[bbronston]

Originally Posted by HarryWho?

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that context is important in any debate. I really have no strong opinions about gun ownership either way. I do know that what should be abundantly clear, is often muddled either innocently or by design. And of course, the remedy is often swayed by influence or ideology.

I'm not sure what you mean but I agree wholeheartedly.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I'm not sure what you mean but I agree wholeheartedly.

What I mean is that the wording of the amendment is so ambiguous that any abridgement to clarify it belies ones ideology. I have a suspicion of it's true meaning but won't for a minute commit to the fact that I knew their exact intentions. Shortning it to merely state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' is not much better than adding “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed” as Justice Stevens proffered. We no longer seem to have a logical, non partisan way of dealing with any conundrum presented by governance.

[bbronston]

I'm not sure I agree that the wording is ambiguous although I know exactly what you mean. The Federalist Papers 28, 29, and 46 (which I was inspired to finally read a few years ago because of the whole 2nd amendment hullabaloo) I think gives clarity to the meaning of the words. The founders were protecting the people from tyranny by their own government and they made it clear that no future Congress would be able to change that. The militia clause is a preamble of sorts, which was the style of writing at the time, not a conditional clause. However, whether or not a well-regulated (read trained and disciplined) militia is still needed (and who is to say that it is not?) does not change the purpose of the 2nd amendment--protection of the people, by the people, and for the people, from their own government which might still one day become too powerful to the point of becoming tyrannical. I do agree, though, that one's understanding of the 2nd amendment is muddled by an educational system that fails to teach it's students the real history and content of the constitution and by those whose political agendas cloud (conveniently) their understanding. That's not a snarky shot at anyone...that's just my view of reality.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I'm not sure I agree that the wording is ambiguous although I know exactly what you mean. The Federalist Papers 28, 29, and 46 (which I was inspired to finally read a few years ago because of the whole 2nd amendment hullabaloo) I think gives clarity to the meaning of the words. The founders were protecting the people from tyranny by their own government and they made it clear that no future Congress would be able to change that. The militia clause is a preamble of sorts, which was the style of writing at the time, not a conditional clause. However, whether or not a well-regulated (read trained and disciplined) militia is still needed (and who is to say that it is not?) does not change the purpose of the 2nd amendment--protection of the people, by the people, and for the people, from their own government which might still one day become too powerful to the point of becoming tyrannical. I do agree, though, that one's understanding of the 2nd amendment is muddled by an educational system that fails to teach it's students the real history and content of the constitution and by those whose political agendas cloud (conveniently) their understanding. That's not a snarky shot at anyone...that's just my view of reality.

Of course this is your opinion, clouded by your agenda, which is not shared by others less informed as well some much more so. For the sake of argument, I applaud your confidence.

[bbronston]

LOL...thanks but I don't have an agenda to cloud my opinion unless you consider placing a priority on preserving the constitution an agenda. I suppose in some circles, that is an agenda, unfortunately. My opinion is based on my somewhat limited reading and research which appears to be more than many others have bothered to do yet they claim to be authorities on the subject or dismiss those who know what they are talking about. It's not rocket science, it's history. It's just too bad that history is regarded as clouded opinion these days.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

LOL...thanks but I don't have an agenda to cloud my opinion unless you consider placing a priority on preserving the constitution an agenda. I suppose in some circles, that is an agenda, unfortunately. My opinion is based on my somewhat limited reading and research which appears to be more than many others have bothered to do yet they claim to be authorities on the subject or dismiss those who know what they are talking about. It's not rocket science, it's history. It's just too bad that history is regarded as clouded opinion these days.

I hardly think many claim to be authorities. It's more of a etched in stone gift of the gods vs living document type of thing.

[jambo101]

Neighbor with gun range in his backyard if safely set up wouldnt bother me, what would be irritating is the noise of some one frequently shooting off their guns, as an example an hour of shooting every night after supper?, an afternoon on the weekend with friends shooting many guns.? As a neighbor that would get old real quick.

[bbronston]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Neighbor with gun range in his backyard if safely set up wouldnt bother me, what would be irritating is the noise of some one frequently shooting off their guns, as an example an hour of shooting every night after supper?, an afternoon on the weekend with friends shooting many guns.? As a neighbor that would get old real quick.

I think the noise would be extremely annoying. However, even a safely set up outdoor range can't contain every possible bullet and we all know that mistakes happen, accidents happen, and 'stupid' happens. A 9mm bullet can travel (according to the web) about 7500 feet if it doesn't hit something or someone on the way. That's about 1.4 miles and that is just a 9mm of a particular weight and muzzle velocity. There are others that are faster with more energy that will travel further and that is just an average pistol. What about rifles?

The bottom line is that freedom is a great thing but it must be balanced with appropriate protections, and common sense tells me that the law, as it stands now, while placing appropriate restrictions on backyard ranges, doesn't go far enough in defining where backyard ranges should be allowed and where they should not.

[jambo101]

Something like this i'd consider safe.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/gYpHvMqrSJ0/0.jpg

something like this not so much.
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2014/Guns/backyard-gun-range-MiamiHerald.jpg

As this could happen.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/2...ard-gun-range/

[bbronston]

I wouldn't consider the first one safe if there were homes within range of being hit by either an accidental or negligent discharge. I'm sure if you lived directly behind that backstop, it would cross your mind every day you heard those "pops".