In article . com,
Bill wrote:
My argument is not about fear. I am not saying that I need a gun but
rather I need my rights to not be infringed, gun ownership being one
of them. If you want to talk about fear how about the fear of guns

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you that "right."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ml#amendmentii
Amendment II

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.

one more time to be dramatic: the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me.

It's clear when you leave off the first part... "a well regulated
militia" doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun unless
they're part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

I didn't say that at all. I didn't mention you or banning guns at
all. Can you read?

You've said it repeatedly. I'll let you look it up, since you wrote
it.

What facts? You have stated none but only your opinions. You have
shown no imperical evidence that stricter gun control laws will
prevent any crime only what you, a non-expert, think.

I am entitled to my opinions, and I believe that at a minimum we need
to enforce the laws that currently exist. Fact.. we don't. Fact... you
don't have any evidence, except what that you claim to consult to with
people who "know." Sorry, but that's not actually a fact.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

It's clear when you leave off the first part... "a well regulated
militia" doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun unless
they're part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

Where does it say that you have to be part of an active militia? A
militia does not mean military. One definition from wikioedia is:
The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state,
which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the
law, or to respond to a disaster.

I don't think that it needs to be limited to men only but a militia
can be called up at any time. The bill of rights don't say that you
have to be part of a militia to own a gun, that is just part of the
justification.

You've said it repeatedly. I'll let you look it up, since you wrote
it.

No actually the lines you were responding to were a quote from a
reporting that was talking about gun control. The words "ban" and
"Ganz" were never present.

I am entitled to my opinions, and I believe that at a minimum we need
to enforce the laws that currently exist. Fact.. we don't. Fact... you
don't have any evidence, except what that you claim to consult to with
people who "know." Sorry, but that's not actually a fact.

I have plenty of evidence as well as statements from legal
prfessionals. I also have historical precedence, but none of that
matters. You have your opinions and I can respect that but if you
feel it necessary to ban things to feel safer, then eventually you
will have to ban opinions because they are more dangerous than any
weapon out there.

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
It's clear when you leave off the first part... "a well regulated
militia" doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun unless
they're part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

Where does it say that you have to be part of an active militia? A
militia does not mean military. One definition from wikioedia is:

I never said it did and never said it was. It does need to be WELL
REGULATED, and that doesn't mean some guy who who keeps a handgun
under his pillow. Or, is that what you're claiming?

The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state,
which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the
law, or to respond to a disaster.

Well, so, my point exactly.

I don't think that it needs to be limited to men only but a militia
can be called up at any time. The bill of rights don't say that you
have to be part of a militia to own a gun, that is just part of the
justification.

You're off the deep end here... it specifically says a well regulated
militia. So, what's your point?

No actually the lines you were responding to were a quote from a
reporting that was talking about gun control. The words "ban" and
"Ganz" were never present.

You're said repeatedly that all liberals want to ban guns. I'm a
liberal, and I don't want to ban them. Thus, your statement is false.

I have plenty of evidence as well as statements from legal
prfessionals. I also have historical precedence, but none of that
matters. You have your opinions and I can respect that but if you
feel it necessary to ban things to feel safer, then eventually you
will have to ban opinions because they are more dangerous than any
weapon out there.

So far, we haven't seen anything except your claims to have the
facts.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Bill wrote:

I doubt you'll get it, but here is the definition of militia, courtesy
of Princeton.

"civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army"

Here's the Findlaw explanation for a "well-regulated" militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

Happy reading...

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Charlie Morgan wrote:
Hey! I'm to the left of you by a wide margin and I own a bunch of guns. That

I own several also. g

said, I think there are many types of guns that should be banned, and others
whose availability should be strictly controlled. Who really needs a cheap,
imported $100-200 "throw-away" semi-automatic pistol? All those are good for is
committing street crimes, shooting family members by mistake, and holding up
convenience stores. Who needs a semi-auto with a huge clip? Who needs a fully
automatic? Try and buy a bazooka and you'll find there is already plenty of
precedence for banning certain types of weapons.

Agreed. But, I think Bill was talking about hunting rifles and such.

We could start by banning all guns not made in the USA. That would keep American
manufacturers manufacturing here - an added benefit. I think most gun owners
would applaud that individually, although the nutty NRA would have a ****-fit
over it. It would also mean Saturday night specials would start to dry up.

I like it.

Personally, I have no problem with mandatory requirements that gun owners
(especially handgun owners) be screened, licensed, and insured. Owning a gun is
a right, but it's also a huge responsibilty. Hey, to get my carry permit, I had
to go through all sorts of red tape. Had to get letters of support from folks
like the chief of police, and make the case for why I should be allowed to carry
a concealed weapon.

Remind me not to **** you off. g

Despite the fact that I have guns and know how to use them, if I heard a prowler
inside my house, the first option is that my wife and I would go out a window
and call the police on our cell phones. We sure as hell would avoid confronting
them if at all possible. We would have a lot more to lose than they do. It's
something we've given plenty of thought.

Nah, just start blasting... g

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I never said it did and never said it was. It does need to
be WELL
REGULATED, and that doesn't mean some guy who who keeps a
handgun
under his pillow.

Now you want bed checks?

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...

Hey! I'm gayer than you by a wide margin and I own a bunch
of guns. That
said, I think there are many types of guns that should be
banned, and others
whose availability should be strictly controlled. Who
really needs a cheap,
imported $100-200 "throw-away" semi-automatic pistol? All
those are good for is
committing street crimes, shooting family members by
mistake, and holding up
convenience stores. Who needs a semi-auto with a huge
clip?

Someone who doesn't like to reload so often.


Who needs a fully
automatic?

Who really needs a sailboat?



Personally, I have no problem with mandatory requirements
that gun owners
(especially handgun owners) be screened, licensed, and
insured. Owning a gun is
a right, but it's also a huge responsibilty. Hey, to get
my carry permit, I had
to go through all sorts of red tape. Had to get letters of
support from folks
like the chief of police, and make the case for why I
should be allowed to carry
a concealed weapon.

When I wanted a permit to travel outside the state the
hurdles got even higher.
They won't just give you one for asking. I'm glad that's
the case, and I don't
feel it infringes on my rights one bit.


if they gave you a permit, that just goes to show how much
any type of gun control is flawed.

SV





Despite the fact that I have guns and know how to use
them, if I heard a prowler
inside my house, the first option is to hide under my wife
and
call the police .

Oh brother.

In article ,
Scotty Same.as.above@com wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I never said it did and never said it was. It does need to
be WELL
REGULATED, and that doesn't mean some guy who who keeps a
handgun
under his pillow.

Now you want bed checks?

I think that ship has sailed...

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com