1
2
3
4
billy3esq wrote:poopshovel wrote: Not sure which is funnier; the chick hitting herself in the face, or the guy's t-shirt. Classy.The bikini top with camo cargo pants is equally classy.
BTW, we need a "roll-eyes" smiley.
"put your toung back in your mouth"
I'de take either a 1911 or a FHN 5.7, course I would need a PS-90 to keep the 5.7 company, 
but a ruger MK III is on the top of my list
I dunno about those 5.7's. Unless you are plannig on shooting someone wearing armor, I think you're screwed with that round. Back to the "you're really going to piss them off if you shoot them with this and then they'll kill you while they die" kinda thing. Even the non-AP round will go through standard issue police body armor, from what I read somewhere. I think that for a cop to carry one of those is getting back to that Darwin thing, as most police that are shot are shot with their own weapons. So, if the chances are that you'll be shot with your own weapon, why are you carrying one that will go through your vest?
Anyway, I was watching PBS last night, as it's one of the three channels I get now that I dumped the $710/yr dish, and there was a politics show on. If I recall, there were two NY Times reporters and one NBC reporter (maybe one more) discussing politics. Talk about fair and balanced. One of the reporters was the SCOTUS media "expert" for 30 years, and she was lamenting that the SCOTUS just ignored 70 years of "precidence" in declaring that the 2nd ammendment means what it says. Just terrible and all the fault of those pesky conservatives. Why, 70 years ago they declared it was only for militias and now they went and changed it. Of course, she totally ignored that 70 years ago the case was a special trumped up one to validate an illegal law, where they got a criminal with a sawed off shotgun and ran the case up to the SCOTUS. He didn't even show up or have lawyers there to defend him. And the SCOTUS ruled that because the short barrel shotgun had "no military purpose" it could be banned. They also ignored the use of short barrel shotguns in WWI a few years prior. By that ruling, we should all be allowed full auto M4’s. It was all a farce, but the disarm the peon set twisted that ruling around to say the 2nd means that the state can form a militia and nothing else. This ruling turned that twisting upside down and declares that the 2nd means what it says.
(See above post) Duped somehow. Tim, how about a one post a minute limit so that dupes are trapped?
with all due respect the discussion of an increase or decrease in crime based on the decision is irrelevant to the point of whether the gummint (federal, state or local) can prohibit the ownership of "arms" among law-abiding people, regardless of the configuration of the arm itself, and particularly if it's appropriate to those arms used by the militia (see US v Miller 1939). They can't. Period. It's one of the big differences between the US and the rest of the world.
I agree, the closeness of the vote count was disturbing and the reasoning in the majority opinion was mushier than I'd like, but at least they came to the correct decision this time, unlike the previous decision.
Personally, one should look to countries where guns have been banned to see the effect on crime. AFAIK, gun violence has not stopped. Shocking.
IMHO, the core reason we MUST keep the Right to Keep and Bear arms is clearly illustrated in Africa right now, were Robert Mugabe has stayed in power....
Yes, a liberal who wants to protect all of our rights- shocking, eh?
Eric
SoloSonett wrote: DAng, Can ya find a chick with skinnyer arms? She needs to drive with the PS belt off for a while!LOL Just kiddin'
The best gun to have ? Is the one you know. Remember the old saw: Beware of the guy with only one gun.
And remember to have it with you... 24/7
Home on the nightstand won't help on the street
One thing that would suck worse than to have someone beat the crap out me and take my wallet, is to spend my whole life worrying about someone trying to beat me up and take my wallet that I'd have to shoot. If I were to have a gun on me I'd be thinking about it all the time. What a bummer.
My wife's uncle was killed in an elevator in the building he owned in downtown Manhattan a few years back. The guy did not ask for anything - just shot - he was on the run from an armed robbery down the street...
this was a good ruling - but I am ashamed it was only 5-4....
Just a side request: CWPKADTLTFLUTCK?
(Can We Please Keep Abbreviations Down To Less Than Five Letters Unless They're Commonly Known?)
2nd ammendment or not, the bottom line is that a fundamental law, established in over 200 years ago has been blatantly abused by other laws that contradict it. Lawmakers and government have twisted its interpretation to the extreme, and I'm a little happy that DC went too far and caused the powers that be to snap back. Gun ownership has become a privledge, not a right, and I feel that is in contradiction to the spirit of the 2nd ammendment.
Having said that, I don't care about the 2nd ammendment because it was written over 200 years ago. Gun ownership should be a right until you lose it. I have over 100 guns and I've never committed a crime with any of them. Give one criminal access to one gun and they might kill 5 people with it. But the fact remains, if you want to make anti-gun laws, you must first ammend the constitution to overturn the 2nd ammendment... if you plan on doing it legally, and as many of us know that's not something our government does very well.
We do it with cars. They kill more people than guns. We give people driver's licenses and let them have it and use it until they screw up. Then it gets taken away.
The Liberals have done a great job of making non-gun owners fear firearms more than hades, and the conservatives have done a great NRA job of seeming like gun whackos, especially with high profile republicans like Cheney and his "hunting accident". The truth is somewhere in between.
I'm a libertarian and I approve this message.
I was glad for the ruling but expected it anyway, especially after reading the briefs. Hopefully this ruling will keep the issue a little quieter/settled for a while. http://youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA
