Ed Brown Special Forces
Browning Buckmark 5.5 Target
870 Classic Trap (customized like the bitch it is)

These are the three guns I might start off by selling. I'm getting on ebay to buy a Hillary Clinton T Shirt and I'm moving to San Francisco (or possibly New York City).

...

Ok would you believe I want a Ducati Monster 696 and need to pay off previous two wheeled stuff first?

I keep saying I'm going to sell this stuff but when it comes down to it I never put them up for sale. Besides the Buckmark (which I never take shooting because I always want my more interesting guns) everytime I get the other two out for photos I oooh and aahhhh over them and then promptly change my mind.

:)

I really wasn't in the mood for another chorus of "Kum-Bai-Ya" around the Jiffy-Pop........

$1850 for just the gun, one eb magazine and the soft case. Then I have five Wilson ETM 8rds for it, a 10rd Chip McCormick, an 8rd chip, an another 7rd eb and a CompTac CTAC. $2100 for all of it.

But I probably wouldn't sell it. When I pick it up I feel like a man. Then I put it away, hop on my 125cc scooter and run to blockbuster to rent Baby Momma.

I don't know where you live, but out West we have lots of Democrats that love shooting sports and hunting.

I've never had a Rep. friend freak about me bringing a gun into their house, but I've had two Dems make me disassemble it if I wasn't going to take it back out to my car and leave it.
Funny, one found out that her father used to be Secret Service (before she was born) when he stood up for me, and that he had several guns of his own - in the house in which she grew up(GASP!!!). Great guy then, still is.

The 2nd ammendment is very clear. The gubment can't take yur guns because its important for a free state.

That's all it is. Thanks to that the government can't keep me from having an expensive handgun, sporting shotguns, AK47s and the like. But notice how it can still keep me from having a fully automatic weapon, a nuclear warhead, anthrax, or apparently a .22LR bolt action rifle with a 12" barrel.

All these people dissing democrats for trying to take ur guns but only because you don't see the real issue at hand that the feds have taken away the only true weapons you could actually use to keep a free state. If the military can use it you should be able to too... but that's not how it works is it?

Which is why I say the 2nd ammendment is bull****. How can I secure a free state without an Abrams? I can't. Arms doesn't mean guns. Even the republicans have screwed us.

When the founding fathers spoke of taking up arms against the federal government, they did not envision that to mean that you were fighting a large federal army.

They believed that having standing armies in times of peace was to be avoided at all costs. A federal government with a standing army to do their bidding can easily suppress any rebellion, if the army agrees to follow the orders of the government.

The question is, if the government is perceived to be corrupt, and tells the military to fight/kill/suppress the population, how much of the military will comply, and how much will join a rebellion?

Anyway, my point was that the military is not the government.

As a side note, the (federal) government is not keeping you from owning a fully automatic weapon, they have just taxed and regulated it. If your state government is keeping you from owning one, then fight it or move.

And there certiainly are laws saying I can't have nuclear weapons, armed apache helicopters and the like.

Infringing on my rights to have bare arms is simply a matter of doing ANYTHING preventing me from protecting the free state.

My gully here is that republicans go around spouting off the 2nd amendment like its a right to own handguns in DC. When in reality its much bigger than that. To distil it down to such a blatently unconstitutional issue like that and then claim triumphant victory afterwards just pisses me off as much as the assault weapons ban of the clinton ages.

There can't be limits. There cannot be compromises. There cannot be laws preventing a citizen from owning arms. Be it a a hunting rifle or a Metal Gear system mounted in your garage. Otherwise the 2nd amendment is moot and should be repealed so we're not living in some half-ass "maybe we'll follow the constitution" country.

If you really want to harp on the constitution start with the first words and head down the list, clean up the stuff in our country that contradicts it blatently first. The fact that our first two amendments to the constitution are so wildly ignored when its convenient are a terrible crime against its citizens.

Rant? Yes. But the point is the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or self defense.

were not mentioned in my post.

But since you brought it up, I will point out that the state constitutions that were written more or less around the same time period did in some cases mention hunting and self-defense as justification for the right to bear arms in those states.

Delaware's (the 1st state) Constitution says:

<i>A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.</i>

Pennsylvania's (the 2nd state) Constitution says:

<i>The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.</i>

I think it's clear what the states had in mind. I think the federal government took the shortcut of simply enumerating the right without providing a laundry list of acceptable uses of the right.

unlike both the D's and the R's

You are unusually pissy. Or perhaps this is usual and I just never noticed before.

and that makes me very pissy