SoutheasternOhioPreps.com

Please vote on this USA Today poll and pass it on. As you may, or may not know, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that in his opinion, the 2ND Amendment does not give the citizens a right to own guns. That's ridiculous! consider rural Lawrence County where a call to the sheriff dept might not be answered for an hour or so. Not their fault, they just have too much territory to cover and far too few deputies. So again, vote, pass it on and then ask other's to pass it on as well.

Hmmmm Let Mr. Holder come to my house and try to tell me that.

What is it they say...... the sheriff (and he is a good one in Lawrence County) can be there in minutes.......when SECONDS count. I'm keepin my guns.

As a famous actor and gun owner once said, they will have to pry my guns "from my cold, dead hands!"

"So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: From my cold, dead hands!" ~ Charlton Heston, May 20, 2000

Never never give up our rights!!!!

Thank you Falcon

Time to send a donation to the N.R.A.

It says what it says and only what it says. I know the phrase "well-regulated" annoys people but there it is and it's somewhat problematic to the "I can have whatever guns I want whenever I want them" argument.

So, as much as I wish I could vote yes, the fact is that the Constitution is clear. We don't all have to be allowed to own a gun. We are only promised the right to a well-regulated militia.

However, if we do outlaw them, the outlaws will still have them, so doing so would be STOOOOOOPID.

Heres one for the foaming at the mouth Right Wingers -- as the Constitution is written , i.e.... "well regulated militia", would political entities ( states , cities,etc.) be able to LIMITED gun ownership to SINGLE shot weapons ( and I make no distinction between pistols or long guns) ?? Think hard before you answer.

Paladin wrote:Heres one for the foaming at the mouth Right Wingers --

This is not a right wing - left wing thing so get off the name calling and political crap (as usual). Seems like people like you are the only ones that foam at the mouth.

According to the poll vote, 97% say it does give us the right to bear arms while 2% say it doesn't. As usual there is 1% that don't even know how to tie their shoes.

Guess which group you fall in to.

kantuckyII wrote:Please vote on this USA Today poll and pass it on. As you may, or may not know, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that in his opinion, the 2ND Amendment does not give the citizens a right to own guns. That's ridiculous! consider rural Lawrence County where a call to the sheriff dept might not be answered for an hour or so. Not their fault, they just have too much territory to cover and far too few deputies. So again, vote, pass it on and then ask other's to pass it on as well.

So voting in a USA today poll is going to change Eric Holders mind?? People who don't want guns , don't want guns that includes politicians. They are not going to change there minds because of USA today!

Orange and Brown wrote: People who don't want guns , don't want guns that includes politicians.

If they don't want one they don't have to buy one. How hard is that ? But they should leave the rights of others alone.
I'd say it will be a cold day in hades when they get the guns from the American public.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquest ... up5895.htm

Latest Results....

Yes 97%

No 2%

Undecided 1%

Total Votes: 5,563,971

Tuck...check out Ted Nugents thoughts on this subject in another thread!

Is this the video you were wanting to share with us? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyZsXwQlBYw

kantuckyII wrote:Please vote on this USA Today poll and pass it on. As you may, or may not know, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated that in his opinion, the 2ND Amendment does not give the citizens a right to own guns. That's ridiculous! consider rural Lawrence County where a call to the sheriff dept might not be answered for an hour or so. Not their fault, they just have too much territory to cover and far too few deputies. So again, vote, pass it on and then ask other's to pass it on as well.

I have no problem with responsible gun ownership for protection, hunting or even hobby. Does that mean that we have to allow anyone to own a 50 caliber machine gun? The problem with your premise is you make the assumption that the sheriff is here to protect you. The police are here to investigate crimes after the fact. So many gun owners feel it is there job to police their neighborhoods. That is how an 18 year old boy was shot and killed last year in Adams county, after going to a gun range and finding it closed, grabbed a bail of hay to put in the back of his truck to take it to another location for a backstop for his target, when a redneck steps out of this trailer fires shots into the cab of this truck, killing him. He bled to death in the arms of his best friend waiting on an ambulance.

I just read where a 70 year old man had a handgun in his pocket inside a local school gym while shooting basketball. It fell out of his jacket, hit the floor and went off, striking him in the leg. So keep your guns, but be responsible with them. It is true that criminals will have guns no matter what the law says. (That is why they are criminals, no respect for the law).

I'm not quite understanding what you meant about the 18 year old boy being shot? are you saying that he was grabbing (stealing?) someone's hay bale and this person shot him over it? if that is the case, I don't know about in the state of Ohio but it's against the law to shoot someone for trying to steal property outside of your home. You can shoot them if they enter your home or they're trying to burn down your home or barn (in Kentucky). You can't shoot them if they're carrying your television set across your front lawn when you discover them. I can't think of anything I own, aside from my family and my life that would be worth taking another human's life for. Even if they are a scumbag dirty thief. Now, as far as this young man, I don't know what he was doing, your post isn't quite clear.

I don't have any problem with you stating that people should be responsible in the least bit either. I'd like to know more about this guy's gun falling out and going off. Most modern firearms will not do that. There are and have been for a while safety features put in the guns. Boonedawg would be far more likely to give you an answer on this one Also, it's for sure, against the law to carry a firearm into a school or on their property (unless you're picking up and dropping off your child and it remains in the vehicle). This is a felony. He'll probably not be carrying a firearm again for quite sometime and then it will be illegally.

I don't know either of these people you're talking about and only have what you have written

Kantucky:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=69252

Tuck, what he was talking about is a while back some boys were trying to find a place to target shoot and they went to a spot they were told they could, but I believe it was closed. They saw a bale of hay there and decided to take it somewhere and shoot into it. A man who lived close to where the shooting range was saw them take the hay and shot at the truck from a distance and it went through the back of the cab and hit one of the boys and he bled to death before the ambulance could arrive. The guy that shot at them didn't even own the bale of hay. I believe he was found guilty of manslaughter and sent to prison.

That's a sad story. I don't know (and again, I only have your all's account) how he got only a manslaughter charge brought against him.

There's a man in Grayson who fired a warning shot at a man who was fleeing his neighbor's house (he had went into the neighbor's house seeing someone who'd broken into it). The bullet ricocheted and hit the man in the leg who was fleeing the house. The guy who shot the burglar was still in jail last time I heard.

Burg_Grad_77 wrote:Tuck, what he was talking about is a while back some boys were trying to find a place to target shoot and they went to a spot they were told they could, but I believe it was closed. They saw a bale of hay there and decided to take it somewhere and shoot into it. A man who lived close to where the shooting range was saw them take the hay and shot at the truck from a distance and it went through the back of the cab and hit one of the boys and he bled to death before the ambulance could arrive. The guy that shot at them didn't even own the bale of hay. I believe he was found guilty of manslaughter and sent to prison.

I remember that well. I was working for LIFE at the time.

Paladin wrote:Heres one for the foaming at the mouth Right Wingers -- as the Constitution is written , i.e.... "well regulated militia", would political entities ( states , cities,etc.) be able to LIMITED gun ownership to SINGLE shot weapons ( and I make no distinction between pistols or long guns) ?? Think hard before you answer.

You had better go back to school. Our founders came from a country that had restrictive gun laws. They knew that "a well regulated militia" was the citizenry keeping the government in check. The only way to do that is to keep guns in private citizens hands. I cant help it if you only find fault with one political party. They are both morons that need to be kept in check and as long as we have guns, they will be afraid of us- the way its meant to be.