frontierman95

Sorry. Forgot we were d$&@ measuring our degrees on here. I will say this: I do have more than a few hours studying it. And if I'm not qualified to voice my viewpoint of what's best for the country on a message board than a community organizer is not qualified to make foreign policy & economic decisions for the entire country. Just trying, like everyone else on this board. To argue what my stance on the Constitution is. Just call this the modern day Jefferson vs Hamilton debate. And my view also is there is nothing to be gained from letting one person make such decisions no matter what animal they call themselves.

And why is that? Until the Supreme Court hears it, I see court decisions as regional viewpoints.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/17/on_guns_an_abuse_of_power_116710.html On Guns, an Abuse of Power By David Harsanyi - January 17, 2013 When Barack Obama implored Americans to "do the right thing" on gun restriction during a news conference this week, the "right thing" should have been obvious to everyone. Absolute moral authority -- it's the only way to go. If you fail to see the picture as clearly as the president, you may be an extremist or, more than likely, you're too feeble-minded to withstand the Jedi mind tricks employed by gun merchants or radio talk show hosts or the National Rifle Association or all those folks "ginning up fear" on the issue, according to a president who trots out 7-year-olds to shield him from debate. Now, the 23 executive orders President Barack Obama signed that are aimed at "reducing gun violence" could be considered, at worst, cynically political or, at best, completely useless. But the way Obama treats the process, children, the debate, the Constitution and the American people is another story. Sen. Rand Paul recently remarked that "someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress -- that's someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch." That may be a bit hyperbolic, but it is also a bit true. "There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America," lectured Obama, "who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection." (Or -- as it must have slipped the president's mind -- the right to put a gun in a case labeled "open in case of tyranny.") The president went on to profess that he believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. If this were true for Obama, who was once a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, why would he attempt to restrict a right that is explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights (even if it were eminently sensible) without putting it through the republican wringer -- the deliberation, the checks and balances, all of it? The president, who has often said he will work around Congress, also justifies his executive bender by telling us that Americans are clamoring for more limits on gun ownership. So what? These rights -- in what Piers Morgan might call that "little book" -- were written down to protect the citizenry from not only executive overreach but also vagaries of public opinion. Didn't Alexander Hamilton and James Madison warn us against the dangerous "passions" of the mob? It is amazing how many times this president uses majoritarian arguments to rationalize executive overreach. And really, speaking of ginning up fear: "If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," the president said, deploying perhaps the biggest platitude in the history of nannyism. Not a single one of the items Obama intends to implement -- legislative or executive -- would have stopped Adam Lanza's killing spree or, most likely, any of the others. Using fear and a tragedy to further ideological goals was by no means invented by Obama, but few people have used it with such skill. Now, when the Supreme Court solidified the right to an abortion via Roe v. Wade (now a constitutional right, unlike owning a gun in Chicago) and solidified the individual mandate found in Obamacare (now a constitutional right, unlike, say, the right of Catholics to be free of economic coercion), they became immovable legal precedents that may never be toyed with -- ever. Well, even if you believe in banning "assault" weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, doesn't the Bill of Rights deserve at least that much deference?

Federal Court, not the Supreme Court. Which, to me, means that a Fed court in Louisiana is going to rule different than one in Oregon so it only applies to those areas and not the whole country. If that is the case, then be prepared when you can only read certain newspapers (like the proposed idea of equal radio time between conservative and liberal shows) or you can only practice major denominations of religion. To me that is what makes a difference between a right and a law. Voting & driving are privileges that can be revoked. The rights granted in the Constitution supersede government and therefore can't be taken away. Just like unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone regardless of age, race, gender, or citizenship.

Can't take away guns.

So Anarchy? Anything written by legislators would thus be a flawed document as is the article you reference as is my response to that article. Unless you are a Jamie Foxx and believe that Obama is your lord and savior. And the Constitution does say government can't do this.

I'd say he has a very bright future in politics if the NFL doesn't work out......

Heard Abingdon Equipment had some.

Thanks for your help. I had watched all the videos and looked at the expansion test. I just wanted someone's personal opinion. It is for a 9mm. In my home invasion scenario, I don't think it is too much of a concern. I was more concerned in a parking lot scenario. I was leaning towards defense, but going with the heavier bullet. GMan: Ever have any problem with misfeeds?

I realize that, but in a defense situation (home or parking area) is the critical duty too much or the critical defense too little?

The same as everyone else's. (See Anthony Johnson).

Does anyone have any opinions on these?

The point is that in all the amendments dealing with rights (the first 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, etc.) dealing with rights is that you can't have your cake and eat it too sometimes. If you want freedom of speech, then you have to have freedom of speech. If you want freedom of religion, then you have to have freedom of religion. If you don't want quartering of troops, then you don't want quartering of troops. It really is as simple as what it sounds. The point is that when you let the government senor your rights it becomes a generational thing. My generation will not be allowed to own "assault weapons". My children's generation will not be allowed to own guns that hold more than 1 round. My grandchildren will not be allowed to own any guns. Study the history of slavery....the first Africans in this country (Jamestown era) were not slaves. Once the population outnumbered whites then rights started getting stripped until they entered involuntary servitude. Jefferson said "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms". This guy in CT used illegal guns. He shot his mom in the face and stole her guns. I am in agreement with the confusion over the .223 being a high power round.

Thanks. I hadn't been able to find anything that actually gave facts about which one was used.

I really don't believe the media on much of anything and was trying to find the full story on this.... They keep showing the Bushmaster picture as it is the feature gun. At first disclosure, didn't they think he left that in the car? How many people just see that and believe that it was used? *Side note: Went to Mahoney's in Abingdon today. Last time I was in there they had 25-30 ARs. Today they had 5. Also heard that Glock is waiting on some parts for their 9mm models which means they will not have any new ones until Feb 2013. Also heard one of the salesmen say that he thinks it will just become harder to get ARs (like a special application) and they will reduce the mags to 10. Anybody got any thoughts on that? Here something sad I thought of today: by the time the State of the Union comes (and that is the date that the new Congress will start roughly)how many people in this country will have almost all but forgotten about the events in CT? They will go back to watching the voice, pulling for their NFL team and looking at Facebook.