My mother once told me (while eating something I didn't like) to finish it. I told her I can't, I'm not a Fini.

K.W. wrote:

[ Mr Bushmaster. In last year, first time in my life there was one school shooting, if my memory is ok. It is illegal in Finland for ordinary peoples carry guns. I don´t need carry, becayse i am not Hell Angel, drug dealer or criminal. I can to say; criminals are shooting criminals in my country.There is very small criminal world in Finland. If i shoot somebody for self-defence, it is "exaggerate self-defence". I may to sit seven years in the jail. Kauko

Well K.W., I would surely want to have a firearm if I lived in Finland. That is if Wikipedia's infomation is correct. As follows:

- Finland reports 101 crimes per 1,000 population, the third highest in the world.

- Finland has the highest homicide rate in Western Europe.

- There are 1.8 million registered firearms in Finland and hundreds of thousands unregistered. It has the 4th highest number of guns per capita in the world.

- Finland averages 29,800 assaults per year.

- Finland leads Western Europe in alcoholism and suicide.

IOWs, it ain't paradise and there are a lot of homicides, rapes and assalts in Finland that could be reduced, IMO, if everyone did have access to handguns. Hey -- didn't Russia try to invade a few times?

FWIW, did you know that the main reason Japan decided not to attack mainland USA, WWII, was the private ownership of guns?

And that's still a deterent today Handloader. If there was an assault on the U.S. of A our fighting force would triple due to the fact that we do have private gun ownership here.

Almost forgot to mention that a lot of the people that do have guns are also Veterans.

The Russians made the same claim in the 1960's. They figured they could defeat our military (doubtful), but they would have one hell of a problem with the citizenry because of the privately owned firearms...

In our state, Nebraska, if you are a licensed CCW you are precluded from carrying a firearm into a church, or a hospital. As well as several other places.

One aspect of the current appeal to the Supreme Court is that there will clarification specific to the word "militia" as used and intended in the 2nd Ammendment. If decided in favor of the individual it could be precedent to challenge state laws that invoke any type of infringment. Hopefully, we will know by late March what the court says.

Typically, court cases at this level tend to be rather narrow spectrum than invoking large or broad issues. "Militia", however, is the keystone to the claims of individual rights of access and use of firearms for the protection of the country against all enemies foreign and domestic (AND DOMESTIC), as well as personal safety.

Hey Handloader, in other words, we won't need a CCW to carry?

Dimitri wrote:

sniper wrote: I don't think that would be looked upon with favor at all atall! I'm confused I'm pretty sure I read "consealed" in your post hense why I mentioned that. Dimitri

Yup, D., I misspoke. Sorry for the confusion, It's fixed now.

d_hoffman wrote:

Hey Handloader, in other words, we won't need a CCW to carry?

Absolutely! Now, for the purpose of discussion, let the assumption be that the court upholds the 2nd Ammendment as an individual right issue in the broadest of interpretations. As firearm owners, how much legislation would you like to see rescinded? For example, would you support the complete repeal of GCA 1984? How about NFA 1934?

Have the times changed so much from the time the Consitution was written that we must invoke its flexibility and have a modicum of control over firearms in private hands? At what point would you agree some control is needed? For example: should individuals have access in a free market to fully automatic firearms? If so, should there be a limit in caliber? How about 20mm rifles (not cannons, rifles)? How about explosive rounds? Or, if not, what restrictions would you consider reasonable and Constitutional?

Caliber restrictions depends on the situation say, if there's a whole car full of gang bangers doing a drivie-by then I would suppose a 90mm recoiless rifle would be my choice of weapons. No, I don't think we should be restricted in calibers.

I'm not familiar with the ammendments that you mentioned.

As far as explosive rounds, That would be ridiculous. Any standard round be it factory or handload with convetional bullet types would be reasonable and constitutional, IMNSHO.

The change in times issue, Definatly. We are living in a time when we just don't know when, where, how or by whom the next attack will occur. You could be walking down a street that you've been walking all your life and then one day, out of the blue, some crack head comes up to you and pulls a knife slashing at you demanding your money. Or you and the family are walking through the mall and some perv tries to snatch your kid. Or maybe you stop to grab a pop at a gas station and interupt an armed robbery just before the perp is going to blow the attendants head off. The only thing stopping him or her from doing so is the gun that your carrying be it any thing from a 17 HMR to a .500 S&W magnum. As I earlier posted, your in church and some raghead walks in screaming, praising alah, and want's to blow everybody to pieces. He or she is only 10 feet from you. You have your gun. you shoot him/her in the head just before they turn the whole place into burning rubble. YES!!! Our times have changed.

In Florida we do not have a CCW, we have a CWP Conceled Weapons Permit. Note the use of Weapons: it includes gun(s), saps, and switchblade knives. But, it is unlawful to carry in church, court rooms and bars just to list a few prohibited carry locations.
Ed

Places that you should be able to carry;

Out in public, YES!!! No matter where that may be. Be it the grocery store, the mall, the movie theater, ect.
Church, maybe. Actually a very good posibility.
Court rooms, no. There's already someone carrying there, the bailif.
Bars, Absolutly not. You shouldn't be in the bar in the first place. Trouble just seems to dwell there. In the second place, you're in direct violation of federal laws stating no weapons while under the influence.

If the speed of light is 186,282.397 miles per second, what is the speed of dark? I think Newton's law of physics would apply here.

Limitations yes
Restrictions No

What ever become of common sense????????

Limitations are restrictions. Both words mean have the same meaning.

Limitations just sounds better--the sheep aren't so scared when you say limit.....but watch out if you say restrict.........
It is the same thing, but on the other hand you can't have people owning Bradley Fighting Vehicles with Tow Missles. I can hear it now, "I didn't know it was loaded".