I got a kick out of this

[Im Neero]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/beat-the-high-c.html

I put virtually no stock in polls of any sort, and even less in informal online polls.

That being said, I got a kick out of the results on this one, it looks like it has made it around to all of the gun forums. Click on Vote and look at the results yourself.

[waynesan]

[Im Neero]

Oops! That post might make more sense with a link, huh?

[Guest NELSON]

WOW!! I was suprised with the results, but the fact that it has been making its way around the forums can account for this. Lets just hope that the court thinks the same way.

[towerclimber37]

HOPE? Hope the court thinks the same way??

heh. Nelson, the day I let another man, who lives 1000 miles away from me, take responsibility for the safety and well being of my family...well.that day ain't written yet.

to be honest, I could care less what some paid political hack thinks about my firearm ownership. I will abide by reasonable laws, but taking away my ability to defend myself is decidedly NOT reasonable and I would go so far as to say antagonistic.

The articles of the constitution were written plainly so that simple men could understand them. Its when you get those finely tuned, keen minds to interpret it that you run into problems.

while I share your sentiment of hope, it is simply because I don't care to be labeled as a criminal when I've done no wrong. Better men than the ones on that bench created the rules that have successfully kept us a free nation for over 200 years. why? because they were driven not by money, or power or politics but by the sincere wish for freedom.

[Guest tjbert47]

HOPE? Hope the court thinks the same way??

heh. Nelson, the day I let another man, who lives 1000 miles away from me, take responsibility for the safety and well being of my family...well.that day ain't written yet.

to be honest, I could care less what some paid political hack thinks about my firearm ownership. I will abide by reasonable laws, but taking away my ability to defend myself is decidedly NOT reasonable and I would go so far as to say antagonistic.

The articles of the constitution were written plainly so that simple men could understand them. Its when you get those finely tuned, keen minds to interpret it that you run into problems.

while I share your sentiment of hope, it is simply because I don't care to be labeled as a criminal when I've done no wrong. Better men than the ones on that bench created the rules that have successfully kept us a free nation for over 200 years. why? because they were driven not by money, or power or politics but by the sincere wish for freedom.

well said Tower!!!

Tom in TN

[Guest Len]

I think its pretty clear that the 2A codifys an individual right, and I'm betting the majority of Americans would say it does as well. What concerns me is that I'm also betting that many Americans don't care what the 2A (or any other A or any part of the Constitution) says. Individuals have individual opinions (some well thought out, others not) on what is "right" or "just" or most compatibile with the way they want to live their lives. To many of these the argument "because the Consitution says so" holds as much water as "because the bible says so" does to the atheist.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it opens to door to further and further interference with our rights. At some point, everyone will reach a point where they say "enough is enough." Too bad the 2A is not that point for many people. The Constitution is designed to provide that line in the sand, but we have a sad history of stepping over it from time to time.

Point of the story: Constitutional arguments, however valid, don't do much to sway public opinion.

[molonlabetn]

If I may summarize, Len... basically, people don't care about things that they do not perceive affect them personally. The implication of this apparent social attitude is that most individuals do not 'own' their liberty.

Well put, btw.

[towerclimber37]

I see what you guys mean..I guess I SHOULD care what the judges think...but then again..they don't much care what we think until enough of us get together and hang them by their fat necks.

on one hand, we risk liberty until we get tired of being trod on and decide to take it back (providing we have that ability.) on the other hand, THEY risk life and limb on a suckers' bet that we'll be docile and allow them to make us slaves.

I realize that no society will endure forever. I know that one day the U.S. will cease to exist as a viable entity. I also know that a society that cannot regulate its own government through the implied use of force will go the way of the dodo.

Its a tightrope to walk for both parties.

I DO care what the ruling is...but only to the extent of "what is this going to cost me vs. what will it cost them to enforce another ridiculous law."

If it costs me my ability to care for the safety of my family, after all avenues of civilized debate and appeal are exhausted, then I will be forced to resort to a contest of arms, as will every other American that recognizes the real meaning of the 2nd amendment.

THAT will be like wrestling a gorilla...not looking forward to it..but I get the idea that as long as the anti gun folks aren't willing to compromise, that fight is coming.

[molonlabetn]

It's always a sad day when shooting for sport, training or recreation gives way to necessity, for whatever reason. But it is inevitable... indeed the cost and responsibility associated with liberty is understood by few, and upheld by far fewer.

[strickj]

towerclimber37;

THAT will be like wrestling a gorilla...not looking forward to it..but I get the idea that as long as the anti gun folks aren't willing to compromise, that fight is coming.

lets just remember who has the guns!!it's a one legged man ass kickin contest kinda thing if you ask me lol

[Guest NELSON]

I guess what I was trying to say that this decision will pave the way for future firearms restriction. If the court rules that it is not an individual right, it opens the door for more state to enforce such laws. I do believe that if the court rules that it is not an ondividual right, we will see some big changes depending on the election in 2008.

I also agree that it will take alot to remove the right of firearms ownership from the people. I could see this turning into another civil war and I will be there with you with the "cold dead fingers" philosophy. I hope we do not see that day but like it has been said. The changes are slowly taking place. What it will turn into, I have no idea.

[towerclimber37]

thats true...they've been SLOWLY eroded.

many organizations have stopped or reversed this erosion, like the nra, much to the insane rage of those who don't want firearms in the hands of people..like dianne feinsteine, sarah brady and others.

this got a big leap forward when gangsters used the thompson automatic, and the bar automatic to commit lawlessness.

instead of outfitting the police departments with the same manner of weapons, adding more men and the average citizens banding together to kill this scum, the government said "we'll take care of it" and they passed laws to limit our rights and then gave that power to themselves..."all in the name of public good" they said.

now we have the BATF and other jackbooted thugs who kill folks and invade our homes under the pretense of 'justice'.

anyone who takes exception to this statement will have to explain to me what happened to Elian Gonzales and why this young man had his right to sanctuary in the U.S. rendered nugatory.

[Mike.357]

Elian Gonzales and why this young man had his right to sanctuary in the U.S. rendered nugatory.

While I do not agree with how the Fed's handled this case I do believe Elian belonged with his remaining living parent. The relatives in little Havana were using the boy as much as Fidel hoped too. They had a house paid for by a Cuban anti Castro group, they were given jobs and a ton of notoriety. What should have been done was to bring the father to Miami and then let him decide where he would rather be. The entire incident was abotu polotics, I doubt any of them really gave two craps about that 5 year old, especially Janet Reno.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[towerclimber37]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

While I do not agree with how the Fed's handled this case I do believe Elian belonged with his remaining living parent. The relatives in little Havana were using the boy as much as Fidel hoped too. They had a house paid for by a Cuban anti Castro group, they were given jobs and a ton of notoriety. What should have been done was to bring the father to Miami and then let him decide where he would rather be. The entire incident was abotu polotics, I doubt any of them really gave two craps about that 5 year old, especially Janet Reno.

I believe that the kid wanted to see his dad..but if she wanted that kid exported she had only to order the US immigrations agency to take custody of the child. they said they wouldn't do it unless ordered to do so. The child was happy with the aunt and uncle...though he missed his dad.

When she argued that he was only 5 and the INS pointed out that there is no age limitation for someone requesting asylum she got mad with em. that was her response...she's mad at another government agency so she has atf storm the house and point an MP at the childs head while having their picture taken. Yah. ..this is what happens when you give the government power over the people.

As far as I know, from what I've read, the folks who had the child in their custody said that if or when they were ordered to give the child up, they would comply. they followed the letter of the established laws.

Janet Reno made the laws fit what she wanted to believe...by making "interpretations" of the law, and then exercising these "interpretations" as soon as she'd made them.

[Im Neero]

anyone who takes exception to this statement will have to explain to me what happened to Elian Gonzales and why this young man had his right to sanctuary in the U.S. rendered nugatory.

:confused:What does the delicious filling in a 3 Musketeers bar have to do with the BATF?

[Guest Len]

Yep, a good summary. I like your use of the word "ownership" here. Maybe that feeling of ownership -of responsibility- is missing in many?

If I may summarize, Len... basically, people don't care about things that they do not perceive affect them personally. The implication of this apparent social attitude is that most individuals do not 'own' their liberty.

Well put, btw.

[towerclimber37]

:confused:What does the delicious filling in a 3 Musketeers bar have to do with the BATF?

LOL! Nugatory is not nougat.

nu·ga·to·ry /ˈnugəˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri, ˈnyu-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo-guh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee, nyoo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">of no real value; trifling; worthless. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">of no force or effect; ineffective; futile; vain. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">not valid.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Len..perhaps thats' the reason many politicians on BOTH sides have gotten away with so much. people don't feel that they are their own masters anymore..therefore they feel little or no responsibility for the maintenance of their liberties.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Why is this country so messed up sometimes?

So the Feds will kick down a door to abduct a 5 year old boy who arguably had right to asylum, but its "racist" to kick down the door and deport an illegal alien with multiple DUI's?

[Guest Boomhower]

illegal alien

Illegal is a little harsh isn't it .....I would much rather us recongize them as undocumented .....Wouldn't you

[strickj]

nope,not me