Multiple Shootings at Seattle House

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, to begin with,
the successful Revolutionaries who created government in America,
after the Hanoverian Dynasty was removed from control,
explicitly put control of guns beyond the reach of government,
so that the citizens cud keep government in line.
They knew that more revolutions might be necessary,
and they desired the citizens to win such encounters;
that wud be impossible if they were helpless.

Secondly, it was obvious to them
that the citizens needed guns
as defensive emergency equipment
from the depredations of criminals or animals,
remember: when the Bill of Rights was enacted in the 1700s,
there were no police anywhere in America, nor in England.
Everyone had to take care of himself.

Indeed, in Colonial America,
in the spirit of today 's madatory seatbelt laws,
it was against the law to go to church in an unarmed condition.
The clergymen checked their congregations.
( Apparently, they 'd lost too many Christians, on the way to church. )

You probably don't know that we're writing the year 2006.
Here, we shoot good Christians only verbally.

Its better to have it and not need it,
than to need it and not have it.

That is not necessarily so.

The gun which Sirhan Sirhan used to shoot Bobby Kennedy in California had been legally purchased by a law-abiding citizen who had acquired a permit in the legal manner. It was stolen during the Watts rioting, and sold on the street repeatedly until Sirhan Sirhan acquired it.

In Canada, handgun violence is rising dramatically, usually in association with street gang violence. The RCMP has determined from their investigation that organized criminal gangs use the internet to identify owners of gun collections, who are targeted for burglary.

Those guns in a collection which are rare or antique are fenced in the normal manner of stolen goods--those which are handguns of a sufficiently common calibre to make the purchase (or theft) of ammunition easy are sold on the street, exactly in the same manner as the handgun Sirhan Sirhan used.

The IInd Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in full:

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.

That amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to keep handguns.

It does not guarantee the right to keep as many damned guns of any description which i want to have.

The first clause of that amendment refers to a well regulated militia,

and there is nothing in the Constitution to the prejudice of the right of State legislatures or the Congress to regulate firearms.

The only rational purpose of a hand gun is to shoot another human being.

About the only reasonable dispute to that would be target shooting,
for which it is not necessary that the potential target shooter keep a handgun at home.

The IInd Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in full:

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.

That amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to keep handguns. It does not guarantee the right to keep as many damned guns of any description which i want to have.

The first clause of that amendment refers to a well regulated militia, and
there is nothing in the Constitution
to the prejudice of the right of State legislatures or the Congress to regulate firearms.

OmSigDAVID, please provide me with your address
so i can be sure to never buy a house next to you

Sorry but nobody needs six handguns
and three hundred rounds of amunition in their car.

No weapon is more dangerous
to a proposition than the jawbone of an ass.

ez to read

OmSigDAVID, you are the prime example why private citizens
should NOT be allowed to carry fire arms.