NO

The confiscation of fire-arms during Katrina proved the point.

After the fact, they took what happened at Katrina to court and the courts said it was illegal and should never happen again, strictly on the basis of the 2nd Amendment.

The fact the government, including state and local, are trying to take fire-arms away from legal owners who have broken no laws shows that those who wrote the Constitution knew power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a fact that never goes away no matter how naive a populace may be.

[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;1989432]

NO.
The Second Amendment exists to allow protection against the government.
When the government it was designed to protect against starts changing it, it is only for the governments sake, no one else.

So, Can you please tell me when the USAs Government turned against it’s own citizens in a Civil War?.

Seems like the 1st sentence, contradicts the second :confused:
Jim.
Lincoln .7

That was an organized country’s army verses an organized country’s army, not relevant to the Second Amendment.

The Revolutionary War would be a better example of how it might work.

NO.
The Second Amendment exists to allow protection against the government.
When the government it was designed to protect against starts changing it, it is only for the governments sake, no one else.

It is extremely difficult to even attempt to do but the last thing this country needs is to become another Venezuela where the government can change the Constitution as it desire for its own sake.

That is one of the few things that can be said positive about politicians only being concerned with staying in office. Anyone/s attempting to seriously do so would be political history.

This video makes a nonsense of having a weapon for personal protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEgxTzGV8Kk

Its just fat boys playing with a toy that could have killed them. Of course if you could recognise the bad guy at 2,430 metres*. I suppose its OK

*Canadian Snipers record for killing a Taliban in 2002.

How does that video have anything to do with self-defense?

Anyone can join by paying the membership fee. They have elected leaders. I was a member for 5 years, but gave it up owing to the amount of junk mail I received… including a request to “renew early” only a week after I paid a five year membership. I read the one page of their magazine that interests me & throw it in the trash.

That is odd.

Then you seem to not have very large interest in firearms as it has just as much information as any news-stand magazine and far more on historical fire-arms than the average news-stand magazine.

I have been a member for well over thirty years and am one category short of the top level available.
I asked at the National Show what I get if pay for the top rank. The guy laughed and said your name on a wall.
I will eventually do it but only when I have few hundred dollars burning a hole in my pocket.

One good thing, I get the magazine, without any more money, till I die, and beyond that if no one at that addresses tells them I am dead.

That’s the impression I had prior to posting this, however, it’s good to hear yours, and others from over the ponds opinion.
From what I gather,and I hasten to add it’s only my opinion, that it’s only a small percentage, giving the majority a bad name.
T.B.H. I also don’t think that the NRA help themselves much in their argument, sometimes I wonder if they havn’t shot themselves in the foot, Pardon the pun.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

The NRA has, and at times still is, become too much of an Washington insider in their politics which is the side of the organization that the majority of members rely on to fight against anti-gun politics.

In the past several elections the NRA did nothing to oppose several candidates who more members than not, would rather have not had, due to issues other than just gun rights.
When they asked the NRA why they did not support the preferred candidate they responded by saying that the candidate who won had a good rating with the NRA and that was all that mattered.

Your former FBI armorer instructor was either misquoted or else he was incorrect. (To be polite.) Whatever marks made in the relatively loose-fitting breech end of the barrel are usually obliterated or “overwritten” by the rifling at the other end of the barrel, the last place the bullet was in contact with the lands and grooves.

That is horridly incorrect to be poliite.

A bullet engages the rifling and ANY marks that are made just outside the chamber.
If it has engaged the rifling it merely follows the rest of the way down the barrel.
Rough chamber edges can badly affect accuracy.
The part of the barrel that most often needs attention is the muzzle where the blast of gasses causes it to wear the most.

One can shoot-out a barrel if enough rounds are sent down the bore but even then the marks made just outside the chamber there will be where it still might engage the rifling.
Even at that as the barrel wears the rifling marks will change especially if one is shooting hard-ball ammunition.
There is NOTHING constant about barrel marks on a bullet if the fire-arm is more than a wall hanger.

If you have ever bought a well used fire-arm one of the first things one will check is to see how badly the end of the barrel has worn.

If you are familiar with Glocks there is a part of the action that can cause it to be uselessif it fails called by many gunsmith, the crucifix, due to its shape.
If that part breaks the gun is useless and cannot be fixed without a new one, which , at the time I was in school, Glock DID NOT sell to gunsmiths.
That may have changed now as one can actually get part to make a Glock into a kinda-sorta target pistol.

There are ejector marks on a cartridge, change the ejector and the marks change, change the striker, and the marks change, change the magazine and the marks change.
I have put together pistols from a box of loose parts, Glock included, as this is required in the school I went to. Believe me I know what parts there are in a lot pistols, or did, as memory only lasts so long.

DC.

We have a similar Form, but not so invasive of the applicants as yours are, ie, they, (Police do not take a test round from an applicants gun, re the rifling, for future reference) having said that, I think it would be a good idea for our Police to adopt.
Lincoln .7

If one cleans up a pistols chamber, or simply modifies it for better feeding, much less change the barrel, which on many pistols is very easy, the sample rifling item becomes useless as the pattern will change.

Back when I was studying gunsmith, now this is almost ten years ago, our one instructor who was a former FBI arnorer, said the best thing about Glocks were if your gun breaks and you send it in, they do not fix it, they send you a new gun.

He did not have much else good to say about them though.