Sankey?s Letter in the gun law.....

[TUSK]

http://www.cdispatch.com/news/article.asp?aid=10141

The is the most common outcome and it happened here...in Mississippi...in Columbus...

No.



Oh, and No.....




And if I may add a bit... Shut your phuckin whore mouth....


No offense intended.

[BrunswickDawg]

Umm your ignorance continues to shine through.

You and most Americans don?t understand the thought processes surrounding our founding. Your posts corroborate this, but you aren?t in the monitory. That?s ok. You and most people are lazy. The fault I find is that you and others find it ok to comment on that which you know nothing. You comment as if you know what you speak of to be factually true.

In reality what you say isn?t. And you cannot understand where you went wrong. It?s ok and it?s called Bing. Try it out.

Your lack of an understanding of sarcasm shines through when you post your regular personal attack BS. This post wasn?t even directed at you. The framers of the constitution did not believe they were Moses being gifted a perfect document by God. The men writing the constitution had already failed at creating a national government. Obviously, they knew their works were not perfect. If they believed that, there would be no process to change said document. That?s why I make fun of strict constitutionalists. The constitution is purposefully designed as a living document. It?s actually ridiculous that it hasn?t changed more over the past 200+ years. Many of the states within our union have completely thrown out their state constitutions multiple times and started over as generational needs have dictated. Georgia has had 11, and enacted their newest one in 1982. Even Mississippi has had 4, but in true Mississippi fashion, is operating under one from 1890.

Go back to reading your Bill O?Reilly and Alec Jones ?history? books.

[AROB44]

For the strict constitutionalists....Have you ever considered that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapons in existence then? Maybe you should be restricted to muzzle loaders.

[msstate7]

For the strict constitutionalists....Have you ever considered that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapons in existence then? Maybe you should be restricted to muzzle loaders.

Cars were not in existence when the 4th amendment was passed. Guess it does not protect your vehicle.

[Bully13]

For the strict constitutionalists....Have you ever considered that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapons in existence then? Maybe you should be restricted to muzzle loaders.

there were also bombs, cannons , pistols & KY Long Rifles back then as well.

the bottom line is that the only guns that should be at a football game are those being carried by cops and other hired security folk. I realize alcohol is not sold at the games but we all know a huge amount of alcohol is consumed before and during games. alcohol and guns should not be mixed. leave your guns at home and go enjoy the game.

Our Athletic Dept can override this shit. MSU would win in court.

[AROB44]

there were also bombs, cannons , pistols & KY Long Rifles back then as well.

the bottom line is that the only guns that should be at a football game are those being carried by cops and other hired security folk. I realize alcohol is not sold at the games but we all know a huge amount of alcohol is consumed before and during games. alcohol and guns should not be mixed. leave your guns at home and go enjoy the game.

Our Athletic Dept can override this shit. MSU would win in court.

Agree 1000%

[AROB44]

Cars were not in existence when the 4th amendment was passed. Guess it does not protect your vehicle.

Touche'

[starkvegasdawg]

For the strict constitutionalists....Have you ever considered that the 2nd amendment applies to the weapons in existence then? Maybe you should be restricted to muzzle loaders.

If you can show me where it mentions muskets then I?ll agree with you. What they legalized were muskets which were the most advanced firearm in existence of the day. They were the AR-15 of the day.

[msbulldog]

I have not read many of these posts,because everybody has a opinion.
I believe in the 2nd amendment!
I own guns.
I do not see any logical reason to carry a gun to a athletic game.

[BrunswickDawg]

If you can show me where it mentions muskets then I?ll agree with you. What they legalized were muskets which were the most advanced firearm in existence of the day. They were the AR-15 of the day.

The difference is that muskets were essentially the only firearm available at the time. I know there were pistols, but they operated in essentially the same manner - muzzle load powder, wadding, and ball, prime and fire. There was no distinction between a weapon designed for hunting, or self protection, and what was used by militaries. As firearms have advanced, that distinction has changed, and for a time so did our laws.

[Bully13]

The difference is that muskets were essentially the only firearm available at the time. I know there were pistols, but they operated in essentially the same manner - muzzle load powder, wadding, and ball, prime and fire. There was no distinction between a weapon designed for hunting, or self protection, and what was used by militaries. As firearms have advanced, that distinction has changed, and for a time so did our laws.

so what law would you change or add? I think Vegas' point is valid.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well the second amendment clearly states that we are to have guns to form a well regulated militia to protect ourselves from the government. Not to own and carry fire arms wherever we feel like. Did any gun owners on here want to start a militia when the snowflakes were taking away our country?

[BrunswickDawg]

so what law would you change or add? I think Vegas' point is valid.

I think weapons like the AR15 are designed and created for military purposes and should need additional ownership requirements - more training, background checks, liability insurance, anti-theft measures, and restrictions on carrying in public. They are the weapon of choice in mass shootings, and they should be hard to get. I think handguns should have magazine capacity limits. If you can?t hit your target in 6 or 8 shots, you shouldn?t have a gun anyway - you are doing potentially more harm than good. I think allowing silencers is a very bad idea. Those are common sense ideas that don?t infringe on your rights to own. We also need to do more for the ATF and agencies charged with enforcing gun restrictions so they have the resources to make inroads on illegal and black market sales.

[Bully13]

Well the second amendment clearly states that we are to have guns to form a well regulated militia to protect ourselves from the government. Not to own and carry fire arms wherever we feel like. Did any gun owners on here want to start a militia when the snowflakes were taking away our country?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

AND THIS ONE IS ONE OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITES

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

[Dawg61]

My favorite part about the gun nuts is they refuse to change anything about the 2nd AMENDMENT where by definition the word amendment means to make change to something. It's a ****ing amendment dumbasses. That means in 230 years when guns have become much more lethal you make a ****ing change to the ****ing AMENDMENT.

a-mend-ment
əˈmen/mənt/Submit
noun
a minor change in a document.
a change or addition to a legal or statutory document.
"an amendment to existing bail laws"
an article added to the US Constitution.
noun: Amendment; plural noun: Amendments
"the First Amendment"

[TUSK]

I think weapons like the AR15 are designed and created for military purposes and should need additional ownership requirements - more training, background checks, liability insurance, anti-theft measures, and restrictions on carrying in public. They are the weapon of choice in mass shootings, and they should be hard to get. I think handguns should have magazine capacity limits. If you can?t hit your target in 6 or 8 shots, you shouldn?t have a gun anyway - you are doing potentially more harm than good. I think allowing silencers is a very bad idea. Those are common sense ideas that don?t infringe on your rights to own. We also need to do more for the ATF and agencies charged with enforcing gun restrictions so they have the resources to make inroads on illegal and black market sales.

Those are some ideas that require serious consideration, IMO...

However, while the AR-15 is a particularly lethal weapon, it gets a bad wrap re: its usage in "mass shootings", IMO...

[Bully13]

I think weapons like the AR15 are designed and created for military purposes and should need additional ownership requirements - more training, background checks, liability insurance, anti-theft measures, and restrictions on carrying in public. They are the weapon of choice in mass shootings, and they should be hard to get. I think handguns should have magazine capacity limits. If you can?t hit your target in 6 or 8 shots, you shouldn?t have a gun anyway - you are doing potentially more harm than good. I think allowing silencers is a very bad idea. Those are common sense ideas that don?t infringe on your rights to own. We also need to do more for the ATF and agencies charged with enforcing gun restrictions so they have the resources to make inroads on illegal and black market sales.

The only difference between an AR15 and any other semi-auto rifle is looks. it just LOOKS like a military weapon. that's why people find it appealing. you can discharge and reinsert a magazine in 2 seconds. the argument against limiting magazine capacity is if you are attacked by a gang. I should not be forced to take a training class before I buy a rifle or pistol. I should not be forced to buy insurance. anti theft measures? not sure what you're suggesting there. we already have restrictions on carrying in public. not sure why someone needs a silencer , agreed. agree about cracking down on the black market. those are the ones that murder many times more than legal guns.

[TUSK]

The only difference between an AR15 and any other semi-auto rifle is looks. it just LOOKS like a military weapon. that's why people find it appealing. you can discharge and reinsert a magazine in 2 seconds. the argument against limiting magazine capacity is if you are attacked by a gang. I should not be forced to take a training class before I buy a rifle or pistol. I should not be forced to buy insurance. anti theft measures? not sure what you're suggesting there. we already have restrictions on carrying in public. not sure why someone needs a silencer , agreed. agree about cracking down on the black market. those are the ones that murder many times more than legal guns.

It takes you 2 seconds to reload???

Work on it.*

[starkvegasdawg]

Well the second amendment clearly states that we are to have guns to form a well regulated militia to protect ourselves from the government. Not to own and carry fire arms wherever we feel like. Did any gun owners on here want to start a militia when the snowflakes were taking away our country?

The 2A says the right of the people. EVERY other instance in the Constitution when the word people was used it meant the entire civilian population. To insinuate that in this instance it means something less is dishonest at best.

[BrunswickDawg]

The only difference between an AR15 and any other semi-auto rifle is looks. it just LOOKS like a military weapon. that's why people find it appealing. you can discharge and reinsert a magazine in 2 seconds. the argument against limiting magazine capacity is if you are attacked by a gang. I should not be forced to take a training class before I buy a rifle or pistol. I should not be forced to buy insurance. anti theft measures? not sure what you're suggesting there. we already have restrictions on carrying in public. not sure why someone needs a silencer , agreed. agree about cracking down on the black market. those are the ones that murder many times more than legal guns.

Good points. AR15s may get a bad wrap, and may not be the best example, I?m sure there is a better one. As for training, at least in GA, you have to have a Hunter Safety Cetification Class before you can get a hunting license if you are under a certain age. If you require gun owner insurance, you could get $ off for safety classes like you can for Drivers Ed on your car insurance. Also, if you own weapons with higher fire capacity, I want you to be able to shoot - I don?t want some Numbnutts who can hit the broad side of a barn ?protecting? people in a live fire situation. He will injure or kill more than the bad guy. Maybe create a marksman qualification requirement? I?m also a believer in gun safes for general storage (I have no problem with a hand gun on your nightstand unless you have a toddler in the house). I think in general, most gun owners, already do most of the things that I mention