What the United States Supreme Court Says

[tessa]

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact. The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

Full article here

[butterflySlave4u]

I own one...it was obtained legally, and is licensed...

by law, i am required to qualify for accuracy at a local police department gun range yearly...i have since, in addition, obtained a CCW (Citizens Concealed Weapons license) that allows me to carry it on my person at all times for my personal protection. I can't run down to the local bank and legally stop a bank robbery in progress (unless the gun is leveled directly at me, in front of witnesses) but i can use it within the confines of my legally defined home, to defend myself or my loved ones against armed intruders....

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

[Mr.FixIt]

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

...or the local pawn shop! But it's still my decision.

[MMI]

i am a card carrying member of the NRA, and like Charlton Heston once said "You can relieve me of my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"....

I missed that until MrFixit pointed it out.

All I can say is, be careful what you wish for, butterfly

[denuseri]

Me too butterfly me too,, i am a responsible law abiding gun owner,, i inherited three guns from my father and have a pistol for personal protection just in case, heck my whole famiely knows how to keep and bear firearms we couldnt imajine nor stand our government stripping away our common right to defend ourselves if need be.

Nothing keeps criminals from getting guns illegally, so long as badguys have them then we citizens should be able to protect oursleves, especially since the police force is more about deterence and retribution than protection.

"Fear the government that fears your guns"

[tessa]

I don't own a gun. Don't know if I want to. Conflicted feelings on this for me.

What doesn't cause conflict is the way a gun feels in my hands, the way it almost pulses with life as you pull the trigger, the way you hold on tight after the shot, very aware of the power you have at your fingertips.

Maybe the above lends itself to my conflicted attitude about it all. Still, I can't find it in myself to wish for the disallowing of gun ownership.

One of the few topics I can't seem to level within myself.

[Thorne]

Nothing keeps criminals from getting guns illegally, so long as badguys have them then we citizens should be able to protect oursleves, especially since the police force is more about deterence and retribution than protection.

Actually, you can pretty much drop the deterrence part of that statement. In most cases, there is precious little the police can (or will) do prior to the actual commission of a crime. And in far too many instances there seems to be evidence that even during the commission of a crime they will wait until after the criminals have left, then make a show of "investigating" the crime.

For sure, I wouldn't want to put my life on the line as the police do, especially for the pitiful pay they generally make. And in many of the cases there are judicial bars to them actually doing anything constructive before the crime. And now it's gotten to the point where, when they do catch a criminal, they have to treat him or her with kid gloves or risk a lawsuit and horrific publicity.

It's just not worth it! People had better be prepared to defend themselves and their own.

[DowntownAmber]

Gun toting subbie here, with all the proper permits papers and accoutrement.

That being said, I firmly believe it should be effin' DIFFICULT to obtain a gun and to keep it. You need to pass tests to drive, same thing for guns. You drive without a liscense or you hurt someone with a vehicle, you lose the priveledge and there are penalties. With guns, doubly so. Holding a firearm of any sort is hold the power to take someone's life in the blink of an eye and there should be the utmost of respect for that.

[butterflySlave4u]

said with humor, but it makes a whole lot of sense...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

[_ID_]

I am conflicted about gun laws. I personally feel that if you want a gun in your home, it should be something with a barrel longer than 8 inches, not be automatic, and that you must have proven your ability to use it by someone licened to say you have. Guns have the same potential to kill as an automobile. Use it wrong it will cause great harm. Use it well, and it will serve you well.

[Virulent]

I am conflicted about gun laws.

I'm not sure I see any conflicts. You actually seem to have a very clearly articulated position on gun laws... though I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind some of them...

Why >8 inch barrels? And when you say "a gun in your home...", do you mean that one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun around in public?

Honestly though, I think the "not be automatic" part is pretty well taken care of. Not that an automatic weapon is one iota more effective of a killing device than a semiautomatic one...

[_ID_]

I'm not sure I see any conflicts. You actually seem to have a very clearly articulated position on gun laws... though I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind some of them...

Thanks, I don't always state clearly what I mean. I'm conflicted because I also see the enjoyment of sport shooting and competitive shooting with the guns I would choose to have removed.

Why >8 inch barrels? And when you say "a gun in your home...", do you mean that one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun around in public?

I think pistols don't have a use in the personal protection department. To get truly accurate aim (for the average person) the longer the barrel, the more accurate you will be. So having a pistol doesn't pass the logic test to me. I actually don't mind if someone has a gun in public, and a large rifle would look just dam silly carrying it around wally world, whereas a pistol is convenient, as well as can be concealed. Concealment of a weapon doesn't help you be protected, it just gives you a jump on the person trying to harm you.

Honestly though, I think the "not be automatic" part is pretty well taken care of. Not that an automatic weapon is one iota more effective of a killing device than a semiautomatic one...

People get automatic weapons for sport shooting, and shooting wildlife. I don't see the point in either with an automatic weapon in either of those situations as being functional. To me they are simply the for the sole purpose of spooging all over the gun range.

When I mentioned the part about someone saying you are qualified to use a gun. I mean that they themselves have met a minimum standard as well. Say expert shot on a target 50 yards down range with whatever classification of weapon you chose to be qualified in, to include zero safety incidents within a 5 year time frame. Something similar to the way we license people to drive cars now (though on second thought, perhaps it should be more stringent as we have some real ass-hats on the road today).

To the other posts ranting about the idiocy of the verdict I think I will just over look them, as they are based on anything but fact, reality or rational thinking.

[fetishdj]

I think the problem here is an inherent one in a written constitution which, like written scripture, ends up being seen as immutable. It is a fact that the reason why the firearms clause is in the constitution is now obsolete becasue:

a) America has a standing army not a citizen's militia which is perfectly capable of defending its own shores and can recruit as needed.
b) I am not aware of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth having any current plans to reinvade her lost colonies in the Americas. If she does let me know of any such plans, I would be sure to let you know

However, precedent is the lifeblood of the law and I think there has been a mass of precedent supporting the interpretation of that written law to be any citizen may bear arms regardless of the circumstances.

Maybe you should look to the model in Switzerland where there is no standing army (apart from the Swiss Guard who don't count as they are in the Vatican) and every male between a certain age range is expected to bear arms and train as a soldier in case of invasion but generally keep their guns in the house until needed during war.

The trouble with the right to bear arms is that criminals can also bear arms. The trouble with gun regulation is that criminals are rarely known for their respect for the law and so ignore it. This leads to an arms race between police/honest citizens and the criminals where the criminals get bigger guns so the police have to get bigger guns and so the criminals get bigger guns and ad infinitum.

This is a tricky loop to get out of as once you have allowed guns you can rarely manage to ban them again - especially when so many consider it part of their constitutional rights. Once Pandora's box is opened it cannot be closed.

An interesting piece of trivia. For many centuries, nobles and gentlemen of England were not only permitted to bear arms but were actually required to do so. A gentleman of the 17th century could not be seen without a blade in public and there were many fashions around that requirement (hence all the various decorative rapiers on display in many museums). It was (I think) Robert Peel (home secretary during part of the Victorian period, founder of the metropolitan police and source of the name Bobbies and Peelers) who brought in legislation to ban weapons. In Leeds Armouries (a museum of weapons and warcraft in Leeds) there was an exhibition on Victorian weapons and there were an awful lot of 'secret weapons' used after the ban was in place - swordsticks originated in this time, there were a lot of small knives and coshes for the lower classes and, the wierdest exhibit, an umbrella gun. A working shotgun hidden inside the shaft of an umbrella. All of these were made because certain criminals needed secret weapons and certain gentlemen bridled at the loss of their right to bear arms.

[Virulent]

I think the problem here is an inherent one in a written constitution which, like written scripture, ends up being seen as immutable.

The 2nd amendment is an amendment. I don't know how you can claim that the Constitution is treated as scripture; it has been amended dozens of times, as little as 16 years ago.

b) I am not aware of the Monarch of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth having any current plans to reinvade her lost colonies in the Americas.

Are you making a joke, or do you actually believe that the implicit right to revolution in American law exclusively refers to revolution against the United Kingdom?

The trouble with the right to bear arms is that criminals can also bear arms.

Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?

...the criminals get bigger guns so the police have to get bigger guns and so the criminals get bigger guns and ad infinitum.

Guns don't work that way; small-caliber low-quality guns kill far more people than large-caliber high-quality ones. One of the most hilarious examples is the recent onerous restrictions against owning .50 caliber rifles; weapons that have never been used in civilian conflict.

"criminalize guns and only criminals will have them"

To get truly accurate aim (for the average person) the longer the barrel, the more accurate you will be. So having a pistol doesn't pass the logic test to me.

In the United States, the average distance at which a firefight occurs is 7 feet, according to the FBI. Range and accuracy are functionally irrelevant in civilian situations. What is important is that your weapon have great stopping power, that you be comfortable enough with it that you don't panic, and most importantly, it must be comfortable to carry... if you don't have it with you at all times, it is proportionately less useful.

Concealment of a weapon doesn't help you be protected, it just gives you a jump on the person trying to harm you.

Whats wrong with that?

Why, if denuseri is right, and you have the government you all want, are you so scared of it?

I don't know, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Thatcher's U.K.

I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

[Thorne]

I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

I have to agree with you here. Government, of any kind, is a necessary evil. And despite what many would have us believe, loving one's country does not, necessarily, require one to love those in charge of the government of that country. Or even to trust them. They are, after all, politicians: inherently untrustworthy!

[Warbaby1943]

I have to agree with you here. Government, of any kind, is a necessary evil. And despite what many would have us believe, loving one's country does not, necessarily, require one to love those in charge of the government of that country. Or even to trust them. They are, after all, politicians: inherently untrustworthy!

God is that a well worded and accurate statement.

[fetishdj]

The 2nd amendment is an amendment. I don't know how you can claim that the Constitution is treated as scripture; it has been amended dozens of times, as little as 16 years ago.

And yet there are several amendments which are considered to be immutable by the majority. The right to bear arms is one of them.

Are you making a joke, or do you actually believe that the implicit right to revolution in American law exclusively refers to revolution against the United Kingdom?

I am making a joke.

Wait; the problem with making gun ownership legal is people who don't care about legality?

No, the problem with making guns illegal is that criminals do not care about the law. The same goes for any registration system - there are always loopholes whereby someone who is determined enough can acquire a firearm, or drugs or anything they want. Though applied effectively any restriction should make things harder for the criminals to do this, just not impossible.

Guns don't work that way; small-caliber low-quality guns kill far more people than large-caliber high-quality ones. One of the most hilarious examples is the recent onerous restrictions against owning .50 caliber rifles; weapons that have never been used in civilian conflict.

Any gun will kill someone, no matter what the calibre. However, automatic weapons will kill more people far quicker. Sniper rifles will kill them at a greater range more accurately, targetting equipment improves (better scopes, more accurate rifling), stopping distances, rate of fire and risk of misfire improve and so on. The basic nature of a firearm has been unchanged for centuries (right back to matchlocks) but the basic model has been extensively refined over the years and is still being refined. Therefore there is always scope for improvements and this leads to an arms race between the police and the criminals.

In the United States, the average distance at which a firefight occurs is 7 feet, according to the FBI. Range and accuracy are functionally irrelevant in civilian situations. What is important is that your weapon have great stopping power, that you be comfortable enough with it that you don't panic, and most importantly, it must be comfortable to carry... if you don't have it with you at all times, it is proportionately less useful.

And as far as I am aware, most people keep their guns in their houses locked away (as regulations on gun use state) for safety and only carry them when they intend to use them.

I generally oppose government and law, period. I have no interest in supporting restrictions of any sort. War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

In a true democracy you should be able to affect government policy on a significant level. However, I do not beleive there is anything in existence in this world today that can be called a true democracy. They all have inherent bias in the system for one group or another. Political apathy is a sign of this - voting levels fall because the electorate do not beleive that they can have an influence, that one vote makes a difference.

My personal belief is that the role of defending the populace is the job of the police force and the army. I am all for guns being allowed for sporting and hunting activities (though not sure about the use of automatic weaponry for this, where is the sport?) and even as a hobby or for professional use (farmers, for example) but I do not see the benefit in an individual owning a gun purely for home defense. I just see a greater risk of accident. Yep, sure, many are disciplined and trained enough to handle one correctly but how many out there are not? All it takes is one person, who may be fully licensed and registered, to go out there and shoot up a shopping mall because they had a nervous breakdown and couldn't take the pressure of modern life or because the pixies told them to do it. Its happened numerous times and many innocent non-criminal people died as a result. With a knife if you go 'postal' you might get one or two people before everyone gets the hell out of your range and calls the police. With a rifle you can kill many people very quickly before anyone even knows you are doing it and the police have a hell of a time stopping you because you can hole up somewhere secure and shoot anyone who tries to get close - at least until you run out of ammo and by then hundreds could be dead.

However, I also know that Pandora's box is open. It would be better if guns never existed (then we may be having this conversation about trebuchets or crossbows ). It would be better if nuclear weapons never existed. Hell, it would be better if human beings had descended from the nice, quiet monkeys who didn't get their kicks out of clubbing other monkeys to death with rocks and eating their children. However, if we had chances are we wouldn't be sitting here now. We'd still be in the wild wondering why those other monkeys are so mean to us. Yes, evolution has a dark side... To win the evolution game you have to be a complete and utter vicious bastard. Hence guns exist because we are still those monkeys at heart.

I am not convinced that now guns have been made legal in the US that it would be easy or even necessarily a good idea to ban them again. Some of the posts here demonstrate the strength of public resistance, for example. However, what I do think is needed is more education. Crime rates need to be tackled at the root rather than the stem. Kill one criminal and there are hundreds to take their place, take away the reason for committing crime and there is no need for criminals. Ok, maybe a nice idea of utopia and probably not 100% possible but a worthy goal nontheless. Education is also need around the guns themselves - education on use, risks and so on to minimse accidental deaths (which I know are already done but maybe they need to be improved?)

No solution would be perfect but there must be a good compromise out there somewhere...

[stripedangel]

"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."

One must remember that the people were the militia back then, too. Everybody was involved, not just those who "signed up."

Master and i have had and will have guns again. Master and i believe in this right. Sure, regulate it, monitor it, make people wait three days to buy a gun, whatever...

Criminals can go and get guns on the streets, under the radar. They have their militia, in a sense...which makes me, law abiding, gun-toting citizen a part of a militia too...and our shores are protected by the folks in uniform who are spread around the globe, rather than being here to do said protecting.

i gotta say this...i'm too small to fire a rifle or shotgun. The fly right out of my hands and hit the dirt..the deathgrip i have on these guns means nothing, and this creates a danger to anyone who is nearby. i can fire a lil .22 pistol just fine. It woulod do me absolutely no good to have a rifle or shotgun, i must have something with a short barrel.

Train us up and license us and make sure that we are all able to clean, keep, and handle with respect, our very own firearms. Teach us to respect the power and danger that we wield when we hold a gun, but don't make us unable to protect ourselves when the police put us on hold.

...and as Chris Rock says, charge $5000 for each bullet.

[Warbaby1943]

I'm glad the Supreme Court finally got off their asses and got something right for a change.

[MMI]

The Supreme Court has simply interpreted the Consitution and stated what the law is. That's its job.

That doesn't alter the fact that the law is wrong, and sets USA back 300 years or so. It now falls to politicians to protect their people from the assinine notion that universal gun possession will rid the country of crime, or will provide protection to the law-abiding citizen, or will enable them to muster arms against the English.

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

A lost opportunity, I call it. No, not lost, spurned.

[Warbaby1943]

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

Tell that to those countries who have tried your suggestions. Try convincing them that you are right and the statistics kept since guns were outlawed are incorrect.

That is bullshit rhetoric and I'm, glad most people see through it.

[butterflySlave4u]

The Supreme Court has simply interpreted the Consitution and stated what the law is. That's its job.

That doesn't alter the fact that the law is wrong, and sets USA back 300 years or so. It now falls to politicians to protect their people from the assinine notion that universal gun possession will rid the country of crime, or will provide protection to the law-abiding citizen, or will enable them to muster arms against the English.

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

A lost opportunity, I call it. No, not lost, spurned.

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

[Warbaby1943]

Oh.....WHERE to begin here.....

A, Number One, and First...i AM a law abiding, gun licensed holding, citizen of the US...i'm not sure where you are from, as you've chosen to hide your Location...

B, "Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you."

can you?? can you REALLY?? sorry, i'll take my chances....i want my odds to be 'even up' with the moron that climbs in my window with a rifle at 3am...

and C, "universal gun possession" was NOT what the ruling said...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting", was what it said....those weapons have to be registered...

not sure what point you're trying to make...but i'll defend to the death, your right to make it...would you do the same for me?

Somewhere in this forum itself are posts that absolutely disprove the statement about crime rates and murder rates going down. If I'm not mistaken, and I have been before, I believe it was Australia where the crime skyrocketed after guns were outlawed. I also think England has very similar problems and many law abiding citizens there want their guns back.

I'm with you butterfly though I'm not sure I'd defend his/her, since I don't know which, right if it involved my death over this issue since he/she thinks guns are not vital to our well being as a free society.

[stripedangel]

Somewhere in this forum itself are posts that absolutely disprove the statement about crime rates and murder rates going down. If I'm not mistaken, and I have been before, I believe it was Australia where the crime skyrocketed after guns were outlawed. I also think England has very similar problems and many law abiding citizens there want their guns back.

I'm with you butterfly though I'm not sure I'd defend his/her, since I don't know which, right if it involved my death over this issue since he/she thinks guns are not vital to our well being as a free society.

Yep, and when you take away the right of the people to defend themselves, you give the criminal the freedom to commit whatever crime he wants, because they cannot take all of the guns off the streets without committing other acts that infringe on our rights. Nope, don't think so.

That whole line is a crock, about crime rates going down, and jeez, especially now when i can go on ebay and buy items directly from Hong Kong, or hell, for that matter, i can build a gun if i want one...or will my right to look at a blueprint (pattern, diagram, dunno what that would be called lol) for a gun become a crime too?

This matter is simply out of line altogether. If the people of the US actually wanted a gun ban, we would have figured out how to amend the Constitution in order to make it so. Some states have been allowing gay marriage...i know if that can be done, and the majority of Americans wanted it done, guns would be banned too. 300 years? OK i'm old fashioned anyway. Guns are traditional, if nothing else, and i like tradition. Guns are how this country was formed. i like knowing that i have the right to own one.

[Ragoczy]

Get rid of guns, and the murder rate WILL fall, I promise you. Let guns be freely available to anyone who wants them - including, now, convicted killers and lunatics, and more people will be murdered, and more people will die through accidental shootings.

Factually incorrect. Restrictive gun laws increase the crime and murder rates.

When Florida instituted concealed weapons permits, violent crime in the State went down. This trend has been the case in every State that's instituted carry permits since.

Statistics that indicate you're X-times more likely to be killed by your own gun in your home are cooked -- the only way the math works is if incidents where a gun owner injured a criminal or the criminal fled are ignored and only incidents of death are counted.

When Florida's carry permits went into effect, Dade County began a separate database to track criminal incidents involving individuals with carry permits. Seven years later they terminated the project ... the database had three entries.

[denuseri]

also in the United States, it is implied several times by many of the founding fathers that we the people need and must have the wherewithall and means of changing our government as need be with or by force if nessesary,

our right to own guns is also our right to protect ourselves from tha macications of tyranny in any form including both those foriegn and domestic

a bad guy can get a gun from anywhere in the world,,under the table etc

take away our right to defend ourselves with guns and you place us on the mercy of the criminals and or at the wellfare of the "state"

as far as the usa being invaded by brittian,,LMAO
as far as the consitution no longer being aplicable,, we have ammended it a few times as needed

as far as taking our guns away,,you might as well take our freedom away with it

i say give me freedom or give me death, call me old fashioned lol

thanku for letting me rant,, adjusts my shooting glassess and goes back to blowing holes in paper targets with my pistolas

[rora]

I am also a legal gun toting citizen.

Gun control is using both hands.

Ok, I am out of here. Off to ask my hubby if we can practice today.

[MMI]

Like I said - set back 300 years

[Ozme52]

Like I said - set back 300 years

You mean 1708? Nothing like a little hyperbole.

You probably think that it was a bad idea that the English yeomenry owned longbows too.

------------------------
(more)

Now that I've read more of this thread... it's too much like religion. One believes what one believes and no arguments will sway one from their beliefs.

So my parting comment is that I believe heartily in gun control... because you can't hit what you're aiming at unless you can control your weapon.

[MMI]

Reposted below