Anti-gun law

[sonyking]

What do you guys think of the anti-gun law.

i think its just crazy how can you even think of this law.
I mean nobody will abide by it.The good peole that wont have
guns will become vulnerable to people that do have guns.Because
if you do abide by the law all the bad people will still have guns and the good people wont and they wont be able to protect them selfs.

So what do you think?

[Deacon]

How can they make an anti-gun law if there is a second amendment, so far all I know is that this law violates the constitution.

[Jim]

As long as you're only using a gun for sport or protection, I don't see any problem in owning one. Of course, if you've got a machine gun in your basement, I'd say thats pushing it.

[Hendrik]

Wouldn't it be dreamy if noone had a gun....

...exept me :P

[Old Corps Gunny]

Funny that you should mention machine guns in the basement. I once had a young Navy chief working for me who had a full auto HK and M16 in his basement, along with other assorted firearms (all legal). He was from Iowa (where most of the farm kids learn to respect and handle firearms safely at a young age). We were stationed in Norfolk, VA at the time, but his family lived in Waldorf, MD, near the high-crime area of DC.
While I was stationed in DC, the District enacted a law making it illegal for anyone but "bonafide" collectors to own any kind of firearm and, you guessed it, only the criminals obeyed the law. Fortunately, I lived just outside DC, in Arlington, and continued to keep a pistol in my glove box whenever I was in the District for personal safety.
I doubt that those misguided, politically correct, New England liberals will ever cease to try to enact gun control legislation. I also doubt that the American people will allow it to get enacted or, if it does, abide by it. As NavyPilot21 says, it's in the Bill of Rights.

[Deacon]

...Â*He was from Iowa (where most of the farm kids learn to respect and handle firearms safely at a young age)....Â*


Yeah, and that is a place where the kids are lucky to grow up with all 10 fingers still on there hands, sorry thats just too stereotypical of me.

Anyway, they would have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, I myself being almost 16 have 2 rifles and 2 shotguns, (Under my Dad's Name)

I thought it was illegal to own a fully automatic weapon if your not in the service, plus what would it be useful for in sport and target?

[sbannon]

I've had the solution for years but nobody listens. Make all guns legal, no exceptions and no restrictions. This will strengthen our belief in the constitution as well as make gun enthusiasts happy as pie.

Next, make bullets illegal. This will make the far-left liberals happy.

It's win-win for everyone.

[Alonzo]

I think anti-gun legislation may work in the long term, but it would take decades to start seeing any real effect. As long as there are some restrictions and background checks, it doesn't make much difference in the timespan that politics would allow.

[Deacon]

A comedian once had the solution, he said make all guns legal, but charge 10k for a bullet, that way people will think before they shoot at someone.

[trefer]

Too much deaths in the US. You should forbide guns.

[jw349566]

I saw a bumper sticker somewhere that sums up my viewpoint pretty well.

"Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie ODonell fat"

If people are too irresponsible to have guns, then this is a BIG problem. It shouldn't just be glazed over by making them illegal. That does nothing about the main problem...that people can no longer be trusted.

[sbannon]

Yeah, I tend to split with most of my more liberal friends on this issue. I look at Canada, where there seems to be (based on what little I know) a larger percentage of the total population who own guns than here in the U.S., yet they have nearly no gun crime nation wide; and I have to conclude that it's the people, not the guns which are the problem.

Forget gun control, I'm for more people control.

[DHard3006]

I thought it was illegal to own a fully automatic weapon if your not in the service, plus what would it be useful for in sport and target?
The 2nd amend says nothing about sport and target shooting. It simply states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Machine guns are legal in 35 or more states. Some states have banned them or require you to be a FFL holder to own them.

[bobbylien]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Liberals need to stop using guns as a scapegoat for bigger problems in our society. Why don't we ban alcohol and other things that are a much bigger burden on our society? If liberals say they want to do this for safety reasons they are nuts. If they really wanted a safe country they would push for banning other bad things like cigs and alcohol. At least guns can be used without hurting anything, alcohol and other drugs are always harmfull.
Also note: I have never fired a gun, nor have I ever owned or wish to own a gun of any kind.

[Alonzo]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Liberals need to stop using guns as a scapegoat for bigger problems in our society. Why don't we ban alcohol and other things that are a much bigger burden on our society? If liberals say they want to do this for safety reasons they are nuts. If they really wanted a safe country they would push for banning other bad things like cigs and alcohol. At least guns can be used without hurting anything, alcohol and other drugs are always harmfull.
Also note: I have never fired a gun, nor have I ever owned or wish to own a gun of any kind.


I'm not interested in arguing for or against gun laws, but how exactly are guns to be used without hurting anything? I don't think having a gun solely to shoot paper targets (or whatever it is they use in olympic sharpshooting) is very common.

Don't the overwhelming majority buy guns to shoot living things?

[DHard3006]

Don't the overwhelming majority buy guns to shoot living things?
Once again the right to bear arms gives one reason and only one reason to have guns, it is your right to do so.
The people that wish to ban the right to bear arms are the ones trying to place other reasons on the 2nd amend.

[Alonzo]

Don't the overwhelming majority buy guns to shoot living things?
Once again the right to bear arms gives one reason and only one reason to have guns, it is your right to do so.
The people that wish to ban the right to bear arms are the ones trying to place other reasons on the 2nd amend.


He said that this:

At least guns can be used without hurting anything, alcohol and other drugs are always harmfull.


Now, alcohol has been linked to longer life, sharper mental performance in old age etc., in moderation of course. But he said guns can be used without hurting anything. Obviously that's possible, but is it common? Even when they don't hurt anything (i.e. bought for defense but never needed) , the vast majority are there for that purpose.

I don't want to enter into a debate over gun rights.

[DHard3006]

But he said guns can be used without hurting anything. Obviously that's possible, but is it common? Even when they don't hurt anything (i.e. bought for defense but never needed) , the vast majority are there for that purpose.

I don't want to enter into a debate over gun rights.

Once again the 2nd amend does not mention anything but the right to bear arms. There is no mention of the following words hunting, self defense, target shooting, or collecting.
Anti gun laws are abut the right to bear arms.
The only people that want to add a reason to have guns besides it is your right to do so are the gun haters that want to ban the right to bear arms.

[Alonzo]

That's nice, but unrelated to what I commented on.

[DHard3006]

That's nice, but unrelated to what I commented on.
No it answered your comment correctly and you just do not like the answer.

[Alonzo]

Considering my comment was in response to his "guns aren't always for killing" comment, I don't see the relevance in your response.

It's like someone saying cars aren't always for driving, then someone responding that the overwhelming majority of cars are used for driving. That isn't a debate on the legality of cars or driving. Again, I have no interest in arguing gun laws, and I haven't argued them.

[bobbylien]

I'm not interested in arguing for or against gun laws, but how exactly are guns to be used without hurting anything? I don't think having a gun solely to shoot paper targets (or whatever it is they use in olympic sharpshooting) is very common.

Don't the overwhelming majority buy guns to shoot living things?

Actually, No. I know a ton of people who just shoot guns for fun.

The possible good alcohol does for a few people is nothing in comparison to the horrors it causes every day in our country.

[Alonzo]

So they have guns not for defense or hunting?

[bobbylien]

That's nice, but unrelated to what I commented on.
No it answered your comment correctly and you just do not like the answer.

It was COMPLETELY unrelated to the quote you commented on. He was arguing against my point about the use of guns, not their legality.

[bobbylien]

So they have guns not for defense or hunting?

Defense, but they love to shoot them too, just for fun.

[DHard3006]

Considering my comment was in response to his "guns aren't always for killing" comment, I don't see the relevance in your response.
No you just want to keep repeating what you think guns are for. My cars has killed more things then my guns.

[Alonzo]

Considering my comment was in response to his "guns aren't always for killing" comment, I don't see the relevance in your response.
No you just want to keep repeating what you think guns are for. My cars has killed more things then my guns.


you really are an idiot :rolleyes:

[DHard3006]

you really are an idiot :rolleyes:
LMFAO...........Why do gun haters get mad when you point out all they want to do is spew their old tired rants about guns.
The 2nd amend gives one reason to bear arms, it is your right.
Hey gun hater why do you use the 1st amend?
Do you read books?
Do you print things for a living?
Do you collect old books?
This is a question gun haters like to ask. Since the right to free speech (in place of right to bear arms) was written only when quill pens and hand operated printing presses were the only why to write(in place of muzzle loading guns) you should only have a right to these ways of printing and communicating. Not to mention there was no television, radio or internet. Does the 1st amend cover these?
I believe every time we read or see about some tree hugger or some other extremist group protesting they all chant they have a 1st amend right to harass people by protesting.

So to return your insult, what a idiot you are not to mention a number one AHOLE!

[bobbylien]

you really are an idiot :rolleyes:
LMFAO...........Why do gun haters get mad when you point out all they want to do is spew their old tired rants about guns.
The 2nd amend gives one reason to bear arms, it is your right.
Hey gun hater why do you use the 1st amend?
Do you read books?
Do you print things for a living?
Do you collect old books?
This is a question gun haters like to ask. Since the right to free speech (in place of right to bear arms) was written only when quill pens and hand operated printing presses were the only why to write(in place of muzzle loading guns) you should only have a right to these ways of printing and communicating. Not to mention there was no television, radio or internet. Does the 1st amend cover these?
I believe every time we read or see about some tree hugger or some other extremist group protesting they all chant they have a 1st amend right to harass people by protesting.

So to return your insult, what a idiot you are not to mention a number one AHOLE!

Yeah, you really are an idiot. Americans have the right to protest whatever they want to.

[DHard3006]

Yeah, you really are an idiot. Americans have the right to protest whatever they want to.
LMFAO yet again.......................I have a right to bear arms, but the gun hater have no problem limiting that right!
Hey gun hater maybe you lack the ability to comprehend what you read. I used the very same gun hater questions the gun haters used to ask why people want to bear arms. I only applied them to the 1st amend instead.
So once again to return your insult, you really are a gun hating idiot! And also a number one AHOLE!

[Alonzo]

I have a problem when people try to have an argument with me that only exists in their head.

[DHard3006]

I have a problem when people try to have an argument with me that only exists in their head.
What problem? You wish to spew the typical gun haters catch phrases about guns.
Have a nice day!

[RLN]

Here is my take on guns.

I'm a gun owner, but I do not believe that people should own machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers, armored tanks, etc.

[Alonzo]

you really are an idiot :rolleyes:
LMFAO...........Why do gun haters get mad when you point out all they want to do is spew their old tired rants about guns.
The 2nd amend gives one reason to bear arms, it is your right.
Hey gun hater why do you use the 1st amend?
Do you read books?
Do you print things for a living?
Do you collect old books?
This is a question gun haters like to ask. Since the right to free speech (in place of right to bear arms) was written only when quill pens and hand operated printing presses were the only why to write(in place of muzzle loading guns) you should only have a right to these ways of printing and communicating. Not to mention there was no television, radio or internet. Does the 1st amend cover these?
I believe every time we read or see about some tree hugger or some other extremist group protesting they all chant they have a 1st amend right to harass people by protesting.

So to return your insult, what a idiot you are not to mention a number one AHOLE!


I always consider insults like this a compliment. Especially coming from people who have imaginary debates with me.

You do not know whether I support gun rights or not. You do not know to what degree, if any, I support gun legislation. All you know is I made a comment that the vast majority of guns are intended for harm, primarily defense and hunting. I have given no opinion whatsoever on gun laws.

The argument you think is taking place exists entirely in the confines of your own head.

[bobbylien]

I have a problem when people try to have an argument with me that only exists in their head.
What problem? You wish to spew the typical gun haters catch phrases about guns.
Have a nice day!

Its posts like that one that make me wonder exactly how old you are. :rolleyes:
You certainly aren't acting very mature.

[DHard3006]

I'm a gun owner, but I do not believe that people should own machine guns, hand grenades, rocket launchers, armored tanks, etc.
After the leftist aka progressive gun haters lost the last election a lot of them started chanting they are gun owners. One thing you notice about the leftist aka progressive gun haters they do not claim to be defending the right to bear arms, they just chant they are gun owners.
Well machine guns, armored tanks and rocket launchers are legal to own. As for the hand grenades I forget the rules on them, you could go to the ATF web site and read up on them if you need to.
I always consider insults like this a compliment. Especially coming from people who have imaginary debates with me.
Ah you are the one with the imaginary debates, I simply pointed out the 2nd amend does not mention what you asked about.
The argument you think is taking place exists entirely in the confines of your own head.
And yet you constantly reply.
You certainly aren't acting very mature.
This is from a person that spews insults, what lame one you are.

[Old Corps Gunny]

You cannot legally possess a functioning hand grenade, only an inert grenade; same rule applies to mines of any type (antipersonnel, antitank, etc.). Alonzo Mourning, there are actually firearms designed specifically for target shooting and only target shooting; that's not to say they couldn't be used (or perhaps I should say misused) for other purposes; but they wouldn't be very efficient.
Further, there are quite a few people who do own firearms (myself included) for home defense, self defense, and target shooting. I used to hunt many years ago, but hunting lost its appeal for me many years ago.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

I'm not interested in arguing for or against gun laws, but how exactly are guns to be used without hurting anything? I don't think having a gun solely to shoot paper targets (or whatever it is they use in olympic sharpshooting) is very common.

Don't the overwhelming majority buy guns to shoot living things?


Then you are sadly mistaken, you need to check out IPSC, IDPA, SASS, Steel Challenge and the host of other formalized and international shooting competitions. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people all over the world that own guns built explicitly for competition.

I own 2 long guns and 4 handguns that are built specifically for competition. All 4 of my competition handguns are only reliable with my handloaded ammunition and aren't configured for self defense.

[BoogyMan]

I think anti-gun legislation may work in the long term, but it would take decades to start seeing any real effect. As long as there are some restrictions and background checks, it doesn't make much difference in the timespan that politics would allow.


I certainly hope we don't ever see you trying to make a constitutional argument again Alonzo, you just figuratively shot your toes off in that regard.

:D

[Alonzo]

Then you are sadly mistaken, you need to check out IPSC, IDPA, SASS, Steel Challenge and the host of other formalized and international shooting competitions. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people all over the world that own guns built explicitly for competition.

So, you disagree with the statement that the vast majority of guns are for protection, hunting etc? Or are you simply arguing that that's not the only purpose? If it's the latter, then that's consistent with my argument.


I certainly hope we don't ever see you trying to make a constitutional argument again Alonzo, you just figuratively shot your toes off in that regard.

:D


Why?

[RightWingJuggernaut]

So, you disagree with the statement that the vast majority of guns are for protection, hunting etc? Or are you simply arguing that that's not the only purpose? If it's the latter, then that's consistent with my argument.


Your assertion was that firearms that are used only for competition were not common, which to say politely is false.

There are firearms companies that almost exclusively make competition firearms. There are gunsmiths that build strictly competition pistols and do not offer any other type of weapon.

The competition firearms market is in a word "huge" and none of these guns have or will ever "shoot living things."

[Alonzo]

My assertion was the vast majority are purchased with harm in mind, be it hunting or defense. I said some were purchased non violent competition, but these vast majority weren't. Do you have anything showing what percentage of gun purchasers use them solely for non hunting competition?

There are a lot of guns in Vermont and they're used primarily for hunting and defense, and that's what most gun supporters argue for. Do you have something suggesting otherwise?

[BoogyMan]

Why?


Alonzo, maybe I am missunderstanding and correct me if I am wrong, but you seem not to acknowledge the 2nd amendment.

Am I wrong?

[Alonzo]

Why?


Alonzo, maybe I am missunderstanding and correct me if I am wrong, but you seem not to acknowledge the 2nd amendment.

Am I wrong?


Where in this statement do I attack the second amendment?

I think anti-gun legislation may work in the long term, but it would take decades to start seeing any real effect. As long as there are some restrictions and background checks, it doesn't make much difference in the timespan that politics would allow.

Unless you think that the second amendment bars any restriction, at all, on guns then I fail to see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Where in this statement:

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.

Does it say that no regulation whatsoever may take place?

[RightWingJuggernaut]

My assertion was the vast majority are purchased with harm in mind, be it hunting or defense. I said some were purchased non violent competition, but these vast majority weren't. Do you have anything showing what percentage of gun purchasers use them solely for non hunting competition?

There are a lot of guns in Vermont and they're used primarily for hunting and defense, and that's what most gun supporters argue for. Do you have something suggesting otherwise?


Your original statement said that competition only firearms weren't "very common", go back and read it.

I cannot nail down any membership numbers, but here is a list of some of competitive shooting organizations presence throughout the world. This by far not a complete list, only a very short list of the organizations that I can remember off the top of my head.

NSSA has clubs in 69 countries
IPSC has clubs in 67 countries
IDPA has clubs in 20 countries
SASS has clubs in 13 countries
SCSA has clubs in 4 countries

Can you come up with numbers to back your statement up? I'll take numbers either for your original statement or the statement you are now trying to make.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

Where in this statement:

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.

Does it say that no regulation whatsoever may take place?


That little "shall not be infringed" seems to be the part that most gun-grabbers convienently miss.

[Alonzo]

That little "shall not be infringed" seems to be the part that most gun-grabbers convienently miss.

And "well regulated" the part you miss.

Your original statement said that competition only firearms weren't "very common", go back and read it.

I cannot nail down any membership numbers, but here is a list of some of competitive shooting organizations presence throughout the world. This by far not a complete list, only a very short list of the organizations that I can remember off the top of my head.

NSSA has clubs in 69 countries
IPSC has clubs in 67 countries
IDPA has clubs in 20 countries
SASS has clubs in 13 countries
SCSA has clubs in 4 countries

Can you come up with numbers to back your statement up? I'll take numbers either for your original statement or the statement you are now trying to make.

There are over 200 countries in the world. Whites joining White Supremacist groups are not very common, but they are in practically every country with a sizeable european population. They're spread out. I don't know about those organizations, but I'm suprised that's all there is, unless most don't overlap within the same countries.

I can't find statistics for that either. So where's that leave us, neither one of us can prove our point. Neither one of use denied competitive groups existed, or that they weren't available in most areas, I stated that using weapons solely for that purpose is not the intent of most. I never said I couldn't be wrong, and asked a few times for someone to point out otherwise, but from appearances that's what I understand the reality of gun use to be. It's not like I'm not going to write a paper without hard evidence, such as statistics.

[BoogyMan]

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.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Merriam Webster says:
Infringe, function=verb, 1. to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, 2. obsolete.

What this says is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be encroached upon or obsoleted.

[Alonzo]

So, you choose to uphold only part of the second amendment, while completely ignoring the "well regulated" part. Good to know. I'm not calling for banning guns, or attacking the right to bear arms, I support regulation of firearms.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

The 2nd states "a well regulated militia", it doesn't say anything about "well regulated firearms."

The simple fact of the matter is that we have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books, where does it stop?

Guns and the gun industry fall under more scrutiny and are held to higher standards than any other product or industry on this planet. Enough is enough.

We need enforcement of the sensible laws that we have, there are more than enough to cover any and all problems we will ever see. The bad laws need to repealed or fixed so that those among us that do abide by the law aren't punished for it.

[BoogyMan]

So, you choose to uphold only part of the second amendment, while completely ignoring the "well regulated" part. Good to know. I'm not calling for banning guns, or attacking the right to bear arms, I support regulation of firearms.


The second part defines the point.Â*Â*I want the well regulated militia that the amendment calls for.Â*Â*I just don't want people like yourself who are more than willing to twist the sentance to be well regulated right to bear arms.Â*Â*It doesnt say that and you know it.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[Alonzo]

The 2nd states "a well regulated militia", it doesn't say anything about "well regulated firearms."

The simple fact of the matter is that we have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books, where does it stop?

Guns and the gun industry fall under more scrutiny and are held to higher standards than any other product or industry on this planet. Enough is enough.

We need enforcement of the sensible laws that we have, there are more than enough to cover any and all problems we will ever see. The bad laws need to repealed or fixed so that those among us that do abide by the law aren't punished for it.

So you think there should be some gun regulation? That's what I've argued.

The second part defines the point. I want the well regulated militia that the amendment calls for. I just don't want people like yourself who are more than willing to twist the sentance to be well regulated right to bear arms. It doesnt say that and you know it.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


And the first part it states "well regulated militia", it allows regulation, it is in no way says anything in opposition to regulation of firearms as long as that essential right to firearms is available. Requiring safety locks, gun registration etc. does not do that.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

My thoughts on regulation:

1. Keep guns out of criminal hands.
2. Keep kids from buying guns, if their parents want to buy them guns and make sure that they are used in a safe and supervised manner, that's fine by me.
3. National CCW, my driver's license is good in 50 states and it took a hell of a lot less to obtain it than my carry permit.
4. No laws should inhibit a lawfully endowed individual from owning any firearm they choose regardless of caliber, cyclic rate, capacity or mode of fire.
5. There is no five, the four above cover everything that needs to be covered.

[Alonzo]

Rightwing, that's fine. There's a difference in degrees, but the essential point of mine you agree with, that gun regulation is not only constitutional but desirable to some extent. I don't want to enter into a full blown gun debate, which is why I was hesitant to mention "well regulated militia", since my whole point was that regulation itself is acceptable. Boogey's point is that everything you outlined is unconstitutional.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

Rightwing, that's fine. There's a difference in degrees, but the essential point of mine you agree with, that gun regulation is not only constitutional but desirable to some extent. I don't want to enter into a full blown gun debate, which is why I was hesitant to mention "well regulated militia", since my whole point was that regulation itself is acceptable. Boogey's point is that everything you outlined is unconstitutional.


If you'll notice, there's not one thing about guns that I offered for regulation. No bans, no registration, no capacity limits, no caliber limits, nothing that has to do with firearms themselves.

The people are the problem, a gun is a tool and is neither inherently evil or good and cannot act on its own.

[Alonzo]

Keeping criminals and children from purchasing guns is regulation.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

Yep it's regulation but it isn't regulation that affects firearms, it affects the people who are allowed to legally purchase and/or own them, two huge differences.

[BoogyMan]

If you'll notice, there's not one thing about guns that I offered for regulation. No bans, no registration, no capacity limits, no caliber limits, nothing that has to do with firearms themselves.

The people are the problem, a gun is a tool and is neither inherently evil or good and cannot act on its own.


Well said Juggernaut, well said! :)

The regulation is to be of militia, not the peoples right to bear arms.

[Nathan Brazil]

So, you choose to uphold only part of the second amendment, while completely ignoring the "well regulated" part. Good to know. I'm not calling for banning guns, or attacking the right to bear arms, I support regulation of firearms.


It's pretty plain from the context of the period that the intention of the Second Amendment wasn't to limit firearm possession only to members of a regulated militia. Therefore, when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it means that the government can't go around denying people the freedom to own firearms.

The 2nd Amendment says:

a) An organized militia is necessary for freedom, and,

b) the government cannot deny people the freedom to own guns.

That's it.

As for "regulation of firearms", some people take that to mean that every gun should be registered, and that access to permits should be limited to chiefs of police and publishers of the New York Times.

The sensible ones in the crowd realize that keeping ex-bank robbers from legally owning guns won't stop them from getting firepower, but it gives the state that much more leverage to put 'em back into jail with if they rob another bank.

But people should certainly be free to carry firearms about in public, and if some jackass in a protest sticks a gun in someone's face, that's still assault with a deadly weapon and he should go to jail. Not for having the gun, but for assaulting someone.

So, when you say you support some regulation, I think you need to clarify what you mean.

[DHard3006]

Again we get the gun haters chanting the militia lie. There is no rule, law, or edit that requires a person to be in a militia to bear arms. That would be an infringement on a right, you know like poll taxes or educational requirements to vote.
The 2nd amend states militia can be regulated, not the people. The 2nd amend does say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now the gun haters will chant I am only looking at half of the 2nd amend. But I am not, I have dealt with both halves. And still no where can you find aÂ*Â*rule, law, or edit that requires a person to be in a militia to bear arms.

[Old Corps Gunny]

When this country was first being settled, every person who had any kind of a firearm (musket, rifle, or shotgun) or capable or carrying a firearm (this included boys as young as 12-13) was considered "militia" and expected to respond to the common defense of the community when it was in danger. Even after the US won its independence from England and had federal forces, militia companies were formed to augment regular forces when needed (Creek Indian war, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, War between the States aka Civil War, etc). Even after the War between the States, citizens had to depend upon themselves to defend themselves and their property -- a case in point is the end of the James-Younger gang.

This was the intent of the drafters of the 2nd Amendment - that the people have the ability to band together and protect themselves against a common danger. It also gave them the capability to defend against the possibility of a tyrannical government. Makes one wonder about those in Congress who are in support of outlawing gun ownership.

[crimzonsol]

they do not need gun control, What you need is bullet control. I think all bullets should cost 5000$. That way people would think before they shoot someone.
I would kill you, if I could afford it.
And If someone was shoot. He must have done something they put fifteen thousand dollars worth of lead in his head.
If you got accidentally got shot you wouldn't have to go to no doctor, the person who shot you get their bullet. Excuse me, but I believe that you have my property.

[RightWingJuggernaut]

they do not need gun control, What you need is bullet control. I think all bullets should cost 5000$. That way people would think before they shoot someone.
I would kill you, if I could afford it.
And If someone was shoot. He must have done something they put fifteen thousand dollars worth of lead in his head.
If you got accidentally got shot you wouldn't have to go to no doctor, the person who shot you get their bullet. Excuse me, but I believe that you have my property.


So basically what you're saying is, unless you're rich you wouldn't have the right to use a firearm to defend yourself?

Nice. Very nice.

I think you're post wins three awards, the first one for the least comprehensible post of the day, the second for the most elitist post of the day and the third for the most unoriginal post of the day.

[firefox]

Harsh, Juggernaut. I don't think he's malevolent, just hasn't worked it all out yet, as we have. The bottom line is, firearms are cats out of the bag. You can't put them back in no matter how hard you try, so the next best thing is to get good old fashioned MAD going on 8-).

[micfranklin]

How can they make an anti-gun law if there is a second amendment, so far all I know is that this law violates the constitution.


Any and all anti-gun laws are illegal. End thread.