Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

checking your house..this is getting nuts.. You for it or against it?

Proposed Gun Law Calls For Home Inspections Of 'Assault Weapon' Owners


(Jason Howerton) With each proposed anti-gun bill put forth by Democrats across the U.S., the demands appear to be getting more and more restrictive on gun owners. While the Obama administration pushes for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and universal background checks, Democrats in both California and Missouri have proposed legislation that would result in possible confiscation of semi-automatic rifles.

Now, Democratic lawmakers in Olympia, Wash. last week introduced legislation that would allow county sheriffs to inspect the homes of semi-automatic rifle owners once a year. Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat describes the move as “Orwellian.”

The proposed bill, Senate Bill 5737, would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable magazines and magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. It would also subject law-abiding gun owners to random searches by a county sheriff.

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection,” the bill states.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder,” Seattle trial lawyer Lance Palmer told the Seattle Times.


Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/billha...#ixzz2LZuXAJqp

I have lurked here for about 1 year now and am finally posting for the first time.

I for one and completely for assault weapon bans. Why would hunters need a 30 Round magazine are they not a god hunter. I live in Ohio and we are only allowed to use shotguns and bows for hunting and we do just fine.

Also why would you need an assault weapon, just in case the government tries to take over? Go ahead take them on with and AK, and then you can take down the tanks, gunships!

Also since Newtown (69 days) just in this country alone (US) we have had 2036 gun deaths not just deaths in general just gun deaths, a death resulting from a gunshot. That is unacceptable, in 2010 we had over 10,000 gun deaths in the US, Japan had only 2. Yes the US has 3 times more population so let us take 2 X 3 = 6/10,000.

It is not about movies or games, Europe, Japan, Russia, South America, and Australia have the same or similar ones. And study after study states that these are not a cause of violence, what they do state is the presence of guns in the home.

So yes I am in favor of this!

I just want to add that I love studying the military throughout the world, the weapons, and the history. I play these violent video games and watch these movies and I am not violent I have never hit my wife or would even think of it , nor have I ever thought about taking a life. I just don't believe that normal citizens should have military grade weaponry. Would you be okay with your neighbor having a nuclear weapon ( that is classified as an arm) as are all weapons! And everyone who believes in the second amendment should go back and read it, it states that any state may bear arms in a well regulated militia. This was at the time the US did not have a standing military.

Do any of these gun owners belong to the state militias? Do the states have militias? No they have the National Guard! We don't need militias we have a standing army!

It's a fetish for many gun owners.

Anyway the Feds will never try to implement a law that requires searching the home of gunowners to see what kind of firearms they own. It's just not practical or feasible.

I didn't know Ohio hunters were only allowed to use bows or shotguns. Learn something new everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Anyway the Feds will never try to implement a law that requires searching the home of gunowners to see what kind of firearms they own. It's just not practical or feasible.

---

I pretty much agree. Just not 100% sure but not too worried either. Trying it would be a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

It's a fetish for many gun owners.

Anyway the Feds will never try to implement a law that requires searching the home of gunowners to see what kind of firearms they own. It's just not practical or feasible.

I didn't know Ohio hunters were only allowed to use bows or shotguns. Learn something new everyday.

---

Yeah as far as I know at least in the northwest of the state it is illegal to use a rifle or anything other than a bow, crossbow or a shotgun.

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

---

So you must be part of a well regulated militia where you live. Read the second amendment again!

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

Just going to leave this here.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

---

One less to worry about.

Just to also put this into perspective for other people we have more regulations for toy guns, teddy bears, and other toys than we do for guns. So to make a teddy bear to be sold at a Wal-Mart you would have to have a background check of the manufacturer before any of these bears can be produced. In the same context you can go to any of the hundreds of gun shows in the US and purchase any number of guns and as much ammunition as they want without even showing any form of ID just money in hand.

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.

Why would I be part of a miltia? smh...

I own firearms, and the 2nd amendment allows me to do so,and unless the amendment itself is changed, no local/state/federal law can LEGALLY force me to give up that right. Obama and his bleeding heart gun-control assholes can kiss my ass.

Of course they're going to trample on constitutional rights and perhaps eventually start the door to door thing, but only because people allow it. I rather die standing, than live on my knees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.

Why would I be part of a miltia? smh...

I own firearms, and the 2nd amendment allows me to do so,and unless the amendment itself is changed, no local/state/federal law can LEGALLY force me to give up that right. Obama and his bleeding heart gun-control assholes can kiss my ass.

Of course they're going to trample on constitutional rights and perhaps eventually start the door to door thing, but only because people allow it. I rather die standing, than live on my knees.

---

If you actually read the real meaning the official words of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution it states that you would have to be part of a militia to bear arms not to just own them. Also the legal meaning of the words never state that any one can own a gun.

If you don't like what I am saying take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
If you can't find him how about Benjamin Franklin, or John Hancock, or any of the other signers of the Bill of Rights!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

One less to worry about.

---

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

I guess you're ok with someone else's right being taken away, as long as it's not yours correct?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you do, that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right ( you might be pro/anti gay marriage, don't care)

Also my my my what type of weapons do you own?

A pistol, shotgun, rifle, assault weapon, submachinegun, machinegun, RPG, rocket launcher, or other.

Also some other fun info so far this year gun buy back programs have bought back at least 3 missile launchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

I guess you're ok with someone else's right being taken away, as long as it's not yours correct?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you do, that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right ( you might be pro/anti gay marriage, don't care)

---

Actually you don't have a constitutional right to own a weapon you may have a somewhat legal right but not constitutional.

Also it is not us keeping same sex marriage from becoming legal it is the Tea Party, and most Republicans, also some Democrats. I am non of these I am for all of things that make life better and this country better, I am a Progressive.

As a gun lover and owner I don't mind if they try prevent new guns from hitting the streets. I don't support them coming to my home to take what I already have but I wouldn't be against submitting an itemized list of the weapons I own that don't fit whatever regulations they would pass as long as those weapons would be grandfathered in.

I only own semi-automatic , or bolt action rifles

"Assault Weapon" is the current maligned term

"Omg, assault weapons cause so many deaths" In reality, NO gun owners that I know of (of the non-criminal or psychopath variety) use an "assault weapon" to assault anything. They are used to shoot stationary targets, not to assault a deer hideout in the forest, or to charge and assault a liquor store.

Current firearms in my possession, all semi auto or bolt action , no full auto:
HK G36C
Colt M4 carbine
Howa 1500 Sniper Rifle
Yugoslavian SKS
Marlin .22
Beretta 9mm
Mossberg shotgun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I was born with the constitutional right to buy and possess the firearms I bought.

I will shoot any law enforcement or government agents or civilians who attempt to remove or take away my firearms, which I acquired legally under the law of the land. Any violation of my constitutional rights is not permitted and will be met with according reaction.

---

You're a moron.

150 years ago the South used the same argument to justify slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I only own semi-automatic , or bolt action rifles

"Assault Weapon" is the current maligned term

"Omg, assault weapons cause so many deaths" In reality, NO gun owners that I know of (of the non-criminal or psychopath variety) use an "assault weapon" to assault anything. They are used to shoot stationary targets, not to assault a deer hideout in the forest, or to charge and assault a liquor store.

Current firearms in my possession, all semi auto or bolt action , no full auto:
HK G36C
Colt M4 carbine
Howa 1500 Sniper Rifle
Yugoslavian SKS
Marlin .22
Beretta 9mm
Mossberg shotgun

---

If you know anything about military weapons you would know that the HK G36C and the Colt M4 Carbine are both considered assault weapons they are any weapon or variant of these weapons that are used by the military or have more than 10 round magazines. The Beretta 9mm is okay by me I have nothing against pistols, shotguns, or rifles although I have no idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle with more than a 1x zoom scope.

I also just want to make clear I love weapons and love the look the power and the history of them. I play plenty of games that have these weapons (Battlefield, Crysis, or any other Real Time Strategy game) and watch plenty of the movies of historical military themes.

I am against people having guns because the "need to protect themselves" if someone wants to rob you let them and live.

Sorry for the triple post but I believe this will shed some light on the second amendment:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose.

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".

Meaning of "the right of the People"

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.

Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.

Meaning of "keep and bear arms"

In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”

In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

One less what to worry about?

Because I'm willing to defend my constitutional right?

You're one simple minded fool. It's morons that think like you that keep gay marriage from becoming fully legal and recognizable in all 50 states. Sure, you can come on a forum like this and defend gay marriage, but you would not be willing to actually march the streets to obtain that right.

---

One less idiot that thinks he can take on the United States & all of it's fire power with a pop gun. I'm all out of sympathy for big talking anonymous whiners, & other such pussies. Wanna hang on to your toys? Then stop sniveling or spouting idle threats (We all know that punks like you won't actually follow through & die like you should.), & help come up with a workable plan to keep weapons out of the hands of lunatics who shoot up crowds of people who are unarmed. Right now, you're the best argument for gun confiscation.

Posing as an marketing representative for a popular gun manufacturer, the NRA happily supplied me with the names and addresses of all their members. We know exactly which homes to "investigate." Don't worry, we'll send you an advertising flyer first. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Posing as an marketing representative for a popular gun manufacturer, the NRA happily supplied me with the names and addresses of all their members. We know exactly which homes to "investigate." Don't worry, we'll send you an advertising flyer first. :)

---

I think I'm in love! Trish, please run for office. Your country needs you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

If you know anything about military weapons you would know that the HK G36C and the Colt M4 Carbine are both considered assault weapons they are any weapon or variant of these weapons that are used by the military or have more than 10 round magazines. The Beretta 9mm is okay by me I have nothing against pistols, shotguns, or rifles although I have no idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle with more than a 1x zoom scope.

---

geez, you are one hard headed daft person

I KNOW exactly what an assault weapon is. I was just saying in the media "assault weapon" now carries a negative connotation. In their real context, assault weapons are available to military in full automatic version making them quite different from their civilian versions.

And I don't care that a beretta is ok by you, or that you have no Idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle. You are obviously not a gun collector or enthusiast. I don't NEED anything but food and water, shelter, and clothing arguably, and to defecate, breathe etc. Do I NEED alot of video games? No, I choose to buy them because I WANT them.

I want a sniper rifle, because I want the challenge of hitting something (*gasp poor liberals, shux ,not a human!) at a far distance. some people choose archery, I chose firearms. Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

---

No, it's usually the owners of those toys who manage that! :shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

geez, you are one hard headed daft person

I KNOW exactly what an assault weapon is. I was just saying in the media "assault weapon" now carries a negative connotation. In their real context, assault weapons are available to military in full automatic version making them quite different from their civilian versions.

And I don't care that a beretta is ok by you, or that you have no Idea why anyone needs a sniper rifle. You are obviously not a gun collector or enthusiast. I don't NEED anything but food and water, shelter, and clothing arguably, and to defecate, breathe etc. Do I NEED alot of video games? No, I choose to buy them because I WANT them.

I want a sniper rifle, because I want the challenge of hitting something (*gasp poor liberals, shux ,not a human!) at a far distance. some people choose archery, I chose firearms. Just because psycopaths and criminals make my TOYS seem to be bad, doesn't mean they are.

---

I am not a gun enthusiast in the sense that I don't own one but I do like studying the history of them and there historical impact.

And yes I do know that civilian versions of these gun are Semi-Auto and not Full-Auto but in the case of the shooting of Gabby Giffords the shooter had an AR-15 variant that was Semi-Auto he emptied the clip in 17 seconds. I realise that a Semi-Auto fire only as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger and if you are proficient you can get allot of rounds off in a short amount of time.

Personally I consider anything that is used by the military, law enforcement, or anything with a clip or magazine over 10 or 15 rounds to be an assault weapon. Because you don't need anymore than that unless you are assaulting something or someone!

And I don't see why gun owners like you get so up in arms about the thought of limiting guns. What is so bad why can't you just give one reason as to why you need this things other than "I need them" or "The government needs to be kept in check" or "I need to protect my family".

I have nothing against protecting your family, but the amount of dead from guns each year is tragic. Every one was horrified by the Sept. 11 2001 attacks and that killed around 3000 people, but no one bats an eye at the over 10,000 dead a year from US citizens killing US citizens.

Also the same day as the Newtown massacre there was another attack on a school in China. An adult male attacked the school he only had a knife out of the 20 kids he was able to get to none of them had severe wounds or needed to be hospitalized. Whereas here a person goes to a school and kills 28 people, 0 to 28 what was the main factor that was different a GUN.

PRINT your assault weapon,magazine and ammunition


Breaking Gamechanger: Printable Gun Magazines - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

I know the 2nd ammendment quite well you twat.
geez, you are one hard headed daft person

---

And why do you keep insulting me and calling me names. I have not done anything to insult you if you believe I have I will apologize. I am trying to make a nice and truthful conversation and am being attacked for it, I realize you have the first amendment right to say what you want and I respect that but if you have nothing nice to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

If you actually read the real meaning the official words of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution it states that you would have to be part of a militia to bear arms not to just own them. Also the legal meaning of the words never state that any one can own a gun.

If you don't like what I am saying take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
If you can't find him how about Benjamin Franklin, or John Hancock, or any of the other signers of the Bill of Rights!

---

It means you BRING THE WEAPON WITH YOU if you join a militia. IT DOES NOT mean you would be part of a militia, never did. It means that states can and do maintain militias. The supreme court upheld that any fire arms in current use by the military can be and should be legally owned by citizens. The second amendment is not about hunters or hunting never has been never will be. Its about defending yourself from everyone INCLUDING a tyranntical government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skylancer81

It means you BRING THE WEAPON WITH YOU if you join a militia. IT DOES NOT mean you would be part of a militia, never did. It means that states can and do maintain militias. The supreme court upheld that any fire arm in current use by the military can be and should be legal owned by citizens. The second amendment is not about hunter never has been never will be. Its about defending yourself from everyone INCLUDING a tyranntical government.

---

This was also in the time that the weapons of the military were muskets capable of firing 3 rounds a minute. Not Semi-Auto 30 round magazines that can fire off 17 rounds a second. Would they make that same decision in today's world is the question to ask. If the answer is yes then I stand corrected if no then I prove my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volkov2006

This was also in the time that the weapons of the military were muskets.

---

Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skylancer81

Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.

---

We also had an Assault Weapon ban during that time as I said I am not against all guns just the ones that are considered Assault Weapons. The Federal government is trying to reinstate that ban not extend it except for high capacity magazines over 10 rounds. After the ban expired and was not renewed in 2004 the amount of gun deaths skyrocketed. I am not trying to say that it is not legal I am saying it is not necessarily constitutional. Look at all of the dead from these guns, if 9/11 happened over the course of a year would we have been as outraged. So 3000 in one day an outrage, 10,000 over a year not a big deal?

Statistics don't lie, look at Australia in I believe 1998 a massacre of 50 people happened 12 days after the shooting the government passed an assault weapons ban and since then not a single mass shooting. We just let the dead lie and keep trying to put it on other things, drugs, mental illness, video games, movies, but not guns how could we do that.

Also if people want these guns they can have them but they need to go through the background checks not to just get them and use them when they want. Right know people don't have to go through background checks at least 40% of them. We have to go through paper work to transfer a car title to another person but not a gun what is wrong here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skylancer81

Which was the modern military weapon of the day. The supreme court upheld that in 2000's rulings that its still considered the military weapon of the day. IE whatever our military is using at that time.

---

If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

You're a moron.

150 years ago the South used the same argument to justify slavery.

---

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?

---

Let me expand on that would you want everyone to have access to nuclear weapons or a tank, gunship helicopter, those are considered arms just like a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

fuck off asshole.

The right to own weapons for self defense and target shooting, and subjugating an entire race for financial gain are two totally different things.

Either contribute something constructive or get the fuck out of this conversation.

---

They may be different things but the argument they used is the same as this one "The constitutional right to do it". Thant is what he is doing right there.

The 2nd Amendment asserts that since militias are necessary and depend upon civilians for men and arms, the right to arms is necessary. However, militias no longer depend upon the arms of civilians. Therefore the only raison d'etre for the 2nd Amendment explicitly named by that Amendment no longer applies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

If the Constitution said it was ok to keep a cow on your roof would you do that too?

---

No I personally would not. However if someone wanted to they could, it would be their right.

Back to the gun debate. Deaths by fire arms have come down since the removal of the assault gun ban not gone up. Since removal of the handgun ban (see below) in Washington DC weapons deaths have been coming down not quite down to the US level as a whole.

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc-full.png

Just look at all the data on this page that shows as weapons have become more used in US the deaths have gone down. And in other nations as the ban on weapons has happened deaths by illegal weapons and in general have gone up.



http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here's perhaps just few things out of many to think about when viewing our constitution.

The last Supreme Court rulings seemed to ignore the language about maintaining a militia within the second amendment, yet a six year old could read that short paragraph and get that intent unless they a political agenda to gloss over it. SCOTUS was built to have that agenda.

Hunters and gun enthusiasts need assault weapons about as much as they need drones and fighter jets. A literal reading of the second amendment says I have right to own both. And frankly the NRA would lobby for me to have them if I could pay for them because the guys who make them would want to sell me a drone and a fighter jet if I could afford it.

The constitution was written as a guideline to manage a republic, not a literal document.

And the process was so flawed that we had the Bill of Rights, the first in a series of amendments for what was ignored or left undefined.

Let's not forget when we talk about the Constitution it had to amended to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote.

The vast majority of Americans IMHO do not believe that an average citizen should be able to, or has the right to out gun the local police. Any more than they believe that only white, land holding males should have the right to vote and/or hold peoples of another race as property in servitude.

The second amendment argument IMHO is lame and I would actual dare LaPierre and those dwarfs to make that argument to the face of a mother whose baby died in Newtown.

Just my take and I apologize in advance for the harshness of my opinion but 12,000 Americans a year are dying while we argue about an ancient document?