Posted on 10/21/2005 3:21:50 PM PDT by Ain Soph Aur
" The one surviving terrorist later claimed that his group was unaware of the extent of civilian firearm ownership and felt that it was unfair. "
Heh-heh. :) Obviously not the brightest bulb in the box.
"How would we pay for such a program? Simple: raise the taxes of those who either refuse to participate or are barred from ownership."
Liberals who insist sex ed prevents pregnancy will insist that gun safety classes promote shootings.
I think in the 18th century, the term "well-regulated" meant "properly equipped", not the modern meaning of regulation. It was also understood that the militia comprised all free male citizens capable of bearing arms. That would now be extended to all adults of either sex not convicted of a felony.
I have two .44 Desert Eagles (among others). Why? One for each hand.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Also, please see The Backside of American History
You'll love this 187 page .pdf (1.99 MB)
Rush Limbaugh says that (and I paraphrase), "if liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the same way they do the rest of the Bill of Rights, gun ownership would be mandatory."
I agree with him.
Just "1" firearm? Heck, I have 5 handguns, 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and 2 airguns. Do I get extra credit?
And yes, I was well trained, got the USMC "Expert" rifle badge to prove it!
FOTFLOL!
Someone please explain the difference between 'right' and 'obligation' to this jackass.
As much as I like seeing a student realize the importance of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, I see a little bit of big goverment conformity here. Should we all have the same "government issued" weapon? Should we all wear little plaid uniforms too?
Not quite, it meant "properly functioning". Even today, or at least a decade or three ago, clocks that kept good time were said to be "regulated". Shotguns and rifles that shoot where they are pointed are still said to be regulated as well.
That would now be extended to all adults of either sex not convicted of a felony.
Why limit it to those not convicted of a felony? Lots of things that were misdemeanors in the 18th century are felonies now. Plus lots of misdemeanors are in theory punishable by more than 1 year in prison or jail, but such sentences are rarely given. Nonetheless, those misdemeanors are felonies for purposes of denying one's RKBA. In days of yore, even real felons had their rights restored, once they had "paid their debt to society". Today I would do that after they had successfully served all their probationary time as well as their time actually incarcerated. After all, if you can't trust someone with a gun, why are you letting them out on the street. Those inclined to commit crimes with firearms will not be bothered by laws denying them the legal ability to obtain them.
While I can't claim direct knowledge, I do understand that a specified amount of ammunition must be present along with the rifle. It's not as if they can only have an unloaded weapon without any ammunition readily available. I'll try to find a link to the site where I read that.
Shortly after the second amendment was ratified, it was. Not only was ownership of a firearm mandatory, they told you, with fairly broad limits, what kind and of what caliber, you had to have. You could of course have others if you wished.
Terrible idea. I can think of dozens of reasons why this kind of blanket rule is undesirable.
If you know exactly how many firearms you have....you don't have enough.
I want a gun with a plaid stock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.