If the 2nd A only applies to muskets then their 1st A only applies to typewriters and written text, not phones and computers..........

The 2nd A guarantees the right to own weapons of similar type to the military. The 2nd A isn't about hunting or target shooting, it is about protecting the country from tyranny. Oddly enough, Thomas Jefferson once said "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Well now is when they need it the most.
Sharpie, 2013-03-23 00:17:14

"Not_the_Daddy"

Wrong, there are certain states that allow civilian ownership of full auto weapons, it requires strict background checks, a $200 tax stamp (On top of the many thousands of dollars it costs to buy the firearm itself) and the ATF can enter your home at any time without a warrant to check the condition of the firearm.
Sharpie, 2013-03-23 00:12:25

In response to Mrs-Brigand...

"Permits are required to carry concealed weapons,"

Mrs-B, "Wrong. Not all States require a permit."

For concealed carry, most do

".HILARIOUS..so it thinks CONVICTED FELONS can legally carry a concealed weapon."

Mrs-B "In the States where no permit is required, then yes."

Wrong, in states that have constitutional carry, you still have to LEGALLY own the gun, so no, convicted felons can NOT legally carry. But that doesn't stop them from illegally carrying.

Get your facts straight.
Sharpie, 2013-03-23 00:10:26

Here's the thing, the UK has less gun crimes than the US, but 3x as many violent crimes. So when you take away people's way of defending themselves, you give power to the criminals because the victims have already been disarmed. Overall, people who want civilian ownership of firearms outlawed, are stupid. Gun control only disarms the victims.

The CPS confiscated a Yugo AK (May have been full auto) and a Sig Sauer P220 in .45, Canada's relatively strict gun control laws did not do anything to stop these guns from being on the streets. Not sure why people think doing the same in the US will give different results.
Sharpie, 2013-03-22 20:52:36

OK, LU, so what resources do they put into rounding up all the guns currently in the hands of the public? And once that is accomplished at some phenomenal cost in the billions, how much more would YOU be willing to see spent on monitoring and policing the new law?

Just give us some idea as to how YOU see that being a viable goal.
Pragmatic, 2013-03-10 18:39:03

they should ban guns..

remember the topic 10 above

"do Americans have the right to be stupid".. says it all doesn't it.

LU, 2013-03-07 10:14:09

My view...OMG, not the tired "guns don't kill people.... people kill people" argument?

Anyone arguing for a continuation of the status quo must do better than that lame offering.
The Crusher, 2013-03-01 12:36:25

Gun control is about hitting what you're aiming at. Let's go through the sequence. Coroners don't look for a gun on a victim. They look for the bullet. For that bullet to get to the victim, someone must acquire the gun, buy the bullet, load the bullet into the gun, carry the gun to the scene, aim the gun, cock the gun, pull the trigger. Notice the gun can't do any of these moves itself. Don't blame the gun, blame the gunner. Now how are you going to stop this by disarming the entire country? You will never disarm the criminals. If you think banning semi-autos is going to make this world safer, watch a few videos. With some practice a person can use a 5 clip magazine, with a pocket full of backups, and rattle off a round every 2 seconds. Your solution will have to be better thought out than that. Banning something has never eliminated it. Otherwise just ban crime.
my view, 2013-02-26 17:04:44

Sorry, hit the send too quickly.

You need a brain to "think" and twitty doesn't have one.
The Crusher, 2013-02-25 10:13:53

twitless RMB thinks nothing should be done about the mass killing of 27 people...........

Shameful twitty.
The Crusher, 2013-02-25 10:12:59