[Skywalker]

Originally Posted by geomon

Skywalker...first of all: thank you for your service!!!

Your welcome!! It was my privilege to serve my country for 10 years!!

I suppose that your military training might come in handy if you carried a weapon but I would imagine most if it was designed for a battlefield environment tho I can appreciate your comment of shooting at a target vs shooting to take someone's life. A BIG difference.

While one might consider an assault on a city street to be something of a "battlefield environment".....but more important is the lack of emotion in the decision making process if one is in a battlefield like mode. The average person is not prepared to make decisions regarding life and death unemotionally. That inability to make a snap decision un-emotionally...is what gets people killed either with the bad guys gun, or the other persons when its taken away.

I most agree with your statement of not putting yourself in harms way to begin with!!! By doing that, your's or someone's life might have been saved by doing that.

I realize that it can be very difficult in this day and age...to keep yourself out of harms way, even if you don't drive a truck.....but situational awareness and staying aware of one's surroundings can really help a person stay healthy and safe.

I have no problem with guns, as I said before....but I won't carry one. Simply stated....I haven't ever felt the need for one.

[Senorjhawk]

Originally Posted by Ridge Runner

In GA. there was a bill ( and it was slated to pass ) that an employer could NOT ban an employee from bringing a gun on company porperty ( I think it said you had to keep it in the car??). ( Right to self protection ). The bill was to be voted on a day or two after the VA. Tech. shooting so they tabled it til later.

Here's some info on a fed bill that would require the states to respect other state's carry permits.

http://www.bigrigowner.com/artman2/p...Introduced.php

[coastie]

Wished I thought of this the other day when I was DOT. The truck I was driving had a sticker "Driver only carries $20.00 worth of Ammunition" on it. The DOT saw it and asked if I had a gun in the truck.

[WAVP375]

Originally Posted by thebaldeagle655

Greg, I knew someone would try to twist my words! You basically said exactly what I said, but I was being realistic. There are too many drivers out there that if they were allowed to carry a weapon WOULD wave it around, brag about it and pull it on grandpa when they pulled out in front of you! Problem with what you said is that if you were in "immediate danger of loosing your life" you probably are not going to have time to get your weapon.

I resent that you are using typecasting (listening to democrats) in your argument. I am using real life experiences as my reference! I have seen drivers wave a gun around bragging that they will use it if they are robbed, I have seen 1 driver KILLED after waving it around when a punk kid decided he needed a gun, broke into the cab of the truck with the co-driver of the gun waving idiot in the bunk. The kid grabbed the gun from under the seat where the first driver had placed it after waving it around, the co-driver stuck his head out and got killed. Sure, this was 25 years ago but there are still drivers like that on the road today.

Personal opinion, guns have no business in any vehicle, commercial or otherwise unless you are a law enforcement officer. Although you may not wave it around, there are too many nuts out there driving big trucks today that would wave it around and jeopardize themselves safety as well as everyone around!

I've known a lot of shooters personally. Out of this group there was only one who shot someone by accident. Previous to that, he also had reportedly pointed a pistol at another person just to show annoyance. This person also was the only shooter I have personally know who was or became a police officer.

Being police or military does not make someone either more safe or more emotionally stable than anyone else.

[terrylamar]

'91 to '94 I was in the Counter Drug Program with the Texas Army National Guard assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration office in Eagle Pass, TX.

We had DEA, Customs, TX DPS, Border Patrol, Sheriffs Department and local cops on the task force.

After seeing people get shot in the leg and mattresses get shot up in one incident after another and the way that some of them, especially the local cops handled firearms it got to the point whenever any of them would pull their weapons in the office I would get up and walk out.

It really reminded me of the DEA Agent telling a classroom of school kids he was the only one there trained enough to handle firearms then proceeded to shoot himself.

[headborg]

Originally Posted by kc0iv

That is a question that has been debated for years. The anti-gun people say you don't have a right. While the pro-gun people use the second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."

It all depends on which side of the fence you stand.

kc0iv

Well, actually....If you take it in proper "historical" context. Both parts are correct!
(1) The Second Amendment....In fact, the 1st-10th are known as the "Bill of Rights" and ALL apply to Individual Citizens . State controlled and "regulated" Militia's don't need a Bill of Rights. But the forefathers understood.....the United States were going to be a Federation of STATES and these STATES would need a "well regulated" Militia.

Point (2) In those days---Militia--were "citizen soldiers" also Know as "minute men" because they were ready in a minutes notice.....this can only be ---because they kept their Arms at HOME. Not like today, when they are kept down at the armory under lock and key.

Shall not be Infringed.....lookup the word infringe....I'd say that's suppose to exclude ANY laws preventing a citizen from Keeping or bearing said Arm.

Wake up America.....you're rights are being striped away....little by little.
And you wake up one day with a Progressive(Lib) telling you HOW/When to get out of bed in the morning....because YOU aren't able to THINK on your own....THEY will do it for you...for YOUR protection because they are the Intelectual Elite. And by that point, you'll be conditioned to believe it...
Why do I know this is What is to come!
Because my Bible tells me so........the Meek shall inherit the earth.

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by headborg

Well, actually....If you take it in proper "historical" context. Both parts are correct!
(1) The Second Amendment....In fact, the 1st-10th are known as the "Bill of Rights" and ALL apply to Individual Citizens . State controlled and "regulated" Militia's don't need a Bill of Rights. But the forefathers understood.....the United States were going to be a Federation of STATES and these STATES would need a "well regulated" Militia.

Point (2) In those days---Militia--were "citizen soldiers" also Know as "minute men" because they were ready in a minutes notice.....this can only be ---because they kept their Arms at HOME. Not like today, when they are kept down at the armory under lock and key.

Shall not be Infringed.....lookup the word infringe....I'd say that's suppose to exclude ANY laws preventing a citizen from Keeping or bearing said Arm.

Wake up America.....you're rights are being striped away....little by little.
And you wake up one day with a Progressive(Lib) telling you HOW/When to get out of bed in the morning....because YOU aren't able to THINK on your own....THEY will do it for you...for YOUR protection because they are the Intelectual Elite. And by that point, you'll be conditioned to believe it...
Why do I know this is What is to come!
Because my Bible tells me so........the Meek shall inherit the earth.

Again it depends how the second amendment is understood. If you read it as a "State (meaning collective right of the people)" right then the anti-gun people are right. If you read it as "individual (as in one person)" right then you are correct.

One of the major problems in understanding what the founding fathers were trying to say is there is very little about the subject outside this amendment.

As to "infringed." Did the founding fathers mean -- "Go against, as of rules and laws" or did they mean -- "Advance beyond the usual limit"? In either case it doesn't address if they referred to an collective right of the people or an individual.

It will be interesting in a few months to see if the Supreme Court sees it the same way you do.

I've seen some of the greatest legal minds discuss this subject.

The same case can be made for many of the amendments contained in the "bill of rights."

I won't go into the subject of the "the Meek shall inherit the earth." That is a totally different subject.

kc0iv

[Uturn2001]

Much of the debate over how to interpret the 2nd derives from one little comma.

In the original Bill of Rights there was a comma between a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms. In some of the reproductions the comma was omitted.

That little comma changes the entire meaning.

IMHO the comma is suppose to be there, and the founding fathers who insisted the matter the 2nd deals with be spelled out did so because the British had been attempting to partially disarm the colonists. If the empire had succeeded in taking away the firearms to the extent they had wanted to it is possible the American revolution may not have taken place.

[Creek Jackson]

Originally Posted by jnk2001

Yeah, there were some ppl like that in Montana a few years ago like that.
they even printed their own money..... :lol: :lol:

That would be the "Freeman", most of which are dead or in prison in Colorado and other Federal country clubs.

[headborg]

Originally Posted by Uturn2001

Much of the debate over how to interpret the 2nd derives from one little comma.

In the original Bill of Rights there was a comma between a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms. In some of the reproductions the comma was omitted.

That little comma changes the entire meaning.

IMHO the comma is suppose to be there, and the founding fathers who insisted the matter the 2nd deals with be spelled out did so because the British had been attempting to partially disarm the colonists. If the empire had succeeded in taking away the firearms to the extent they had wanted to it is possible the American revolution may not have taken place.

You're dead on right there.
(1) If you analysis the entire "bill of rights" amendments to the Law- you can clearly see that the other 9 all deal with individual freedoms....so it's completely stupid to think they happened to just by mistake insert #2 and were only meaning "state's rights" as opposed to individual rights.

You have to understand also that WE would not have a "bill of rights" if not for Thomas Paine & Patrick Henry "Give me Liberty or Death" being OPPOSED to the drafting of the Constitution without spelling out the specific RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS ......another way of looking at the "Bill or Rights" is to understand that It includes all the needed freedoms for a nations citizens to rise up and REVOLT against a oppressive tyrannical government. Here is the Text of Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or Death" speech.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death
March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means(GUNS) which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed(with GUNS) in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Notice also that this famous speech also is the basis for the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution- prohibiting the quartering of Soldiers(Guards) in Citizens Homes without their consent.