Replies

Your honesty about firearms is commendable. I think you sell yourself short. Part of marksmanship is kinda "Zen". Therefore, knowing ones self is a big step. As for the rest of your post, I concur. Firearms are a right protected by the Constitution. Until the 2nd. is repealed, I will avail myself of this right. When the 2nd. is repealed, I will become an activist to repeal the Bill of Rights entirely. Starting with the 1st.

I think you sell yourself short. Part of marksmanship is kinda "Zen". Therefore, knowing ones self is a big step.

Well, I don't think myself a hopeless cause. If I were to seek gun ownership, however, I would first make sure that I knew how to keep my temper in check AND I would attend gun safety and marksmanship courses.

Firearms are a right protected by the Constitution. Until the 2nd. is repealed, I will avail myself of this right.

I've been meaning to ask someone about this. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to keep and bear arms', but 'arms' is not defined. I certainly don't buy into the liberal bull about 'arms' referring only to flintlock pistols and muskets, but I am curious as to whether there is a large consensus on the limitations of 'arms'. Certainly I wouldn't expect many here to attempt justification of an individual's right to keep and bear nuclear arms, but what of military-grade munitions? I don't mean to start a fight, as I'm not about to argue with any answers to the question, but I'm curious as to what kind of 'arms' most people think are protected under the 2nd?