paperwork you did do paperwork on it didnt you didnt you are you the next headline nut case in waiting come to my home with beryl and find out. sorry im not gay. steve ps whos beryl .

From : azwiley1

azwiley1 wrote miles and everyone else that doesnt get it short of doing like t.l said and banning all forms of fire arms there is absofuckinglutly nothing that is going to stop gun related crimes. not sure why you directed that at me. i agree with that for the most part. i do think some crimes can be cut down to an extent. maybe better criteria for background checks such as flagging someone who has been declared mentally ill and dangerous in general it was for everyone not you directly. .

From : miles

chris thompson wrote key word here was any. meaning that if they are banned there will be no gun violence. his example holds true. they are banned and there was gun violence. thus banning guns are not the answer never has been never will be. name any regulation for any crime of any kind that has 100% success does that mean we should just make everything legal because no regulation stops anything 100% hmm...thats the solution!! make everything legal then there will be no crime at all! .

From : jimbo

| jimbo wrote | | go with it...i would only add to your renewal requirements etc | everyone purchasing a gun would be charged an additional fee that | would pay for that mandatory course on gun safety and a practical | class in firing for proficiency need not make one a dead eye dick. | | that maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but | thats about it. wont do a thing for gun related crimes. oookay so what good is a piece of metal with ammunition in it if the holder doesnt know squat about it or the safe handling that should be exercised when using it so the holder again doesnt shoot themselves or someone who doesnt deserve shooting and if they cant shoot the thing why have it what i am stating simply is that they should know how to use it the most effective way. then they can blast the shit out of the bad folks that they may encounter thru life. and they should pay for a mandatory course up front else said course will not be attended. -- pcolaphil when you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth think of algebra. will rogers .

From : jimbo

| that maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but thats | about it. wont do a thing for gun related crimes. | | nope it wont - because criminals dont worry about silly little gun laws. | | see heres the crux of the problem here unless firearms are banished from | the planet the criminal element will have weapons to use against their | victims. and if you cant completely eliminate the problem then the next | best thing is to level the playing field a little more. | | want a real-world example japan bans all civilians from owning firearms | except for hunters. ammunition is very tightly controlled and handguns are | absolutely banned. therefore there shouldnt be any gun violence right | then why was the mayor of nagasaki shot and killed yesterday by a civilian | with a handgun didnt he know that handgun was illegal for him to have | oh yeah he didnt care - since he was about to commit murder. | | using the logic that banning guns will prevent gun crime one could argue | that had they painted a big no parking zone in front of the murrah | building timothy mcveigh wouldnt have blown it up. | ya missed one tom...the nagasaki mayor was shot dead by one of those good japanese citizens just like ohhhh two days ago i do believe. had he had a gun he could have defended himself. -- pcolaphil when you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth think of algebra. will rogers .

From : jimbo

sorry bout that tom. i jumped the gun with my sage advice prior to finishing your read. mea culpa. -- pcolaphil when you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth think of algebra. will rogers | that maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but thats | about it. wont do a thing for gun related crimes. | | nope it wont - because criminals dont worry about silly little gun laws. | | see heres the crux of the problem here unless firearms are banished from | the planet the criminal element will have weapons to use against their | victims. and if you cant completely eliminate the problem then the next | best thing is to level the playing field a little more. | | want a real-world example japan bans all civilians from owning firearms | except for hunters. ammunition is very tightly controlled and handguns are | absolutely banned. therefore there shouldnt be any gun violence right | then why was the mayor of nagasaki shot and killed yesterday by a civilian | with a handgun didnt he know that handgun was illegal for him to have | oh yeah he didnt care - since he was about to commit murder. | | using the logic that banning guns will prevent gun crime one could argue | that had they painted a big no parking zone in front of the murrah | building timothy mcveigh wouldnt have blown it up. | .

From : azwiley1

oookay so what good is a piece of metal with ammunition in it if the holder doesnt know squat about it door stop paper weight something to throw at them ^ sorry couldnt resist .

From : miles

jimbo wrote ya missed one tom...the nagasaki mayor was shot dead by one of those good japanese citizens just like ohhhh two days ago i do believe. had he had a gun he could have defended himself. it is believed he was killed by a major mafia boss not a typical japanese citizen. .

From : tom lawrence

rarely are crimes foiled by a gun owner. i have never seen any stats no you havent.... because you dont seek them out and you wont see these things reported by the media either. various studies put the number somewhere between 1.4 million and 2.5 million crimes prevented annually. these studies are a little dated and personal firearms ownership has gone up since then so i suspect the current annual number to be even higher. .

From : tom lawrence

better criteria for background checks such as flagging someone who has been declared mentally ill and dangerous absolutely no argument there .

From : steve b

better criteria for background checks such as flagging someone who has been declared mentally ill and dangerous absolutely no argument there the problem is with the process. this guy was involved in all sorts of bizarre and illegal activities and yet was unflagged. do they have to wait until they kill someone to flag them apparently so. steve .

From : miles

steve b wrote more guns less crime john lott maybe you just didnt look. an opinion means little. i have seen stats that show in countries with tight gun controls crime rates are higher overall. however violent crimes are lower. .

From : steve b

theguy@whatever.net wrote you could not be more of a moron if you tried. you are a hoot. well i did buy a dodge truck and i stayed at a holiday inn express once. steve .

From : Annonymous

on thu 19 apr 2007 184653 -0700 steve b surdo2diver@neptune.com wrote theguy@whatever.net wrote you could not be more of a moron if you tried. you are a hoot. well i did buy a dodge truck and i stayed at a holiday inn express once. steve like i said dont quit your day job. .

From : miles

tom lawrence wrote no you havent.... because you dont seek them out and you wont see these things reported by the media either. various studies put the number somewhere between 1.4 million and 2.5 million crimes prevented annually. these studies are a little dated and personal firearms ownership has gone up since then so i suspect the current annual number to be even higher. show me solid proof that gun owners are less prone to be a victim of a gun related crime not crimes in general. what im looking for is stats for total gun related crimes then a break down that splits it and shows numbers against gun owners. showing number of prevented crimes in general means little when theres nothing to relate it against. furthermore my original point was gun related crimes. for instance how many potential murders were prevented for the single reason the would be victim was a gun owner and used it .

From : steve b

steve b wrote more guns less crime john lott maybe you just didnt look. an opinion means little. i have seen stats that show in countries with tight gun controls crime rates are higher overall. however violent crimes are lower. it is obvious that your mind has reached its capacity and is not taking in any new information. steve .

From : miles

steve b wrote it is obvious that your mind has reached its capacity and is not taking in any new information. no i prefer factual information rather than your opinionated rhetoric. .

From : steve b

steve b wrote it is obvious that your mind has reached its capacity and is not taking in any new information. no i prefer factual information rather than your opinionated rhetoric. not! the facts are there for you to read if youd care to. steve .

From : Annonymous

on thu 19 apr 2007 180236 -0700 steve b surdo2diver@neptune.com wrote steve b wrote it is obvious that your mind has reached its capacity and is not taking in any new information. no i prefer factual information rather than your opinionated rhetoric. not! the facts are there for you to read if youd care to. steve steve you could not be more of a moron if you tried. you are a hoot. .

From : jimbo

| jimbo wrote | snip | | whoa here!! i agree a gun safety and use course is a great thing! i | just dont understand why its brought up in the context of gun crime. it | wont do a thing to help crime. criminals wont take the course and | could careless. | | rarely are crimes foiled by a gun owner. i have never seen any stats | that show that gun owners are less common to be a victim of a gun | related crime against them. yeah thats right but since we have been tossing around both sides of the problem i wasnt addressing responsibilities of the bad guys because theyve already shown their propensities theyre criminals. i was addressing it from the standpoint of the good guys arming themselves for self-protection and whether it works or not i guess depends on where you are. just today for example some guy downtown pensacola thwarted a home invasion because he was armed. the bad guy is in the hospital; no charges against the home owner. they have to be able to do it right. thats all that i am saying at this point. -- pcolaphil when you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth think of algebra. will rogers .

From : miles

jimbo wrote i was addressing it from the standpoint of the good guys arming themselves for self-protection and whether it works or not i guess depends on where you are. just today for example some guy downtown pensacola thwarted a home invasion because he was armed. the usa has more guns per capita than just about any other country in the world. with your logic our crime rate should be really low as a result. instead our crime rate is rather high. thats all im trying to say. im not anti gun i own one. but i dont buy into the bs that more guns in society results in lower crime because people can protect and prevent them. world crime stats vs. number of guns per capita just doesnt show that. .

From : chris thompson

on wed 18 apr 2007 193803 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote key word here was any. meaning that if they are banned there will be no gun violence. his example holds true. they are banned and there was gun violence. thus banning guns are not the answer never has been never will be. name any regulation for any crime of any kind that has 100% success does that mean we should just make everything legal because no regulation stops anything 100% hmm...thats the solution!! make everything legal then there will be no crime at all! that is not what im saying so dont try to spin my words. what i am saying is that banning guns simply doesnt stop gun crime. they are criminals and will always have access to guns. if you ban guns then gun black market only gets bigger. im not looking for 100% success its not going to happen but what i am looking at is no further infringement on our constitutional rights. hitting what you aim at...now thats my idea of gun control. -- chris 05 ctd 06 liberty crd .

From : miles

chris thompson wrote what i am saying is that banning guns simply doesnt stop gun crime. they are criminals and will always have access to guns. if you ban guns then gun black market only gets bigger. who said anything about banning guns why do people such as yourself start running off on some tangent every time yes some criminals are always going to get guns but some gun crimes are committed because of the ease with which to get a gun in our society. the crime is convenient. this vt ahole got a gun through the normal easy legal means despite being declared mentally ill and dangerous. thats wrong and thats what im saying. im not looking for 100% success its not going to happen but what i am looking at is no further infringement on our constitutional rights. define infringement should the mentally ill be able to get a gun simply by walking into a store and buying one preventing them from doing so is infringement .

From : chris thompson

on thu 19 apr 2007 202649 -0700 miles wrote chris thompson wrote what i am saying is that banning guns simply doesnt stop gun crime. they are criminals and will always have access to guns. if you ban guns then gun black market only gets bigger. who said anything about banning guns why do people such as yourself start running off on some tangent every time yes some criminals are always going to get guns but some gun crimes are committed because of the ease with which to get a gun in our society. the crime is convenient. this vt ahole got a gun through the normal easy legal means despite being declared mentally ill and dangerous. thats wrong and thats what im saying. here let me help you out. on april 18 tom l posted a story about japan they have guns banned as an example of why more gun laws dont necessarily work. told about a civilan killing a mayor with a hand gun remember those are banned there you replied that it was a bad example because they have lower gun crimes per capita i replied stating that toms example holds true for the fact that if the gun bans worked. then the murder would not have happened. hence they dont work because criminals dont follow the law then you suggest we should remove all laws from the books witch of course lead us here. now for the rest of what you said....yes i agree its a shame about what happened. but i personally do not agree that we should make it harder for the average honest joe to get their firearms because there are a few bad apples. .

From : miles

chris thompson wrote on april 18 tom l posted a story about japan they have guns banned as an example of why more gun laws dont necessarily work. told about a civilan killing a mayor with a hand gun remember those are banned there just a simple every day civilian huh he was gunned down by the top brass of the japanese mafia. try again. now for the rest of what you said....yes i agree its a shame about what happened. but i personally do not agree that we should make it harder for the average honest joe to get their firearms because there are a few bad apples. define honest average joe. what criteria do you set to determine that they are honest your logic could be applied to many things. should it be extremely easy for anyone to get a drivers license because its just a few bad apples that are wreckless i think we need a better job of background checks including but not limited to those declared mentally ill and dangerous. .

From : tom lawrence

just a simple every day civilian huh he was gunned down by the top brass of the japanese mafia. try again. who is an ordinary citizen right by that i mean not a member of the government military or police force who would be authorized to possess such a weapon. the fact that hes a criminal is pretty much the whole point of the story.... criminals get guns and commit crimes with them no matter how many gun-control laws exist. your logic could be applied to many things. should it be extremely easy for anyone to get a drivers license because its just a few bad apples that are wreckless do you remember your drivers exam and road test it is extremely easy for all but the most incompetent to obtain licenses. one must only drive on any highway in this country for less than 10 minutes to observe that first-hand. i think we need a better job of background checks including but not limited to those declared mentally ill and dangerous. im not entirely opposed to that either.... what drives me insane is things like hr1022 calls for a ban on virtually all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns hr1859 bans all magazines larger than 10 rounds and the yet-to-be-introduced bill from the esteemed rep. dennis kucinich from ohio a bill banning all semi-automatic handguns. .

From : jimbo

| jimbo wrote | | | i was addressing it from the standpoint of the good guys arming | themselves for self-protection and whether it works or not i guess | depends on where you are. just today for example some guy downtown | pensacola thwarted a home invasion because he was armed. | | the usa has more guns per capita than just about any other country in | the world. with your logic our crime rate should be really | low as a result. instead our crime rate is rather high. thats all im | trying to say. im not anti gun i own one. but i dont buy into the | bs that more guns in society results in lower crime because people can | protect and prevent them. world crime stats vs. number of guns per | capita just doesnt show that. and i didnt say that more guns per se would make everything safer but i will say that guns in the hands of the good guys will go a long way to help. and too many people who study these stats closer than i say that crime is reduced when good guys have guns to protect themselves. and i am for it. it is time to put down the uglies. -- pcolaphil when you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth think of algebra.

From : napalmheart

chris thompson wrote washington - district of columbia officials warned a federal appeals court monday that its rejection of the citys handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control. a three-judge panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled 2-1 last month that some of the districts gun control provisions are unconstitutional. the court rejected the citys argument that the second amendment right to bear arms applies only to state militias. it was the first time a federal appeals court struck down gun control regulations on second amendment grounds. http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18026496/ found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! david as an american constitutional lawyer who has studied in the united states i have observed that most americans quote the second amendment to the constitution without knowing what it means or indeed what it intended to achieve at the time it was created. like any historical document it needs to be considered in the context in which it was written. the amendment reads 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. the purpose of this amendment in my view and that of many scholars was only to establish the legitimacy of a militia whether standing or otherwise. to bear arms as was intended in the amendment means to carry arms for a military or in this case a lawful militia regulated purpose. a hunter or recreational shooter does not bear arms. to keep arms in this instance means that a militiaman could keep his rifle so as to be able to participate in a militia without the need for district armouries which could be destroyed or captured by an enemy and therefore eliminate the ability of the militia to arm themselves. how any american living in 2007 or even in the last 100 years could try to interpret that this amendment justifies their right to carry and use firearms as individual citizens is a subject for debate. however in my opinion it is preposterous. it was not what the authors of the constitution intended and i am amazed that american lawmakers continue to allow widespread misinterpretation to prevail. http//tinyurl.com/2nma3g people continually quote words of the 2nd amendment and invariably one side will leave out the beginning a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. you do that dont you tom lawrence david is one constitutional lawyer that needs to do more research. .

From : beryl

chris thompson wrote washington - district of columbia officials warned a federal appeals court monday that its rejection of the citys handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control. a three-judge panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled 2-1 last month that some of the districts gun control provisions are unconstitutional. the court rejected the citys argument that the second amendment right to bear arms applies only to state militias. it was the first time a federal appeals court struck down gun control regulations on second amendment grounds. http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18026496/ found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! david as an american constitutional lawyer who has studied in the united states i have observed that most americans quote the second amendment to the constitution without knowing what it means or indeed what it intended to achieve at the time it was created. like any historical document it needs to be considered in the context in which it was written. the amendment reads 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. the purpose of this amendment in my view and that of many scholars was only to establish the legitimacy of a militia whether standing or otherwise. to bear arms as was intended in the amendment means to carry arms for a military or in this case a lawful militia regulated purpose. a hunter or recreational shooter does not bear arms. to keep arms in this instance means that a militiaman could keep his rifle so as to be able to participate in a militia without the need for district armouries which could be destroyed or captured by an enemy and therefore eliminate the ability of the militia to arm themselves. how any american living in 2007 or even in the last 100 years could try to interpret that this amendment justifies their right to carry and use firearms as individual citizens is a subject for debate. however in my opinion it is preposterous. it was not what the authors of the constitution intended and i am amazed that american lawmakers continue to allow widespread misinterpretation to prevail. http//tinyurl.com/2nma3g people continually quote words of the 2nd amendment and invariably one side will leave out the beginning a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. you do that dont you tom lawrence -- in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni .

From : beryl

napalmheart wrote chris thompson wrote washington - district of columbia officials warned a federal appeals court monday that its rejection of the citys handgun ban creates a precedent that could severely limit gun control. a three-judge panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled 2-1 last month that some of the districts gun control provisions are unconstitutional. the court rejected the citys argument that the second amendment right to bear arms applies only to state militias. it was the first time a federal appeals court struck down gun control regulations on second amendment grounds. http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18026496/ found this on one of the rss feeds. finally someone can actually read and understand what the second amendment says!!! yay! david as an american constitutional lawyer who has studied in the united states i have observed that most americans quote the second amendment to the constitution without knowing what it means or indeed what it intended to achieve at the time it was created. like any historical document it needs to be considered in the context in which it was written. the amendment reads 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. the purpose of this amendment in my view and that of many scholars was only to establish the legitimacy of a militia whether standing or otherwise. to bear arms as was intended in the amendment means to carry arms for a military or in this case a lawful militia regulated purpose. a hunter or recreational shooter does not bear arms. to keep arms in this instance means that a militiaman could keep his rifle so as to be able to participate in a militia without the need for district armouries which could be destroyed or captured by an enemy and therefore eliminate the ability of the militia to arm themselves. how any american living in 2007 or even in the last 100 years could try to interpret that this amendment justifies their right to carry and use firearms as individual citizens is a subject for debate. however in my opinion it is preposterous. it was not what the authors of the constitution intended and i am amazed that american lawmakers continue to allow widespread misinterpretation to prevail. http//tinyurl.com/2nma3g people continually quote words of the 2nd amendment and invariably one side will leave out the beginning a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. you do that dont you tom lawrence david is one constitutional lawyer that needs to do more research. ha research... this has been researched to death. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution is enough research-overload for me. theres no one consistent interpretation of what the amendment says. in the hands of professional politicians its so flexible that its meaningless. -- in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni .

From : tom lawrence

people continually quote words of the 2nd amendment and invariably one side will leave out the beginning a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. you do that dont you tom lawrence i dont ignore it no - but i do believe the 2nd protects an individuals right to keep own and bear carry arms... and i have an ex-attorney general and several current district court judges that agree with me as well as many states constitutions. whos on your team .

From : miles

tom lawrence wrote i dont ignore it no - but i do believe the 2nd protects an individuals right to keep own and bear carry arms... and i have an ex-attorney general and several current district court judges that agree with me as well as many states constitutions. if you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment prior to passage and text of discussions at the time it becomes more clear what the intentions were during that time. if you dont ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment then what does it mean to you and what is your historical reference to support it i believe it was all a mis-wording. it was intended that we have the right to arm bears. .

From : steve b

tom lawrence wrote i dont ignore it no - but i do believe the 2nd protects an individuals right to keep own and bear carry arms... and i have an ex-attorney general and several current district court judges that agree with me as well as many states constitutions. if you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment prior to passage and text of discussions at the time it becomes more clear what the intentions were during that time. if you dont ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment then what does it mean to you and what is your historical reference to support it i believe it was all a mis-wording. it was intended that we have the right to arm bears. and i think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. i believe that our forefathers knew that an armed populace would be the last line of defense against tyrants and their henchmen taking over. i me think that was the intent and all the rest that happened since the original writing has little to do with those actual ideas and more to do with the perception that it was aimed at the rights of citizens re weapon ownership. just my two pennies. i could be wrong. i thought i was once but was merely mistaken. steve .

From : miles

steve b wrote and i think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. i disagree. that logic has been stated many times but without historical reference to back it up. if you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment and the discussions and writings from those involved at the time you may come to a different conclusion. yes they wanted an armed populous for defense but i dont believe the main issue was from within. .

From : steve b

steve b wrote and i think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. i disagree. that logic has been stated many times but without historical reference to back it up. if you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment and the discussions and writings from those involved at the time you may come to a different conclusion. yes they wanted an armed populous for defense but i dont believe the main issue was from within. some reading for you http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution#text .

From : miles

steve b wrote http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution#text wikipedia is a users forum for the most part. however it does make these points that king henry i and ii armed the populous for defense but not from the tyranny of the king. madison wrote that the state governments with the people on their side clearly his intention was not for arming people against their own government. again madison wrote united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. keyword here united with the government...not against it. the anti-federalists are the ones that came up in part the argument you refer to. but they werent the original author of the amendment. .

From : beryl

miles wrote steve b wrote http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution#text wikipedia is a users forum for the most part. however it does make these points that king henry i and ii armed the populous for defense but not from the tyranny of the king. madison wrote that the state governments with the people on their side clearly his intention was not for arming people against their own government. again madison wrote united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. keyword here united with the government...not against it. let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. - james madison clearly he was talking about state governments well-regulated militias opposing a federal govt army. the anti-federalists are the ones that came up in part the argument you refer to. but they werent the original author of the amendment. if there was one original author it apparently was some guy named james madison... the same guy that explained its about state militias. -- in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni .

From : beryl

tom lawrence wrote people continually quote words of the 2nd amendment and invariably one side will leave out the beginning a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and just give the rest of the sentence after the comma. you do that dont you tom lawrence i dont ignore it no - but i do believe the 2nd protects an individuals right to keep own and bear carry arms... and i have an ex-attorney general and several current district court judges that agree with me as well as many states constitutions. whos on your team hey it looks like the amendments original author is on my team. some guy named james madison. -- in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni .

From : miles

beryl wrote hey it looks like the amendments original author is on my team. some guy named james madison. you need to read more of madisons writings at the time. he was not an anti-federalist. the latter is who is on your team. .

From : miles

beryl wrote if there was one original author it apparently was some guy named james madison... the same guy that explained its about state militias. yes but not because of a threat from the federal government. at the time the threat was from overseas and the federal and state governments were rather thinly based. a state militia was the only way individual states could provide a level of protection for themselves. .

From : steve b

steve b wrote http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution#text wikipedia is a users forum for the most part. however it does make these points that king henry i and ii armed the populous for defense but not from the tyranny of the king. madison wrote that the state governments with the people on their side clearly his intention was not for arming people against their own government. again madison wrote united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. keyword here united with the government...not against it. the anti-federalists are the ones that came up in part the argument you refer to. but they werent the original author of the amendment. now back to my original point. my statement was that i thought the second amendment was at least partially about keeping the citizenry armed as a means to protect itself against tyrannical government as much as from invaders or others against the republic. steve .

From : beryl

on wed 25 apr 2007 130838 +0000 ben turner wrote ive dumped my old plastic bedliner and was thinking about getting a line-x sprayed in a 97 2500. the front tie down points in the bed used to be covered by a rubber plug -- but this looks somewhat tacky. also i cant imagine how these plugs would remain functional after a spray-in was installed. do these front tie-downs have a water drain hole or should i drill some half inch holes in the tie down cavity i have a line-x in my 05 and love it. i ditched the plastic liner the first night. got it home from the dealership and out came the plastic liner even before the insurance cards went into the truck. my trucks drain holes dont drain as fast as they used to but they do drain when crap isnt covering them you probably could enlarge the holes with a drill bit to increase the functionality of the holes after its sprayed with the liner. not sure i would worry about it but the option is there if your really concerned. usually if my truck fills with water during a overnight rain storm remember the crap over the holes the first time i back out of the driveway it all gone runs right out from under the tailgate. would think it would make sense to enlarge the holes before the spraying. or would the spray plug them anyway it does. the factory tie-down holes are reduced in size to the point where you cannot use the rubber plugs anymore. so if you open the holes up prior to the spray so that they will drain wont the spray prevent the rusting of the drilled holes maybe im missing something here no telling. depends on how they spray the area and how much. im missing something. but no matter .

From : beryl

miles wrote beryl wrote if there was one original author it apparently was some guy named james madison... the same guy that explained its about state militias. yes but not because of a threat from the federal government. at the time the threat was from overseas and the federal and state governments were rather thinly based. a state militia was the only way individual states could provide a level of protection for themselves. you snipped madisons quote. let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. hes talking about the state militias being able to repel the danger of a federal force. its explained the same way elsewhere on the wikipedia page too with calculations that the militias would outnumber the federal forces. both sides had the same rifles strength would come through sheer numbers. its rather obsolete thinking today. the people dont have apache helicopters. -- in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni .

From : napalmheart

steve b wrote and i think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. i disagree. that logic has been stated many times but without historical reference to back it up. if you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment and the discussions and writings from those involved at the time you may come to a different conclusion. yes they wanted an armed populous for defense but i dont believe the main issue was from within. some reading for you http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution#text another link. http//www.worldnetdaily.com//printer-friendly.asparticleid=55386 .

From : miles

steve b wrote my statement was that i thought the second amendment was at least partially about keeping the citizenry armed as a means to protect itself against tyrannical government as much as from invaders or others against the republic. in order for it to get passed compromises were made to appease the anti-federalists. however the amendment was primarily written by the federalists. .

From : steve b

steve b wrote my statement was that i thought the second amendment was at least partially about keeping the citizenry armed as a means to protect itself against tyrannical government as much as from invaders or others against the republic. in order for it to get passed compromises were made to appease the anti-federalists. however the amendment was primarily written by the federalists. whatever! sorry you still missed my point. steve .

From : miles

steve b wrote whatever! sorry you still missed my point. no i did. but you fail to realize the order of events discussions and writings leading up to the finalized version of the amendment. most of such was with regard to forming a state militia for defense from foreign enemies. that was their greatest fear and it was the federalists who did the most work toward creating and passing the 2nd amendment. the references you refer to are mostly from the anti-federalists and statements made by federalists to appease them to the it passed. .

From : beryl

napalmheart wrote steve b wrote and i think it was intended so that if the government became tyrannical the populace would be armed and capable of overthrowing it. i disagree. that logic has been stated many times but without historical reference to back it up. if you read the early versions of the 2nd amendment and the discussions and writings from those involved at the time you may come to a different conclusion. yes they wanted an armed populous for defense but i dont believe the main issue was from within. some reading for you http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution#text another link. http//www.worldnetdaily.com//printer-friendly.asparticleid=55386 propaganda. the 2nd amendment says nothing about criminal elements and robbers. nothing at all. sandy fromans first reason goes poof she made it up. in her second reason she contradicts madisons own words. the founding fathers were fearful as to what a future national government might do domestically with a powerful military and therefore wanted our standing military to be small. - froman further she goes off on a tangent with that way if america was attacked by foreigners... let a regular army fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say that the state governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. the highest number to which according to the best computation a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. this proportion would not yield in the united states an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. to these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands officered by men chosen from among themselves fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. it may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. - madison madison specifically said let the federal army grow as large as it wants the combined state militias will still outnumber it. he specifically said that its doubtful that the state militia could ever be conquered by the federal troops. madison said nothing about america being attacked by foreigners nothing about wanting to keep the federal military small nothing about the state militias being our national security. sandy froman just made it up. her third reason which she curiously pushed to last while acknowledging that it was the single most important one is the only one that didnt spring from her own mind. as she said ... the second amendment was as an insurance policy against our own government. -- in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni .