Sue me...

[Slash27]

My bad

[ToeTag]

I just like this (found it tonight lol)

Via Louis Montalvo:

“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

If I missed your point I'm sorry....but my point was the guns "we" have are not military grade guns.  Anyone who says they are...are complete taco sticks.  The AR-15 is less deadly than....insert many semi auto NON AR gun platforms.  Jeeze there was a very popular 30-06 semi auto that would deal more lethal blows than a lot of the semis we have now....but those are ready to go in the eyes of.....

[homersipes]

I just dont get the whole gun bans, ban this gun, that gun, this type of gun, yadda yadda and so on.  To me a gun is a gun is a gun, they can all be deadly if used for the purpose of killing which, is why I call them guns and not weapons.  Anything can be used as a weapon and until a gun is used to do harm its just a piece of steel or whatever, that is made into a gun.  I mean it took how long to catch the "DC sniper" and he was shooting people out of the trunk of a car or something like that making 1 shot.  and they are worried about "assault weopns" that unload 20 shots in 3 seconds lol
heres a tune to how I live and probably some of you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlWPq0uOky4

[MarineUS]

If I missed your point I'm sorry....but my point was the guns "we" have are not military grade guns.  Anyone who says they are...are complete taco sticks.  The AR-15 is less deadly than....insert many semi auto NON AR gun platforms.  Jeeze there was a very popular 30-06 semi auto that would deal more lethal blows than a lot of the semis we have now....but those are ready to go in the eyes of.....

Oh I definitely agree. 100%

The problem is people see something black with rails on the front and go   a people killer!

It's like looking at a car with a "ground kit" and a spoiler and thinking it's a street racing speed-mobile when it's literally just some flashy cosmetics.  

It makes me sad.

heres a tune to how I live and probably some of you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlWPq0uOky4

Excellent song. I have it on several CD's in the car.....not that my CD player works anymore.

[Stellaris]

I'm not in favour of more and more capable weapons carried by more and more civilians.  However I think a strict reading of the 2nd amendment in context shows that its intent is to allow armed rebellion should that become necessary. To quote Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  By this reading, there is no issue with the people keeping and bearing anything the armed forces chooses to bear.  This would certainly include assault rifles.

[Stalwart]

I just like this (found it tonight lol)

Via Louis Montalvo:

“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

This is an excerpt from the National Review Online article:
"Regulating the Militia" DECEMBER 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from the state.
By Kevin D. Vance Williamson

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson

[Stalwart]

I am tired of the "news" saying "assault weapon...like the one the military and police have." We as civilians have a "civilian" version of the one the police and military have..I wish I could deliver a slap to the face of anyone who tries to place the civy version in the same hole as the military version.

You are right of course.  The MSM is almost never going to get this right.  It's in their DNA.  On the other hand, the spirit of the second amendment would be better served if law made neither the distinction nor the restriction on sale or ownership of the military models.

If that wasn't obvious, then let me be clear.  I advocate elimination of the restriction to sell or own military weapons such as the M16 and M14.  All the better to "check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers"  as Supreme Court justice Joseph Story explained in his opinion on the second amendment.

[MarineUS]

This is an excerpt from the National Review Online article:
"Regulating the Militia" DECEMBER 28, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from the state.
By Kevin D. Vance Williamson

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson

[Slash27]

On August 29th, 1997 my AR-15 became self aware.

[MarineUS]

[Rino]

On August 29th, 1997 my AR-15 became self aware.

     Was it concerned about the future of it's pistol grip or bayonet lug? 

[coombz]

Freedom is not free etc

[danny76]

What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.

If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.

[Stellaris]

Also very true.

[Serenity]

What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.

If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.

How do you define "well-regulated militia"? I have some friends. We are armed. We have a rank structure, rules of safety, rules of engagement, etc. Are we not well-regulated? Are we not a militia?