That was almost funny.

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Heh. How about the Right To Arm Bears? Because, let's face it, only complete pansy wussbags shoot stuff that can't shoot back, then call it a sport.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

If one understands English, there is only one way to read it. There are a number of alternate meanings which have been advanced, but they make no sense when taken in context.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

That sounds funny until you realize the mere pain of being shot will not prevent a half-ton of VERY angry animal from charging you and making you into human pate in very short order.

Do not think for a second that a lack of firearms means a wild animal is unarmed.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I don't get it. If that's the case, why did they add the part about a militia?

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

That's right. (And, I'd pay to see it! )

Absolutely! And only wussies don't let the animal compete!

Shooting a deer with a gun doesn't impress me. All this modern BS and scopes and high velocity rounds...Candy-asses!

Get the jump on a deer, run it down, wrestle it to the ground, and break its neck. NOW it's a fair competition!

Maybe,I'd let 'em use a spear. Good enough for Australopithicenes, good enough for us. Real men don't need to hide behind guns.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Eh - i dont see it as hiding behind them. I see it as using our primary tool (our brain) to ensure a positive outcome.

I know you're trying to be funny, but a lot of people really do think like that.

BTW - I don't hunt, and about 80% of the gun owners in the US don't either.

It isn't about hunting...at least not about hunting animals. The cold hard fact is, the 2nd Amendment is in there to insure the American people can go politician hunting when needed.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Sure. But that's hardly sporting, of course.

Only partially.

As humorous as it might be to contemplate, it comes from knowing hunters who rig the game in their favor so heavily they can't possibly lose, and then congratulate themselves like they just invented cold fusion.

It's a good way to make my point about how absurd the whole concept of hunting really is.

My father in law does, and I love giving him crap about it.

And I do make a definite distinction between handguns and rifles, to be honest.

Er...yeah. Good luck with that. Just let me know when the big revolution comes, so I get a good seat.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

Why do you imply that I am advocating revolution? I never said anything of the sort.

There are times when Rule .308 may need to be applied on a smaller scale and times when the mere threat of its invocation carries more weight than actually doing it.

Currently, the implied threat that gun owners may decide they've had just about enough of the bullshit in Washington has kept Congress from imposing a functional ban on firearms (a la DC). Who's to say in the future, Congress may not need a few rather permanent term limits imposed upon certain members if they overstep their bounds?

Remember, one need not destroy an enemy to win the war. One only need destroy his will to fight.

Do NOT believe for one moment that I am advocating or encouraging such behavior. My point simply is that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment in order to ensure the people can respond with force when need be.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I was in DC on Tuesday, but not able to hear the arguments live. I did catch them later on C-SPAN, though. IMO, the SCOTUS will rule that the 2nd is an individual right 5 - 4 or 6 - 3. The wild card is Ginsburg, IMO. Kennedy will side with the true Conservatives and Souter will, once again, be out in left field with Stevens and Breyer.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Well I'm sorry but those arguements don't stand up too well to cold, hard facts. Like how the murder rate in Arlington, Virginia, just across the pond from DC, is less than half of Washington's, and yet handguns can be legally purchased and liscenced to carry in Virginia.

The adage might be old but it's still true: outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns.

__________________


Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

The more the state 'plans' the more difficult planning becomes for the individual. - F.A. Hayek

-The Ludwig von Mises Institute
-Ron Paul 2008
-The Constitution of the United States of America
-I am the NRA

Just saying that the arguments have pretty much already been made, and more eloquently than I can make them.

Works for me. Then we'll know exactly who the criminals are.

You don't put on a condom unless you intend to screw, and you don't buy a gun unless you intend to kill. I do not allow them into my house, for they constitute a clear and present danger, and anyone that paranoid as to carry guns around I would deem inherently unstable and dangerous.

The basis for my opinions ihas nothing to do with crime prevention, or statistics or whatever. It has more to do (for me) with the sort of society we've built.

Guns are only a very small part of the problem, really. But, our fearless leaders don't seem very interested in dealing with ROOT causes of crime: poverty, inequity, etc. Not only are those things far more difficult to deal with, there's usually a conservative faction that demands a halt to any sort of progress towards dealing with them. Until society gets serious about that, it is what it is, and I can only consider the crime rates as acceptable to society.

In short, the pro-gun arguments break down to "me-me-me, mine-mine-mine" self absorption, and that's simply a philosophy I do not share.

__________________
"My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right." - Ashleigh Brilliant(?)
(Voting for None Of The Above, so far...)

So you claim, yet your own argument is precisely that.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

@ Skerlnik

I don't hunt. I don't want to hunt. But I do know that the hunters enjoy what they do as a past time. It is a sport. Calling them names for participating in a sport is non-productive.

I don't see the point of playing golf, either. In fact, when I had to play it (for business reasons...quite some time ago), I didn't enjoy it too much (except for the conversations). But if I do call golf fans names, I could get them pretty riled up. Why would I want to do that (unless for friendly ribbing)?

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Then you’re making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. It didn’t work with prohibition, and it isn’t working with drugs. Why should the government take on something else that they’re bound to fail at miserably?

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos