IS THERE A CURE FOR M&P FEVER???

[Bengal07]

As I get older (now 68) I seem to get more compulsive---have to do things intensely and completely------in the case of S&W M&Ps I think I am addicted. In less than two years I bought the M&P22, M&P 9 and 9C M&P40 M&P 45 M&P Shield 9mm and 2 M&P Shield 40 (actually forgot I already had the 40 when I bought the 2d one--maybe dementia setting in) ----all that is left is the 40c and I am fighting the Jones to buy that too. The odd thing is that even though I have a CCW I only carry a gun when I go off into the woods as protection against dangerous animals. I am a better than average shot. I am not a 2d amendment advocate--don't really care if there is more or less regulation-------just get kicks going to the range and shooting. I am not a hunter-----but have M&P'd (killed ) 12 wild hogs and a bunch of armadillos that were tearing up my property.

 

[cddanjr]

simple answer is, NO! No cure just enjoy the ride. Maybe play some Led Zepplin while your at it. 

Chuck

 

[gfy1960]

I thought buying more M&P's was the cure.

 

[bmyers]

I keep trying to buy more M&Ps, but the last two I have tried to purchase I get emails back from the stores saying sorry we sold out and you don't get one.

 

[bobermo]

I am not a 2d amendment advocate--don't really care if there is more or less regulation-------

Really? More and more regulation of semi-automatic weapons to the point of confiscation may cure your m&p fever. Until then, just more m&p.

 

[Smitty357]

There is a cure, i'll tell you.

When the fever gets high. Just buy another m&p haha.

 

[bobermo]

You could try more cowbell between mags.

 

[shawn mccarver]

I am not a 2d amendment advocate--don't really care if there is more or less regulation-------

I was right with you until I saw this statement.

It would be easy to launch into a rant here, but I will refrain and only state that this type of attitude would have been an abomination to the founding fathers.

The founding fathers, who spent over a decade getting rid of the British, made sure to put in the second amendment to insure that private citizens could always obtain and keep personal arms without infringement so that if another government treated people the way the British did, they could throw that new government off as well and start over.

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment, therefore, has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting, except as those disciplines may assist to insure that all free citizens are well trained (regulated, in 18th Century terminology) in the use of the aforesaid personal arms so they were ready to fight at a moment's notice.

And to any of you who repeat that bleating argument, "well, we register our cars, why shouldn't we register our guns?" I would simply say that cars are used in far more crime and cause far more death each year than do guns (to the extent any inanimate object can cause anything). More importantly, however, cars are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

 

[USAF385]

I am not a 2d amendment advocate--don't really care if there is more or less regulation-

First the "concealed carry" post, now this. You seem to be a conflicted gun owner.

 

[Der Biermeister]

I sure as hell can't afford to buy more -- especially after changing out sights and buying Apex trigger mods. Do all that, and these guns suddenly start getting expensive.

 

[Bengal07]

i do not agree with you

The 2d amendment was actually written in recognition that the new gov't did not have the money to fund a standing army---that by establishing a right for citizens to bear arms it allowed the states to form militias with no expense for weapons and the new federal gov't could then call upon the militias to serve as the army when needed-------now---the NRA will interpret it a different way but that is what makes for open discussion.

 

[bobermo]

I sure as hell can't afford to buy more -- especially after changing out sights and buying Apex trigger mods. Do all that, and these guns suddenly start getting expensive.

A Hi-Point fever is cheaper to treat!

...and the 2A discussions are being deleted. Not appropriate here.

 

[woodsltc]

The 2d amendment was actually written in recognition that the new gov't did not have the money to fund a standing army---that by establishing a right for citizens to bear arms it allowed the states to form militias with no expense for weapons and the new federal gov't could then call upon the militias to serve as the army when needed-------now---the NRA will interpret it a different way but that is what makes for open discussion.

Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't argee with you.

Don

 

[RonJon]

The 2d amendment was actually written in recognition that the new gov't did not have the money to fund a standing army---that by establishing a right for citizens to bear arms it allowed the states to form militias with no expense for weapons and the new federal gov't could then call upon the militias to serve as the army when needed-------now---the NRA will interpret it a different way but that is what makes for open discussion.

Wow!

I would say that Mr. B. Obama is trying very hard to cure your addiction!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

RonJon

 

[USAF385]

The 2d amendment was actually written in recognition that the new gov't did not have the money to fund a standing army---that by establishing a right for citizens to bear arms it allowed the states to form militias with no expense for weapons and the new federal gov't could then call upon the militias to serve as the army when needed-------now---the NRA will interpret it a different way but that is what makes for open discussion.

Sounds like you're taking the "National Guard = Militia" stance. It wasn't just states forming militias. Neighbors, communities formed militias.

The 2nd Amendment was written to give the citizens the right to bare arms.

Take this line into consideration:

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

Free? From who? If you think that had nothing to do with the citizens defending against tyranny (something they had just lived under, if you recall) you're mistaken.

What do you think the 3rd Amendment means then? (Go ahead, look it up)

 

[Hillbilly77]

The 2d amendment was actually written in recognition that the new gov't did not have the money to fund a standing army---that by establishing a right for citizens to bear arms it allowed the states to form militias with no expense for weapons and the new federal gov't could then call upon the militias to serve as the army when needed-------now---the NRA will interpret it a different way but that is what makes for open discussion.

With that in mind, I respectfully request that you turn in all of your firearms to your local armory until such time that the Florida Militia is called to arms.

Thank you.

 

[Rgoodwin]

Can not believe I read this on this forum Bengal07. But in this country we can all think what we want. I like the 2nd and hope it does not ever get changed! Good luck to you sir!

 

[Der Biermeister]

The 2d amendment was actually written in recognition that the new gov't did not have the money to fund a standing army---that by establishing a right for citizens to bear arms it allowed the states to form militias with no expense for weapons and the new federal gov't could then call upon the militias to serve as the army when needed-------now---the NRA will interpret it a different way but that is what makes for open discussion.

NO ....... your thought process is screwed up. It was not so that the federal government could enlist militias to do its fighting. But yes, the founders were adamant about having an armed citizenry. If you read the writings of the founders, you'll discover that they had a great fear of ever again having to face a totalitarian government. As citizen militias would be the standard opposition, at that time, against possible tyranny within OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, it was important that citizens be armed. They also, however, saw the need to document an individual's right to protect himself and his family. (The so-called "hunting factor" that the left likes to throw in our faces as the only legitimate reason for 2A is laughable.) As for the NRA today -- forget that --- you have to go no further than to read the two most recent SC decisions (DC and Chicago), as the interpretation of the 2A language completely (hopefully once and for all) makes null and void what some thought was the requirement of not being able to have one without the other ........... i.e, between militias and citizens right to bear arms -- the argument being that citizens can only bear arms IF they were to be part of a "militia" and then they chose to define today's militia as being the National Guard. Screw that -- they are NOT linked together.

 

[Roger S&W]

My M&P family has grown to four. That equals my Glock family!
Well, Glock family is pregnant and expecting.
An OD Green G19 on the way.

 

[snakeye]

Can't believe a Marine would say that.....but then again he probably was not a real Marine