Guns

[natty bumppo 297]

nessa's always known i own guns and fortunately for me she's interesting in shooting too.

now if i can just get her interested in running a chain saw.

I sent her a picture a few years ago ... of me ... wearing 1880's clothing holding the rifle at a match in MT. She thinks it's "cute".

chainsaw ... think light .. sharp chain ... reliable ... comfortable fitting safety glasses ... double ear protection and good work gear.

then be ready to meet her inside for lunch

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

nessa's always known i own guns and fortunately for me she's interesting in shooting too.

now if i can just get her interested in running a chain saw.

I sent her a picture a few years ago ... of me ... wearing 1880's clothing holding the rifle at a match in MT. She thinks it's "cute".

chainsaw ... think light .. sharp chain ... reliable ... comfortable fitting safety glasses ... double ear protection and good work gear.

then be ready to meet her inside for lunch

for some reason, nessa always got a kick outta seeing me holding a rifle on webcam

i got a few trees to cut down around here, be nice if she could run the other 20" chainsaw

[natty bumppo 297]

i got a few trees to cut down around here, be nice if she could run the other 20" chainsaw

bar length can be a problem with balance point and handling for her. what about putting a 14" or 16" on the saw? I swap bars depending on the work to do and the shorter bar makes a difference.

[garya505 2]

Marine Corp's General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio concerning

guns and children.

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!

This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of

National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US

Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop

visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach

these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and

shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the

rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous

activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle

discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but

you're not one, are you?

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

i got a few trees to cut down around here, be nice if she could run the other 20" chainsaw

bar length can be a problem with balance point and handling for her. what about putting a 14" or 16" on the saw? I swap bars depending on the work to do and the shorter bar makes a difference.

actually the 20" isn't much heavier than the 18" i used to have. plus the length of the bar balances it pretty good. i went with 20" chain saws as they seem to cut faster plus i only need one size chain (used to be a real pain looking for a chain when i had a 14", 18" and 20"

[raymaga 25]

My husband owns guns, but I wouldn't chose to myself.

[KarenCee 3]

Some men, I feel, *are* exercising their rights under the constitution. Then there are some "men" who think it's manly to own a gun...or two...or ten and any man who doesn't own a gun, well...they're just not men. It's these men who scare me. I was married to one.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does this say people should be allowed to own guns for hunting? It says they should be allowed to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia (we call it the 'armed forces' these days) to defend this country. It doesn't protect the right to have guns to hunt and it doesn't protect the right to 'collect' weapons for show either.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does this say people should be allowed to own guns for hunting? It says they should be allowed to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia (we call it the 'armed forces' these days) to defend this country. It doesn't protect the right to have guns to hunt and it doesn't protect the right to 'collect' weapons for show either.

a militia and an army are two different things.

also, at the time the constitution was written, guns were used for hunting. without them quite a few would have starved.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

a militia and an army are two different things.

Sure, today. Today an army is seen as a professional fighting force while a militia is seen as a rag-tag bunch of nuts who like to play with guns. But that's not how you read a text that was written a long time ago. You read it by being aware of what the words meant back then. Who fought the Brits? The militia did. They were, in effect, the armed forces of a young American nation. They were the people who fought for and defended freedom. Extrapolating that to todays world, that duty falls to the armed forces. Who protects us from Fidel and the Chinese invasion? The military does.

also, at the time the constitution was written, guns were used for hunting. without them quite a few would have starved.

I realize people hunted to eat and still do. All I'm pointing out is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment (aren't literal interpretations of the Constitution what conservatives claim to like?) makes no mention of hunting. It gives the right to keep and bear arms to a 'well regulated' group of people who are tasked with defending freedom. Not tasked with hunting deer. In other words, hunters have no second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That they may have the right through other devices is another matter.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Gupt

[YuAndDan 153]

And my fiance from China has no problem with this, in fact looks forward to a little target practice. She was in the Chinese Army.

[mybackpages 0]

a militia and an army are two different things.

Sure, today. Today an army is seen as a professional fighting force while a militia is seen as a rag-tag bunch of nuts who like to play with guns. But that's not how you read a text that was written a long time ago. You read it by being aware of what the words meant back then. Who fought the Brits? The militia did. They were, in effect, the armed forces of a young American nation. They were the people who fought for and defended freedom. Extrapolating that to todays world, that duty falls to the armed forces. Who protects us from Fidel and the Chinese invasion? The military does.

also, at the time the constitution was written, guns were used for hunting. without them quite a few would have starved.

I realize people hunted to eat and still do. All I'm pointing out is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment (aren't literal interpretations of the Constitution what conservatives claim to like?) makes no mention of hunting. It gives the right to keep and bear arms to a 'well regulated' group of people who are tasked with defending freedom. Not tasked with hunting deer. In other words, hunters have no second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That they may have the right through other devices is another matter.

The second amendment was added t0 protect states from an overly powerful national government. The militia would be the modern equivilent of the national guard. To this day (which ever interpretation you believe) the second amendment only applies to the actions of the national government. It has never been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to state governments. Unless the state constitution contains a similar right, states can limit gun ownership as much as they lie and NEVER violate the 2nd amendment

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

a militia and an army are two different things.

Sure, today. Today an army is seen as a professional fighting force while a militia is seen as a rag-tag bunch of nuts who like to play with guns. But that's not how you read a text that was written a long time ago. You read it by being aware of what the words meant back then. Who fought the Brits? The militia did. They were, in effect, the armed forces of a young American nation. They were the people who fought for and defended freedom. Extrapolating that to todays world, that duty falls to the armed forces. Who protects us from Fidel and the Chinese invasion? The military does.

also, at the time the constitution was written, guns were used for hunting. without them quite a few would have starved.

I realize people hunted to eat and still do. All I'm pointing out is that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment (aren't literal interpretations of the Constitution what conservatives claim to like?) makes no mention of hunting. It gives the right to keep and bear arms to a 'well regulated' group of people who are tasked with defending freedom. Not tasked with hunting deer. In other words, hunters have no second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That they may have the right through other devices is another matter.

The second amendment was added t0 protect states from an overly powerful national government. The militia would be the modern equivilent of the national guard. To this day (which ever interpretation you believe) the second amendment only applies to the actions of the national government. It has never been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to state governments. Unless the state constitution contains a similar right, states can limit gun ownership as much as they lie and NEVER violate the 2nd amendment

and we know what states those are that limit gun ownership and how they traditionally vote

eta: Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.

Edited February 3, 2007 by charlesandnessa