2nd Amendment

escarzamd

...abides.
Forum Member
Dec 26, 2003
1,266
1
0
57
5ft, pin high......
Lots of gunplay today......

Baton Rouge........2 La Tech students dead

Missouri........5 victims at city hall

Wed here in Rockford.........60yr old attorney shot in his driveway shoveling snow........shot in the back in drive-by in one of the nice neighborhoods in town.....

Recent Tinley Park mall rampage......


Amazing how we take all this for granted:shrug:

Just because its in the Bill of Rights........

Nobody talks about Va Tech anymore........

Sorry to all you hunters.......but the 2nd Amendment is just as big an anachronism as a VCR...

Good for business is about the only useful thing I have to say about it.......

Rant over.:SIB
 

shamrock

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 12, 2001
8,430
454
83
Boston, MA
Good point, good for business like you said. Turn your television on at dinner hour, legal drug pushing good business also.:shrug:
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,812
272
83
54
BG, KY, USA
so true, and u don't even need a gun to kill all of those babies either... :rolleyes:

check out threads from this forum from years past for some stats from gun control countries. It doesn't work.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
Lawmakers urge high court to side with gun owners

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Congress on Friday urged the Supreme Court to side with gun owners in an upcoming case testing whether an individual has a guaranteed right to bear arms.

The bipartisan group of senators and representatives signed on to a legal brief supporting a challenge by District of Columbia residents to own a handgun for protection in their home.

The justices hold oral arguments March 18, and could provide a landmark ruling on a legal question that has largely gone answered since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

In their "amicus" brief, 55 senators and 250 representatives urged the high court to strike down the district's ordinance that prevents citizens from legally owning a handgun.

"We're talking about law-abiding folks -- like you and me -- who cannot exercise their rights simply because of the city they live in," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana. "Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others. They didn't mean for the laws to apply at some times and not others."

Tester made his remarks in a conservative think-tank speech, along with a co-sponsor, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Sixty-eight Democrats in the House and nine in the Senate were joined a larger Republican bloc filing the brief.

The case is the most closely watched this Supreme Court term, and legal and political experts say it has already ignited a fierce social debate this election year.

The issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or is it a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- and therefore subject to strict government regulation?

The amendment states, "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."

District leaders had urged the high court to intervene, saying refusal to do so could prove dire.

A group of 18 Democratic members of the House last month filed their own amicus brief, supporting the district. Led by Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pennsylvania, the lawmakers said the proper venue for deciding gun-control measures is in Congress, not the courts.

"Whether the regulation or prohibition of a particular weapon implicates the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia,' over which Congress has responsibility, is precisely the kind of question best left to the political branches to resolve," they said.

A federal appeals court in March ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional, as well as a provision that rifles and shotguns -- which are legal to own in the district -- be kept in the home unloaded, and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled. The rifle regulations are not currently at issue before the Supreme Court.

The district's 31-year-old law has prevented most private citizens from owning and keeping handguns in their homes.

Chicago and and Washington are the only major U.S. cities that have such sweeping handgun bans. Courts have generally upheld bans of semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns in other cities.

Several district residents first challenged the law, some saying they wanted to do something about being constant victims of crime.

Key plaintiff Shelly Parker told CNN recently she wanted the right to have a handgun for peace of mind, and act as a responsible gun owner.

"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said "So, I would just like the comfort of knowing at least that I could have a gun if I feel I need one."

Groups that filed supporting briefs include the National Rifle Association and Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense.

Groups supporting the district include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
 

escarzamd

...abides.
Forum Member
Dec 26, 2003
1,266
1
0
57
5ft, pin high......
Good point, good for business like you said. Turn your television on at dinner hour, legal drug pushing good business also.:shrug:


Wow......thats a bit of a reach. I'm not a pharmaceutical rep, shamrock........I'll let it go, but jeez.....

Have to turn the other cheek on the "baby killer" inference......I threw the gas on that fire.

I suppose it might be better and easier if we all just armed ourselves.......imagine that Kirkwood City Hall if the nutjob pulled out his gun and saw 20 pointing back at him. I'm getting a good, old school Colt .45........go big or go home, I always say.
 

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,812
272
83
54
BG, KY, USA
I'm getting a good, old school Colt .45........go big or go home, I always say.

you got that straight!! Heaven forbid u ever have to shoot anybody, but if so, u want it to be a killing shot.

79 year old former Green Beret court-martialed by friends...

BREVARD, Jan. 19, 2008 - Retired Army Green Beret James T. (Smokey) Taylor got his court martial this weekend and came away feeling pretty good about it. Taylor, at age 79, is one of the oldest members of Chapter XXXIII (The Larry Thorne Chapter) of the Special Forces Association.He was placed on trial by fellow Chapter XXXIII members under the charge of ?failing to use a weapon of sufficient caliber? in the shooting of an intruder at his home in Knoxville , TN , in November.

The court martial, of course, was very much tongue in cheek. The event itself was deadly serious. Taylor had been awakened in the early morning hours of November 5, 2007,when an intruder broke into his home. He investigated the noises with one of his many weapons in hand. ?It was just after Halloween, on Monday morning at 4:30,? Taylor said. I heard this commotion at the door and grabbed my fishing gun, a little .22 revolver, to see what was going on. I got to the front door and this fellow had ripped my security door out of its frame. He said, ?you?re going to have to kill me. I?m coming in.??

When a warning to leave went unheeded, Taylor brought his .22 caliber pistol to bear and shot him right between the eyes. ?I was about four feet away from him when I shot,? Taylor said. ?Looking back now, I?m glad he didn?t die, but that boy had the hardest head I?ve ever seen. The bullet bounced right off.? The impact knocked the would-be thief down momentarily. He crawled out of the house then got up and ran down the street. Taylor dialed 911 and Knoxville police apprehended the wounded man about 200 yards away, hiding in a hedgerow.

Complicating the case, as well as the court martial, the offender was released on bail but failed to appear for his court date. Knoxville police said the man was homeless. They did not know his whereabouts or why he had been given bail. The charges brought against Taylor by his fellow Green Berets were considered to be serious. He is a retired Special Forces Weapons Sergeant with extensive combat experience during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. ?Charges were brought against him under the premise that he should have saved the county and taxpayers the expense of a trial,? said Chapter XXXIII President Bill Long of Asheville , NC.

The trial was held at the Hampton Inn in Brevard, part of the group?s regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. Long appointed a judge, Bert Bates, a defense counsel, Jim Hash, and a prosecutor, Charlie Ponds. All are retired Special Forces non-commissioned officers with extensive combat and weapons experience. Ponds outlined the case against Taylor , emphasizing that the citizens of Knox County were going to be burdened with significant costs to again apprehend, and then prosecute and defend the would-be burglar.

?Proper choice of a larger caliber gun would have spared the citizens this financial burden,? Ponds said, ?while removing one bad guy from the streets for good. He could have used a .45 or .38. The .22 just wasn?t big enough to get the job done. Hash disagreed. He said Taylor had done the right thing in choosing to arm himself with a 22. ?If he?d used a .45 or something like that the round would have gone right through the perp, the wall, the neighbor?s wall and possibly injured some innocent child asleep in its bed. I believe the evidence shows that Smokey Taylor exercised excellent judgment in his choice of weapons. He clearly remains to this day an excellent weapons man.?

Hash then floated a theory as to why the bullet bounced off the perp?s forehead. ?He was victimized by old ammunition,? he said, ?just as he was in Korea and again in Vietnam , when his units were issued ammo left over from World War II.? Taylor said nothing in his own defense, choosing instead to allow his peers to debate the matter. The jury, consisting of all the members of the Chapter, discussed the merits of choosing a larger caliber weapon as well as the obvious benefits to society of permanently deleting the intruder so he would never again threaten any private citizen. The other side of the coin, that of accidentally causing injury to a completely innocent citizen if a more powerful gun had been used, also gained considerable support.

Following testimony from both sides, Judge Bates determined the charges should be dismissed. The decision was met with a round of applause. In fact, there was strong sentiment expressed that Taylor should receive an award for not only choosing wisely in picking up the 22, but for the accuracy of his aim under difficult and dangerous conditions. After the trial Taylor said the ammunition was indeed old and added the new information that the perp had soiled his pants as he crawled out the door. ?I would have had an even worse mess to clean up if it had gone through his forehead,? Taylor said. ?It was good for both of us that it didn?t.? Meanwhile, back in Knox County , the word is out: Don?t go messing with Smokey Taylor. He just bought a whole bunch of fresh ammo.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top