G27

Excellent post, thank you.

I changed my mind after, ahem, actually reading the associated story. Imagine basing your opinion on what actually happened! The story is here. This part describes the picture sequence above: If the guy actually 'struck' the trooper with his truck, he's lucky he's not dead...

Well, they also likely have the area shut down to avoid looting. I agree, they shouldn't keep folks from their homes, assuming they can prove they live in that area.

Congrats! I figure i still have 4-6 weeks, at best. Argh.

Yah, the whole forest/trees scenario seems to escape many politicians...

Yah, I guess now's as good a time as any... I'll just tell the RangeUSA guys to put me in the range where no one else is - no telling what i might shoot. hehehe

Ahh, thanks - they must have updated it after I last checked it this AM...

Crap - that stinks. How did you find out? Did they already release today's decision?

Yah, but this is the sort of decision that will make it harder for gun control measures that are similar later...

I shoot with one eye closed, but really feel like I need to learn to shoot with both open. I fear it's going to be like relearning to shoot all over again, so I keep putting it off. Anyone here make the transition from one eye to both open?

BTW, let me add that I fully believe that if they were allowed, our forces would put an end to all the issues in Iraq in short order - my point in this case isn't the ability of the military to win, it's whether or not the politicians will allow them to fully do their job. Which is why I say it could happen - do you really think the government here (and all the military, for that matter) would really wipe out entire cities, killing many, many innocents in order to 'win'? If they were willing to destroy everything, of course they'd win, but what good would that do? Maybe I'm just stupid (no comments from the peanut gallery, please - hehe), but I really do believe the THREAT that the 2nd allows is enough to keep things in check. We just have to keep the 2nd...

They don't seem to be doing so well in Iraq, five-plus years in...

I think you may be missing my point. The fact is, if it got bad enough where rebellion was necessitated, you'd likely have much more than 1% of the population acting. Even if it were as little as 15% of the total population willing to arm themselves and fight, the number would be STAGGERING (that's 45 million people!). Sure, will never happen - the pen IS mightier than the sword, but I'm making the point that the reasoning behind the 2nd (or at least one of the reasons) isn't outdated.

First off, not a NASCAR fan, but my Dad is so we go to the spring Talladega race together every year as a 'guy's day'. We're were somewhat surprised to see that about 10% of the stands were empty at this year's Talladega race. I don't think their viewer ratings are down, I really think more people are saving their money and not taking road trips with the increased fuel costs...

Is the orange box stuff at RangeUSA different than the bulk 250 and 500 packs? I only buy the bulk packs and have had very, very few issues (no jams, just some misfires - rack, tap and go)...

I disagree - I think if there were enough folks, it could absolutely be done. If only 1% of the US population armed and rebelled, you'd have a militia of 3 million people. Unless the military was ordered to basically destroy everything and everyone, it could absolutely happen...

My wife's had both that and the deep-fried Oreos before - she said both were awesome...

Yah, good point - more wait and see...

I'm not going to hold my breath. From the ACLU website: "ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47" Interesting how they let their bias influence their position so openly. The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 9th amendments use the term 'the people' - all of which are construed to mean individual citizens except the 2nd. We all know how they would feel in 'the people' in the 1st suddenly meant only state-sponsored speech...

While more often than not the ACLU's stance causes massive eye-rolling on my part, they try to do exactly what they claim to do. Hell, the ACLU even came to Rush Limbaugh's defense...

That's what I thought after initially reading the judgement and the SCOTUS blog, but I intend to re-read it to make sure. Regardless of the fact we have a generally conservative SCOTUS, I'd be stunned if they were so liberal in the application of POW rights.

Jst read the synopsis from the SCOTUS blog. Bold added by me, I think this is what they were ruling on. Again, I haven't re-read the full judgement and the dissensions, but this blog seems to point to what I was saying - these are NOT POW's and therefore aren't afforded the treatment of a POW. Anyway, I'd prefer being outright wrong here, I'd love to put a bullet in their heads and be done with it...

You may be right - that's why I'm going to go back and re-read it. I may be the only guy on the internet willing to admit there's a chance his opinion is wrong. hehe.

I'm going to go back and re-read the entire decision of the justices on this case - my initial reading left me to believe this was regarding non-POW detainees - like those at GTMO - and not the general POW population. This WSJ article seems to think it's about POW's in general, which I have a hard time believing considering these guys were not captured in a time of war (technically speaking, nor are they called POW's). Regardless, if this decision is about POW's and not just 'enemy combatants', then that will change my views completely...

So you're suggesting that someone who renounces their US citizenship (and thereby renounces the US Constitution) isn't afforded rights under Constitutional law? I suggest you are completely wrong, and some research on your part will show many folks who have been tried for crimes renounced their citizenship (and even the sovereignty of the US) are still allowed the full rights of the US Constitution. As are those who are here traveling, etc... No, I have not. Nice red herring. I hate child-molesters and wish them only the worst, but by defending their rights to treatment under the Constitution does not mean I 'equate myself' with them. Please, if you can't research the facts behind these detainees and plainly see that they are NOT all terrorists, were not captured on the battlefield, were ALL picked up on 'suspicion' and held indefinitely, then I can't continue this discussion with you. You're letting your emotional hatred of terrorism (which I share with you) color your thoughts here. IOW, before you damn these guys, at least look at their circumstances and understand that under the 'Patriot Act', all of us, even US citizens, are one breath away from being considered 'enemy combatants' and given ZERO rights, even though the US Constitution doesn't say ANYWHERE - in the entire document - that it only applies to US citizens. Read the Declaration of Independence to refresh yourself on where the forefathers were when they wrote these amazing documents: Just think about it....