PA Gov. Rendell Wants Tough Gun Laws in Response to Cop Killings

[steelwall]

A few months back someone or some people tried to break into my dads home. Thing is they managed to get into the back door but that leads to the laundry room and there is another exterior door there to get into the house. My dad was sleeping in his chair at the time and never woke up. For some reason they did not try to break into the house.


This was at night time mind you, they would have to have known someone was home. The next day my dad found the sight from a gun on the back porch (apparently they used the gun to pry open the storm door) They went through all his vehicles outside and stole some things from the garage.

Had they have gotten in the house with my dad only feet away this story could have had a different ending.

I'm just saying.... law abiding citizens may turn in their "assult" weapons but criminals never will. Where does that leave us...the ones who obey the law?

I say take all the time and money being spent on legeslation and put it into better equiping our police force.

[MACH1]

Originally Posted by cubanstogie

I have a five year old daughter and am hesitant to have a gun in the house. I have always thought there is a greater chance of an accident with her and her friends or cousins than me using it on a burglar. Lately I am starting to second guess my decision and am seriously ready to get a pistol.

If you decide to get one, you could always get one of those little handgun safes to keep it in. Might not help you much if you need to get to it in a hurry, but it will keep it out of little hands.

[steelreserve]

Originally Posted by steelwall

The next day my dad found the sight from a gun on the back porch (apparently they used the gun to pry open the storm door)

See? Just further evidence that assault weapons have a variety of uses, not only for killing.

Ever hear about that time where a guy was out hiking in the woods and his arm got pinned underneath a boulder during a rockslide, and he finally freed himself by using his assault rifle as a lever to lift the boulder off? Neither did I, because I just made that story up right now. But you can see how important guns can be as a tool, whether it's life-or-death situations or in everyday living.

[tony hipchest]

yeak, like in joe dirt, when the drunk dad got his foot stuck in the train tracks and sent the dog for help. but with an oncoming train and the dog deciding to stop and get laid, he freed himself by blowing off his knee with the shotgun?

that stuff happens every day.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by steelreserve

See? Just further evidence that assault weapons have a variety of uses, not only for killing.

Ever hear about that time where a guy was out hiking in the woods and his arm got pinned underneath a boulder during a rockslide, and he finally freed himself by using his assault rifle as a lever to lift the boulder off? Neither did I, because I just made that story up right now. But you can see how important guns can be as a tool, whether it's life-or-death situations or in everyday living.

HAHAHAHA

[Vincent]

Gun ownership is clearly addressed in the 2nd Amendment. "Abridge" is the key word...

a⋅bridge

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Easy translation - congress has nothing legitimate to say about arms of any kind. The 2nd Amendment says we can own ANY form of arms and that any form of arms legislation is unconstitutional. Further, it charges us with the responsibility to bear arms. And its purpose is quite clear.

The Fathers correctly framed that right as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Armed citizens are the balance to the gubmint. Armed citizens are free citizens. That is precisely why politicians prefer unarmed citizens. In my view, any proponent of arms control should be stripped of their office and prosecuted for sedition because what they are doing is attempting to disrupt the order established by the Founders.

Registering one's sporting equipment is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by Vincent

Gun ownership is clearly addressed in the 2nd Amendment. "Abridge" is the key word...

a⋅bridge

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Easy translation - congress has nothing legitimate to say about arms of any kind. The 2nd Amendment says we can own ANY form of arms and that any form of arms legislation is unconstitutional. Further, it charges us with the responsibility to bear arms. And its purpose is quite clear.

The Fathers correctly framed that right as "being necessary to the security of a free State". Armed citizens are the balance to the gubmint. Armed citizens are free citizens. That is precisely why politicians prefer unarmed citizens. In my view, any proponent of arms control should be stripped of their office and prosecuted for sedition because what they are doing is attempting to disrupt the order established by the Founders.

Registering one's sporting equipment is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional.

So does a nuclear weapon constitute arms by your constitutional definition? If so, are you ok with your neighbor working on a nuclear based "arm?" Just curious.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by SteelersinCA

So does a nuclear weapon constitute arms by your constitutional definition? If so, are you ok with your neighbor working on a nuclear based "arm?" Just curious.

I'm older but wasn't involved in writing the Constitution. So I am instructed by the simple words the Framers wrote, and their clear intent. While I am comfortable with me owning nuclear arms, some neighbors we have had I'm not so sure about. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with any neighbor working on nuclear arms. Stick with simple stuff like Molatovs and Claymores and leave the tricky stuff to the experts.

[SteelersinCA]

Originally Posted by Vincent

I'm older but wasn't involved in writing the Constitution. So I am instructed by the simple words the Framers wrote, and their clear intent. While I am comfortable with me owning nuclear arms, some neighbors we have had I'm not so sure about. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with any neighbor working on nuclear arms. Stick with simple stuff like Molatovs and Claymores and leave the tricky stuff to the experts.

Well, that's the rub, if I live next door to you and want to own a nuclear based weapon, why should I not be allowed to? If the Legislature cannot restrict "arms" in any fashion, why can't I own my nuclear gun?

[SteelMember]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

actually i havent, but would love to try. ive wasted lizards and bunnies with a 12 guage though.

the 1st time i ever got drunk in the 4th grade (my 1st whole beer) we were poaching bunnies in the back of a pick up with a spotlight and wasting cotton tails. (best friends moms BF was pretty cool).

we got a kangaroo rat too! (i didnt hit shit but it was my 1st time shootin a shotgun and drinking a beer. good times!

oh, to be 9 again.

wow. maybe i am fukked up.

Careful son, you'll spill your beer.