Andrew,
By your logic only Brown Bess smoothbore muskets and Pennsylvania rifles would be legal. After all thats the weapons that our Militia used to repell the British. Since thats the only weaponry that was available at the time, no weapon invented since the 2nd was written would be legal. Makes absolutely as much sense as your assertions. The militia ARE the people, not any standing government entity.

Zindo

What the democrats don't understand is many people will not turn in there guns,
At the start of WW2 the night of DEC 7 1941 the government ask for civilian to help man the beaches in Hawaii.
About 10% of the civilians that showed up had banned full auto weapons.
but then again 30 of the volunteers were Japanese.

I started collecting guns 45 years ago and i still have about 10 guns that have no gov records on them.
That mean there is no government records that shows that i own them.
i have the receipts but the sales in those days were not required to be recorded.

I am not going to turn in any of my guns.
And the "records" free guns are stored where they can not be found.
They may get some guns from me but not all of them.

I also keep a couple of body-bags from my days as a firefighter.
why, don't be a burglar and have me get you.
I will just bag them up and bury them deep.

Saves the cops the paperwork and me the hassle.

If i don't have a gun i have two longbows.

I also have worked for 30 years as a mine blaster. and can roll my own powder.
I have lived in so many states that the government would have a very hard time finding the paperwork

I see it like this. Let him, or anyone be stupid enough to try to take the guns away from Americans, to try to take away more of our rights, see what it gets them in return.

You WILL NOT disarm me. I KNOW I'm not the only one who feels that way.
You want my semi-auto's? Come get em.


There are two types of criminals that are a danger to gun owning good citizens. There are criminals waiting on someone to take away your RIGHTS to defense, and there are criminals waiting to take away your RIGHTS to defense.

Originally posted by vor78
You just proved my point. Nations such as Finland and Switzerland have similar rates of firearm ownership as the US, but much lower violent crime rates.

Iam finnish so some comments on finnish sit.

For finland it is not about the amount, but the type of weapons you own. Finland has lots of huntingweapons. Long rifles and shotgun. those type of weapons are not big problem, because everybody sees you are packing such thing. Those weapons are hard to hide. police will take that away from you, if they see you carrying it in city or neigbourhood. you get to court about that matter.

The problem is pocketweapons as they are called here. smal easily hidden pistols or cutoff shotgun and smg's. For those we have we have very strick legaslation. getting pistol in finland is very hard (all thought one lunatic got one legally this spring, result school slaughter). only valid reason to own even big pistol is sportshooting, meaning you must be member of local shootingclub. Only place you are allowed to use that gun is weaponsrange. carrying a consealed and loaded weapon is a serious crime here.

allso local police decides about every gun licence given. person by person. if local police thinks you are not ok to get gun, you won't get one. This greatly reduces the number of weapons at lunatics hands, because local police knows not to give licence to mad persons.

about criminals getting guns. if normal citicens don't have guns, criminals can't steal them. it is that simple plus we have regulations, that require weapons to be stored in hardened gun safes. so house burglars won't get them. crimes with guns are very rare here, because suitable weapons are rare. Offcourse this does not go with US, because you have flooded your country with too many easily available handguns. Sorry for you.

plus criminals are more inteligent here. It is lot easier to rob a house, when residents are not there. Nobody is defending, when they are away. they might get a good look at you and tell that to police. allso armed robbery knows lots more jailing, if you get caught. if finnish robber notices that resident are home, he/she runs like hell. It is not worth risking getting busted.

Finnish murders are usually made with knife or some random blunt item. usually alcohol is involved and persons know each other. if gun is involved that usually means sniping with rifle or shotgun on stomach.

By the way, is it true that normal US police carry only pistol, would think that with your gun levels every police would need at least bulletproof vests and assault rifles and armored cars. At least thats what finnish police would ask for in such situation.

An amusing thread, I gotta tell ya. It never fails to amaze me when I behold the lack of understanding present in sheeple who toe the party line. So many things I'd like to comment on, so little space.
1. An "assault weapon" is, by definition, capable of selective fire (both full and semi auto). So called "assault weapon" bans have no effect on true assault weapons. Those are already covered by the National Firearms Act.
2. A semi auto ban will effectively disarm the populace, thus allowing the powers that be to do with us as they will. Just like criminals, no civil servant wants to get shot just for using you as he will.
3. Once they get those "evil black guns" out of the way, you can look forward to a ban on bolt action rifles of all descriptions. after all, the military uses such devices as sniper rifles, therefore the powers that be will want to disarm all those pesky civilian snipers out there too. A sniper rifle cannot be used to hunt, anymore than I can kill a deer with my AK. Those a WAR WEAPONS, and of course have no other capabilities. BTW, shotguns make excellent trench guns, so I'm sure they won't be allowed to stand either.
4. The construction of the 2nd amendment-- the initial phrase, " a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", is what is known as a "preamble", it is not the operative clause. it sets forth one justification, out of many, for the operative clause which follows, which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which is quite clear in its wording. In all other amendments, "the people" are understood by all to include all U.S. citizens, so why would this one amendment mean anything different, with the exact same word? Imagine if only politicians as a class were allowed to speak freely as guaranteed by the first amendment, and perhaps you'll understand the danger in singling out one class of American to apply the constitution to, making everyone else second class citizens, without rights. Yes, grammar is important. one should have an understanding of it before trying to teach it to others. as an aside, I go sleeveless quite often, thereby exercising my right to "bare arms". and while on the subject of Constitutional constructions, what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? A dictionary may help you there.
5. This very evening, in my home town, Obama called Palin a pig. hardly the behavior one would expect of a presidential aspirant. He also told the crowd the he was not going to take away their shotguns, their rifles, or their handguns. But sir, my ONLY rifle is an "assault weapon", as defined by the uninformed (semi-auto Romanian SAR-2). How am I to rectify that statement with his desire to ban "assault weapons" and Semi-automatic weapons? My answer is simple: when a man talks out of both sides of his face, I trust neither side. In reference to his first above mentioned comment, I assure you that although I am only a poor, ignorant hick hillbilly, I most certainly do not put lipstick on my pigs. That would be a waste of lipstick, and surely it would irritate both my wife and my pig.
6. I fail to understand why "gun violence" is singled out, as if it is so much more despicable than, say, "knife violence", ball bat violence", or even "claw hammer violence". Isn't the root problem violence, rather than the tool of choice in executing said violence? I was once told, long ago, that " a dangerous man is a dangerous man. Take away his gun, he will find a knife. Take away his knife, he will find a stick, or a rock. Some folks are just junkyard dog mean." I would think society should be interested in defending itself against such people, rather than inanimate objects, which after all have no power apart from the hand which animates them.

If you all can excuse me now, I feel a pressing need to go cling to my guns and my religion, out of my desperate bitterness.

Nenothtu