[blueback]

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The text being: "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."

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Personally, I feel like this is read too often as "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", without the preceding portion.

The first part provides A reason for the last part, not the only reason.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I feel like the amendment says that the people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a "well regulated" militia - so as to keep the State free. the bearing of arms and the purpose of the bearing of arms (for the well regulated militia) can't be separated, in my opinion.

Okay. But even reading it that way doesn't justify disarming anyone. It doesn't say that a militia has the right to keep and bear arms, it says the people do. If they had meant that only a militia should be allowed to have guns then they could have written that.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think the second amendment is abused today. I also think that it is an important part of the constitution and our society, and I in no way want to see everyone in the USA disarmed, but I'd also like legal gunowners limited to non-crazy, responsible individuals.

We can't tell if anyone is non-crazy or responsible until they DON'T do something. How long do you think we should wait? Until they're 16? 18? 21? 35? etc. What amount of time passing without any craziness proves that someone will never do anything crazy in the future?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The 2nd amendment is abused by people who feel that the general public should have access to grenade launchers, fully automatic assault rifles, and other weapons which have no possible purpose other than the killing of as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

The world is overpopulated anyway
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Home defense shotguns, hunting rifles, personal handguns, service revolvers, all of that, i'm fine with. I don't agree that it is a deterrent to crime, but whatever.

It is.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But there are people who have multiple assault rifles. multiple versions of m16s, ak47s ... weapons I simply can't fathom a reason for having other than "I want it" and "In case i need to shoot people - a lot of people". It is defended as exercising their 2nd amendment rights, but it isn't. This is exactly what I mean when I say people ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment for the 2nd.

So, a person who talks a lot is abusing their freedom of speech? And a person who goes from their government job to their church a lot is abusing the separation of church and state? And a person who votes a lot is abusing their right to vote?

I'm unclear on where you think the harm is. Do you merely see POTENTIAL harm in a weapons stockpile? I'm pretty sure the number of people who have stockpiles weapons is a great deal larger than the number of people who have used them.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A person possessing multiple or many weapons which are expressly designed to service as many man-shaped targets in a small amount of time as possible is not "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". (I won't mention that neither is having weapons in your house for the sole purpose of home defense.... but that doesn't seem to matter at all)

Not only do you have to misread the 2nd amendment to disarm anyone, if you bother to look into the discussion surrounding it you'll see that the founders obviously thought that citizens should be armed whether or not they happened to be in a militia at the moment.

I think the most fundamental principle involved is individual liberty. The reason the United States is so awesome (and so FUBAR) is that it errs on the side of respecting an individual's right to do anything that doesn't impact their neighbors. A person could (and some have) stockpile weapons and ammo their entire life and you'd never know it. The stockpiling has no effect on you.

Some people just like guns, in the same way some people just like stamp collecting. For pretty much everyone else guns are something it is better to have even if it's not needed than to not have in the event it is needed. If someone invades your house, or your country, would you rather fight them with a gun or a spatula?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment provides no protection for the possession of arms by citizens with no link whatsoever to a well regulated militia.

Sure it does. Please quote where it says that only a militia is allowed to own firearms. When you fail to find that quote, feel free to quote where it says "the people" are allowed to own firearms.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't understand why people need to have a concealed weapon.

Well, in a practical sense carrying your gun openly gives a criminal (or a kid) a much better chance to get it away from you. They can inspect the holster, and where it's positioned, and wait for a moment when you're distracted to grab it.

In a more general sense restricting open carry provides one more level on the continuum of force. If your gun is already displayed you can't display it as a threat before you draw it. Moving your jacket aside to show you're armed is a useful threat. People tend to get edgy when they see a private citizen with a gun. It's a bit irrational, but it's real.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your gun owner had some weapons in his ownership kept at a local facility. This sounds pretty close to what I think the writers of the 2nd amendment intended. This was written in a time where "the militia" was something you called up by ringing the church bell. The militia of a state had a decent chance at mounting a resistance against the federal army.

Right...
Except that the milita didn't pick up their guns at a central facility, they grabbed them off of their own walls. So, you know, that point doesn't work.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...you aren't defending your home with a modified AK47 assault rifle unless you're defending it from radical islamofascist terrorists.

A gun is a gun. Pointing it at a burglar or a terrorist accomplishes the same thing.

[Corbu]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

On concealed carry - in Oregon, I'm 99% sure it is illegal to have a loaded firearm in a public place. I would be amazed if there are any stats anywhere which state that carrying a concealed weapon deters crime, because as soon as the criminal is aware of the weapon, it is no longer concealed. If the argument is that being able to threaten a criminal with a weapon ends incidents of crime, then i don't see the need for concealment.

You may want to actually read Oregon law - not meant as a flame but as an Oregonian with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) if you are a person licensed to carry a firearm i.e., have an Oregon CHL, then the following invalidates your statement per ORS:

166.173 Authority of city or county to regulate possession of loaded firearms in public places. (1) A city or county may adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the possession of loaded firearms in public places as defined in ORS 161.015.

(2) Ordinances adopted under subsection (1) of this section do not apply to or affect:

(a) A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty.

(b) A member of the military in the performance of official duty.

(c) A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

(d) A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or on a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370.

(e) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a loaded firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife. [1995 s.s. c.1 §4; 1999 c.782 §8; 2009 c.556 §3]

One of the things I love about Oregon is the common sense application of law.

[hubcap]

Rather than simply attempting to understand the what the 2nd Amendment means by reading the words.....attempt to understand the context in which it was written, then read the words.

The Founding Fathers were generally adamant about a couple of things.........liberty and tyranny. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to ensure that pre-existing rights were not yielded by "the people" to the government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to ensure that the government couldn't encroach upon the liberty enjoyed by the people.

At the time the Constitution was drafted it was understood that the militia was the people themselves........pretty much all of them. Not some standing military unit, and certainly not the National Guard.

	The 2nd amendment is abused by people who feel that the general public should have access to grenade launchers, fully automatic assault rifles, and other weapons which have no possible purpose other than the killing of as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

What possible difference does it make if I have a grenade launcher as long as I don't go down to the school playground and try it out during recess?

	But there are people who have multiple assault rifles. multiple versions of m16s, ak47s ... weapons I simply can't fathom a reason for having other than "I want it" and "In case i need to shoot people - a lot of people". It is defended as exercising their 2nd amendment rights, but it isn't. This is exactly what I mean when I say people ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment for the 2nd.

It makes no difference that you can't fathom a reason for someone wanting to own something? So now you have to approve of the reasons people have for what they do? It sounds to me like you are very uncomfortable with liberty.......which I think is a very common phenomenon. There are plenty of people like yourself who think that the population at large needs an enlightened government telling them what they should and shouldn't do........or what they need and don't need.

You should really study what liberty actually meant to the Founding Fathers.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

	“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

[Synamon]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There aren't that many gun crimes or incidences of people going crazy.

What the fuck are you talking about? Thousands and thousands of crimes each year are committed with guns.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	In 2006, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 22% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm. According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearm injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[boldbidder]

The citizenry and their arms are how the US came to be, would seem kind of silly to backtrack on that item.

Now while I really love guns, they are a 'dangerous thing' and we need to have a bit of structure around them. A few hours required training for first time gun owners isn't out of the question in my book. The barrier to entry should be something that someone can clear relatively easily though as gun ownership is intended to be a basic right in American society.

[Earl Grey]

I live 13 miles from town on one of the most winding roads you never want to drive on. We have no police in our town. The nearest police would be the county and you guessed it, they are in town. Being that far away from the authorities it might surprise you that we have very little crime as far as breaking and entering or theft are concerned. The reason? I can think of two people in our little town that don't have firearms, the drunk next door and my 71 year old mother at the end of my road.
If a criminal knows the home owners are well armed and possibly home they will not break in. In the case of my mother my very well armed brother lives right next door and is a very well known person in the area. The town drunk has nothing worth stealing.
If our firearms were handed over to the government who would protect us? I know the criminals wouldn't hand in their firearms. We would be in big trouble. I believe our situation was the state most of our country was in when the constitution was written. We have a right to defend ourselves from criminals in our house or criminals in our government.

[ATCGs]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	snip

Your post is so laughably terrible, I think you're being obtuse on purpose.

I'll address your post point by point, since you use that entirely unreadable response format.

The constitution and its amendments protects rights. I see that you, and others, essentially dismiss the first part of the second amendment as 'A reason', as in one of many possible reasons, to arm The People. Again, I will say, the writers of the amendment chose their words very carefully. If the word is included, it is because they intended it to be read in the entirety.

As I see it, it says "Because the States need to be able to defend themselves from Tyranny by the federal government (remember, there was a huge debate around the time of the writing of the constitution on the role, scale, and purpose of the federal goverenment, and centralized government was, naturally, a very bad idea to a lot of people), the right of the People (not, a citizen, or a person, but the people as a collective) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the writers had intended to secure the liberty of every individual through armament, don't you think they would have said something to that effect? Rather than say... what they wrote, which doesn't say that at all? Given that this is the single and sole reason listed, with no allusion to any other reason, I'd say it was far away principle in the writer's minds, and, for their time, they probably didn't envision an individual with a basement full of gunpowder and cannons.

You must be deliberately misreading my post (or the collection thereof). Because the constitution does not simply state that there can be no regulation on arms, it seems that the reason the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is to secure freedom. So, if the gun isn't meant for that, the constitution doesn't protect your right to have it. The constitution lists many things you have - the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, freedom from oppression, etc. If you can show to me how a grenade launcher (which apparently you never let anyone see) protects your freedom, I'll laugh in your face.

Now that you mention it, there is no method to ensure someone isn't crazy. I will therefore reply to your incredibly callous and horrific statement "The world is overpopulated anyway" , which serves as a stellar example of why we shouldn't let people have one of the easiest methods of murder ever invented stored in mass quantities in their basement, by saying that since we can't ensure a person isn't crazy, no one should be allowed to have guns. I don't think I was snide or callous enough.

Prove it. The really nice thing about gun debates is that you really can find evidence to support either side because both sides are so prolific about producing biased studies. Clouds the subject nicely.

This is where you really go astray. The equivalence from the 2nd amendment to the first of owning weapons designed to kill people is not talking alot. It is talking with the specific intent of harming other people - which we have laws against. Just as the first amendment protects your right to free speech, it does not protect your right to spread lies and defamatory remarks about other individuals, incite others to riot, or other incredibly damaging methods of speech.

If your argument is that weapons aren't dangerous until they are fired, I guess the best way to ensure that these weapons don't become dangerous is to sell them as non-functional models. If I discover that my neighbor is stockpiling m16s, he just started infringing on my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because I can't live next to him without fearing for myself, my wife, and my children. But he isn't harming anyone by just having the guns, of course.

Some people like drugs too, and guess what, you can't have those. (because the infringe on others right to life and the pursuit of happiness through their impact on the economic and healthcare fields, and through direct impact of say... driving under the influence - a potentially dangerous situation which we arrest people for even if they haven't yet hurt anyone)

The idea that you would champion the responsibility of gun owners and then say that they don't wear weapons openly so that the weapons don't get stolen off their belt in public is laughable. Since you are apparently walking down the street expecting to be attacked, I would think you would be a little more alert than a slightly stoned cow in a cornfield.

"Except that the milita didn't pick up their guns at a central facility, they grabbed them off of their own walls. So, you know, that point doesn't work.

A gun is a gun. Pointing it at a burglar or a terrorist accomplishes the same thing."

And as I said (and you did not, apparently, read, +10 comprehension points for that, by the way), I have no problem with hunting rifles and the sorts of weapons I would think would be more than sufficient to defend your home with. I do have problems with AK47s and weapons which are designed to kill many humans in a short period of time. If a gun is a gun, then why do you need really big ones? Apparently any gun will do. What a weak way to end your argument.



As for Hubcap, I love this statement:
"What possible difference does it make if I have a grenade launcher as long as I don't go down to the school playground and try it out during recess?"
No difference, but in the same vein, what difference does it make if it works or not if you never intend to fire it? You can have a grenade launcher that doesn't fire all you like, but the only purpose of a grenade launcher is to kill people - lots of people. You can't even claim home defense with that (as blueback laughable does with a AK47, apparently) unless you want to be renovating your home soon after.


When I feel threatened by my neighbor owning a weapon, they are infringing on my freedom, which the constitution protects. As with all things - free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the constitution protects the freedom of such only as far as it doesn't impinge on other's freedom. You can't kill anyone you like here, even if you are commanded by god. You can't say ANYthing you like, because if it is libel or defamation or riotous, you are impinging on others rights. You can have guns, for the purpose of securing your freedom, but grenade launchers, ak47s, stockpiles of m16s, etc etc. aren't for securing your freedom, they're for killing people.

As blueback said, a gun is a gun, so I would think a good old winchester shotgun would be good enough.

[hubcap]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for Hubcap, I love this statement: "What possible difference does it make if I have a grenade launcher as long as I don't go down to the school playground and try it out during recess?" No difference, but in the same vein, what difference does it make if it works or not if you never intend to fire it? You can have a grenade launcher that doesn't fire all you like, but the only purpose of a grenade launcher is to kill people - lots of people. You can't even claim home defense with that (as blueback laughable does with a AK47, apparently) unless you want to be renovating your home soon after.

The point being that as long as I'm not doing anything unlawful with my grenade launcher, AK47, or M-16 then you have no say in the matter.........nor should the government.

When I feel threatened by my neighbor owning a weapon, they are infringing on my freedom, which the constitution protects. As with all things - free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the constitution protects the freedom of such only as far as it doesn't impinge on other's freedom. You can't kill anyone you like here, even if you are commanded by god. You can't say ANYthing you like, because if it is libel or defamation or riotous, you are impinging on others rights. You can have guns, for the purpose of securing your freedom, but grenade launchers, ak47s, stockpiles of m16s, etc etc. aren't for securing your freedom, they're for killing people.

Wrong - you have no right to be unafraid. The Constitution doesn't guarantee that you aren't going to have to deal with scary stuff. I'm really sorry that my guns scare you. What difference does it make if I have one M-16 or fifty m-16's? As long as I use them responsibly and lawfully it is really none of your business, nor is it the government's business.

You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of liberty. If I want to own M-16's and Ak-47's, paint my bathroom lime green, drive a Hyundai, and wear wingtip shoes........its really none of your business. Now, if I paint your bathroom lime green, park my Hyundai in your driveway, or shoot out your windows...........THEN your opinion matters.........until I infringe on your liberty.......leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. That's pretty much what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Like I said earlier, you have no "right" to not be scared.

[Ray9]

You should be scared of me because it is one of my lifetime goals to design, build and detonate my own personal atomic bomb. Just a small one of course. I don't want to take out Chicago, Maybe just vaporize a golf course. I was going to give up on it but the computer came along just in time. All the information is available on the internet and I live about twenty miles from a nuclear plant that is deteriorating fast. As long as I don't nuke any of the neighbors I think it's my right to set off anything I want on my own property. I think it would make me quite a hit on the fourth of July. I love the second ammendment.

[Corbu]

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As blueback said, a gun is a gun, so I would think a good old winchester shotgun would be good enough.

My recommendation for you would be to buy a winchester shotgun then.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I do highly recommend getting some training first as you appear to be quite uncomfortable with the idea of gun ownership.

Just curious have you ever owned, shot one (a firearm) or been educated to be around firearms? Are there other things you are equally scared of? Me personally I am scared of bees, totally get bee tourettes when I see one, doesn't mean I can ban the bee keepers of the world because they scare me. For the record if I could legally own a grenade launcher, I would use it to hunt bees, probably with a nice WP or HE grenade(besides would look cool as heck on my not M-16).

[Cooper]

Where I grew up, guns were/are a normal part of life. In junior high school we had a required class that was called, "Hunter's Safety". Every kid had to take that class and pass it. It included everything from gun safety and shooting to how to properly clean and care for a gun. Then in high school the required class was "Outdoor Education" that covered everything from tracking and trapping to making an elk bugle. Anything "outdoor" was in that class and you couldn't graduate if you didn't pass it.

In other words, education is a very important part of gun onwership. The second ammendment says we can own guns. I wish it said you have to be educated about them before you own one.

[raimius]

The idea that the right is tied exclusively to membership in a militia has been rejected by the Supreme Court. This is also supported by a wide variety of writings from the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

The phrase "the people" is used consistently in the Constitution and amendments to refer to the general public. It is not some collective, like a state militia, but comprised of individuals. This is why the 2nd has been ruled to protect an individual right. To rule otherwise would reject long agreed upon case law and scholarly theory on multiple amendments and segments of the Constitution.

Currently, SCOTUS cases have only resulted in the protection of the right to keep firearms (excluding "dangerous or unusual" ones) in the home for any lawful purpose. This neglects the meaning of "bear" in the 2nd. It is commonly agreed that bear should be read similarly to "carry" ("bear arms" meaning to carry for the purposes of offensive or defensive action).

So, the 2nd protects (not grants) an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court has expressly recognized the right to keep firearms in common use in the home for lawful purposes. The Heller decision noted that "keep and bear arms" means pretty much the same thing today as it did when it was written. No cases have been ruled on, at the SCOTUS level, over bearing arms, recently. The 1939 Miller decision found that arms suitable for use by a militia are protected. (Interpretations of that case gave rise to the collectivist theory, which was rejected in Heller.)

Obviously, there must be some gun laws. It is agreed by nearly everyone that criminals and the insane should not have access to firearms. This is reasonable. How far the right to bear arms can be restricted is under heavy debate at lower levels. The same can be said for restricting certain models of firearms. Fourty-one states are (or will shortly be) "Shall-issue" for concealed carry permits. This means anyone who successfully meets state requirements for a license must be granted one. WI bans concealed carry. IL and DC ban all forms of carry. The remainder of states are "may issue," where local authorities may or may-not issue licenses, often depending on their own views.

As to statistical effects. Statistics on crimes stopped/prevented by firearms range from about 100,000 to 2.6million per year. IMO, somewhere on the mid-to-lower end of that spectrum is probably accurate. (2.6mil is pretty high, and 100k was found by a survey that likely under-reports defensive gun uses). Crime rates in the US have been declining for some time, and carry laws have been becomming less restrictive. So, there is correlation, but whether causation exists remains to be seen. Inmates in at least one ABC report stated they were more worried about victims fighting back than the police. One area where statistics can be measured very well are crimes by those licensed to carry. License revocations (for all crimes, not just firearms ones) are usually below 0.5% in most states. This is well below the crime rate the general population. So, it can be said that those with carry licenses are generally very law-abiding, this pose no significant risk to public safety.

[thod]

There are already restrictions on what arms can be held. Nobody is allowed to own nuclear weapons for example. Even the sanest man may become insane and decide to nuke the town. Far more lives would be lost to insane bombers than would be preserved by personal possession.

A gas station must build its storage tanks underground to prevent explosions and minimize risk if they do go up. Someone wanting to store large amounts of explosives in their home presents the same risk to the neighbours. They could be activated by accident, malice, or insanity and take out the whole block. Thus large arms caches must be controlled too. We all know that driving at 100 mph down main street will result in an accident eventually. That is why we have speed laws instead of only prosecuting once someone is dead.

This argument that an armed populace prevents government tyranny does not correspond to fact. During the civil war the people lived independently on their homesteads, armed to the teeth. There was not a single case of a farmer, or a citizens militia, stopping the union troops going where they liked. The farmer may have a gun but he knows that if he fires on that platoon of infantry crossing his farm he is a dead man, so he chooses life.

[Ytterbium]

	Originally Posted by think To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you were a supreme court, state, or merely someone that wanted your voice heard . . . how would YOU interpret the second amendment? Does the individual citizen have a right to have a gun? Why or why not?

I don't know exactly what it states. But my answer is NO. It's no right to own a gun, it's not a right to own a car or an aeroplane etc either.
First you need to be a good citizen to get a license. Know how to handle it properly and have a good safe for it when not used. Guns must be registred and such weapons which doesn't have any real civilian remain strictly illegal. Such as full auto, rocket launchers, atom bombs, you get the picture.
Since I'm a firm supporter of compulsory national service. This is a very good place to sort away 'nutters' from having any future contact with weapons. I also think that is a 'well trained militia'.

[Paul Siraisi]

The essence of the democratic ideal that is at the heart of the government we have tried to establish on this continent is: individual autonomy (look up Pericles speech in Athens as reported by historian Thudycides, and you'll know this is so). The right to self-defense--the inalienable nature of our individual need to preserve our own individual lives to the maximum extent possible--means that the 2nd Amendment must be interpreted as an individual right.

It's a confusing amendment, in that the right of self-defense is being nominally applied to the constituent States (these were the signatories, not individual people). But since in the long-standing tradition of militias, the individual people were always the ones who kept the weapons anyway, and the States were supposed to represent those individual people anyway, the drafters probably didn't see the need to 'unpack' the relationship between the people and the states. States are people, and people are individuals, and we are a (ok, representative) democracy which emphasizes individual rights.

[ATCGs]

Originally Posted by Corbu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My recommendation for you would be to buy a winchester shotgun then. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I do highly recommend getting some training first as you appear to be quite uncomfortable with the idea of gun ownership. Just curious have you ever owned, shot one (a firearm) or been educated to be around firearms? Are there other things you are equally scared of? Me personally I am scared of bees, totally get bee tourettes when I see one, doesn't mean I can ban the bee keepers of the world because they scare me. For the record if I could legally own a grenade launcher, I would use it to hunt bees, probably with a nice WP or HE grenade(besides would look cool as heck on my not M-16).

You clearly have neither any idea what you're talking about nor any comprehension of what i've written. I have no problem with gun ownership in general, and in fact, I think everyone should take gun safety and know how to use a basic rifle and handgun. And I do own a handgun. I'm not scared of weapons - I'm scared of the maniacal fools who feel the need to be able to kill as many people as possible.

I have serious problems with the ownership of weapons which are designed to do nothing else besides kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible. Such weapons have no purpose besides hurting people - if you do not intend to use the weapons to shoot people, you don't need a functional version of the weapon.

Owning such a weapon shows an intent to cause bodily harm, which is interpreted in all states of the US as a deadly threat, and is a crime.

If I drive a tank into the middle of the street, point the main cannon at your house, then hop out and profess my intention to do no harm, I'm full of shit, and should be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. If my neighbor sits on his porch with a grenade launcher, and assures all his neighbors that he's just looking for bees, he's full of shit.


Edit: And, by the way, to say that the phrase "keep and bear arms" hasn't changed in the last 200 years is completely fallacious. Since that time, a single person has gone from being able to carry a weapon which can fire 3 rounds in a minute (at best) to being able to carry an obscene amount of firepower. To say that a person can keep weapons in their home in 1800 was much different than it is now, because those weapons in 1800 were often more effective as clubs than firearms.

[Paul Siraisi]

	Originally Posted by Synamon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What the fuck are you talking about? Thousands and thousands of crimes each year are committed with guns.

Just to balance that a little--crimes prevented by guns:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Source: Gary Kleck, PhD, University of Florida: Analysis of incident files of 1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes (ICPSR,1987b)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your post is so laughably terrible, I think you're being obtuse on purpose.

Yeah, well, most of the other people here seem to agree more with me than with you. So, either we're all laughably ignorant...or you are.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll address your post point by point, since you use that entirely unreadable response format.

Whatever floats your boat.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I see that you, and others, essentially dismiss the first part of the second amendment as 'A reason', as in one of many possible reasons, to arm The People.

Well, it is the most important reason. The philosophical difference between the tyrrany of a government and the tyrrany of a criminal is only one of scale. Whether you are comfortable with it or not, a good person should maintain the capacity to destroy evil, since it is the apathy of good people that emboldens evil. Sometimes a thing just has to be wipped off the face of the earth, sometimes it's enough to threaten to wipe it off the face of the earth, usually it's enough just to maintain the capability.

I prefer to encourage people to take individual responsibility, rather than encourage them to hand all responsibility over to the government. Apparently you disagree. Luckily, most Americans agree with me.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As I see it, it says "Because the States need to be able to defend themselves from Tyranny by the federal government...

No, individual people need to be able to defend themselves.

I challenge you to find a single moral or philosophical system (other than militant pacifism) that doesn't grant people the right to self-defense.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...the right of the People (not, a citizen, or a person, but the people as a collective)

Ha, yeah, you're straight making that up. The courts have always interpreted "the people" to mean a bunch of individuals, not a collective entity. So, you know, feel free to betray your ignorance of the topic some more.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the writers had intended to secure the liberty of every individual through armament, don't you think they would have said something to that effect?

They did. It just that you aren't sufficiently educated on the topic to realize that fact. Whether you like it or not, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" specifically says that individuals have the right to have guns.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...they probably didn't envision an individual with a basement full of gunpowder and cannons.

That's a legitimate point, and that's why people aren't allowed to own just any old weapon they can afford.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...it seems that the reason the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is to secure freedom. So, if the gun isn't meant for that, the constitution doesn't protect your right to have it.

Ummm...okay. So, it seemed like your argument was that people shouldn't be allowed to own a bunch of guns EVEN IF they intend no illegal harm, because the mere presence of that many weapons is dangerous and makes you uncomfortable. Now, here, it sounds like you're argument has morphed such that a person should be allowed to own weapons as long as they intend to secure freedom with them.

You've haven't spent much time studying law or logic, have you? You're having a really hard time figuring out (or expressing) a coherent argument.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you can show to me how a grenade launcher (which apparently you never let anyone see) protects your freedom, I'll laugh in your face.

And this is a perfect example.

You just told me that people should be allowed to own weapons if said weapons are for defending freedom. Now you tell me that if I can demonstrate that I intend to defend freedom with my weapons you'll dismiss that fact. So, is that important or not?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Now that you mention it, there is no method to ensure someone isn't crazy.

So how much risk of crazy is acceptable?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...since we can't ensure a person isn't crazy, no one should be allowed to have guns.

Ah, no risk is acceptable.

What about knives? Sticks? Cars? Drano? Fists? All these have been used to kill people. We should outlaw rope too, since it can be used to hang someone. And pencils, those things are sharp, did you see The Dark Knight? Ummm...lets see, cinder blocks can be dangerous too. Hell, dogs are dangerous, lets make those illegal. People can drown in water, so lets make a law that says pools are illegal.

I know, I know, what you're thinking right now is, "But guns are specifically designed to kill people, and none of that other stuff is."

The problem with that argument is that sometimes people need killing. Therefore, we need to have tools to kill people. Sometimes a nail needs to be hammered, sometimes a person needs to be shot. Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it will ever kill someone, it merely means it could kill someone. But, a knife or car could kill someone too. Do you disagree?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The equivalence from the 2nd amendment to the first of owning weapons designed to kill people is not talking alot. It is talking with the specific intent of harming other people...

No it's not. The 2nd amendemnt doesn't say anything about hurting anyone. I thought you would have noticed that since you studied it so closely.

The right to keep and bear arms is only the right to have a weapon, just like the right to free speech is only the right to communicate. The specifics are very much open to further refinement. The mere exsistence of a loaded firearm doesn't result in a single injury or death, just like the mere existence of communication doesn't result in any insult or slander.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the strength of your conclusions isn't backed up by an appropriate amount of thought.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If your argument is that weapons aren't dangerous until they are fired, I guess the best way to ensure that these weapons don't become dangerous is to sell them as non-functional models.

But that would entirely defeat the point.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I discover that my neighbor is stockpiling m16s, he just started infringing on my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because I can't live next to him without fearing for myself, my wife, and my children. But he isn't harming anyone by just having the guns, of course.

You really need to not be so certain when you obviously haven't done any research.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999"
"The CDC estimates that in the US...more than 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year."
"FBI Crime Index figures: There were an estimated 15,517 murders in 2000"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Motor vehicle accidents still cause more deaths than guns, even including accidental discharges.

Now, how can you be so worried about a tool specifically designed to kill people when it kills FEWER people than a tool not specifically designed to kill people?

If you really feel so strongly that no one should be allowed to own a gun (or anything else dangerous for that matter) you can always go to England.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The idea that you would champion the responsibility of gun owners and then say that they don't wear weapons openly so that the weapons don't get stolen off their belt in public is laughable. Since you are apparently walking down the street expecting to be attacked, I would think you would be a little more alert than a slightly stoned cow in a cornfield.

Wow. First, I'm not sure what "championing the responsibility of gun owners" means exactly. It sounds like a weak attempt to pretend that what I said contradicted itself. Second, you really should do some research on this topic. Go ask a cop about the training he received to help him keep another person from grabbing his gun off his belt. Go attend a concealed carry class. Get educated.

Not only are you betraying your lack of any relevant information with every paragraph, you can't even form a coherent argument in general. What you just did was exaggerate the worst of my position and the best of yours. It's a fallacy.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have no problem with hunting rifles and the sorts of weapons I would think would be more than sufficient to defend your home with. I do have problems with AK47s and weapons which are designed to kill many humans in a short period of time.

So, is your problem with explosives and full-auto weapons? Well, congratulations, because those are heavily regulated.

Single-shot and semi-auto weapons are legal pretty much everywhere. Of course, a person who practices can fire a semi-auto nearly as fast as a full-auto, especially if the guy with the full-auto has to change mags.

What exactly is your experience with firearms? Aside from seeing them in movies of course.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can have a grenade launcher that doesn't fire all you like, but the only purpose of a grenade launcher is to kill people - lots of people. You can't even claim home defense with that (as blueback laughable does with a AK47, apparently) unless you want to be renovating your home soon after.

So that makes it even less likely someone will use it.

You keep bringing up grenade launchers. I don't think anyone in America has ever been killed by a grendade launcher. I mean, I'm sure I would have heard about it. Are you seriously scared of being shot with a grendade launcher?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When I feel threatened by my neighbor owning a weapon, they are infringing on my freedom, which the constitution protects.

Ha ha, no, that's not how the constitution works. You aren't even trying anymore, are you?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can have guns, for the purpose of securing your freedom, but grenade launchers, ak47s, stockpiles of m16s, etc etc. aren't for securing your freedom, they're for killing people.

If a person isn't going to use one assault rifle to kill, what makes you think they're going to use a dozen? How could a person even hold a dozen rifles? I mean, if you were complaining about a lot of ammo that might make sense, but a person can only shoot (maybe) two rifles at a time. Why would having more than that make them more dangerous?

Also, have you ever looked at the statistics on gun crimes? I suggest you look them up and let us all know how many people have been killed by assault rifles.

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This argument that an armed populace prevents government tyranny does not correspond to fact. During the civil war the people lived independently on their homesteads, armed to the teeth. There was not a single case of a farmer, or a citizens militia, stopping the union troops going where they liked.

I think you're missing the point.
The troops the South sent into battle were largely armed with their own personal weapons. It's really more of a potential thing. Guns equalize things. If a government DID try to declare some form of war on its citizens, their personally owned armaments would make that much more difficult. It's not a hard concept to understand.

And since intentional and accidental deaths via firearm are still significantly less than, say, motor vehicle accidents, it's obviously a risk worth taking.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm scared of the maniacal fools who feel the need to be able to kill as many people as possible.

You aren't going to be killed in a mass slaughter. Even if you went looking for one you probably couldn't find it. Try worrying about something practical.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have serious problems with the ownership of weapons which are designed to do nothing else besides kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible. Such weapons have no purpose besides hurting people - if you do not intend to use the weapons to shoot people, you don't need a functional version of the weapon.

So, would it matter to you if you were killed by a gun vs a knife? Like, would you be happier being killed with a knife because it wasn't a weapon specifically designed to kill a person? I'm having a hard time understanding why you are focusing on people who have a lot of guns, but no intention of hurting anyone. How is that different from a person driving a semi-trailer down a street right next to a crowded sidewalk with no intention of squishing any pedestrians?

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Owning such a weapon shows an intent to cause bodily harm, which is interpreted in all states of the US as a deadly threat, and is a crime.

No it doesn't.

Owning a car doesn't show an intent to plow into a crowd. Owning a computer doesn't show an intent to hack anyone's network. Owning a pool doesn't show an intent to drown your own child.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If I drive a tank into the middle of the street, point the main cannon at your house, then hop out and profess my intention to do no harm, I'm full of shit, and should be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. If my neighbor sits on his porch with a grenade launcher, and assures all his neighbors that he's just looking for bees, he's full of shit.

Right. But tanks and grenade launchers are already heavily regulated. Hell, displaying a gun in public is heavily regulated. It sounds like the only thing you can come up with to complain about that is actually legal is owning a lot of assault rifles.

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To say that a person can keep weapons in their home in 1800 was much different than it is now, because those weapons in 1800 were often more effective as clubs than firearms.

Which is why the application of the principle has changed, but the underlying principle is as sound as ever. The first right people have is the right to defend their own life...with deadly force if necessary. That's why "life" is listed first in "life, liberty and happiness."

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have serious problems with the ownership of weapons which are designed to do nothing else besides kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible. Such weapons have no purpose besides hurting people - if you do not intend to use the weapons to shoot people, you don't need a functional version of the weapon.

You are plagued with a condition known as "hoplophobia":

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Owning such a weapon shows an intent to cause bodily harm, which is interpreted in all states of the US as a deadly threat, and is a crime.

Sorry, you're wrong. Possession of a weapon doesn't show an intent to cause bodily harm. Are you just making this stuff up? Or do you really believe it?

	If I drive a tank into the middle of the street, point the main cannon at your house, then hop out and profess my intention to do no harm, I'm full of shit, and should be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. If my neighbor sits on his porch with a grenade launcher, and assures all his neighbors that he's just looking for bees, he's full of shit.

If someone walks into the mall, pulls out a gun and points it at someone..........he will be arrested. Pointing a loaded gun at someone shows intent to do harm. Until that happens, just leave people alone and you'll be fine...........you may be living in fear, but it is an irrational fear.

[Corbu]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You clearly have neither any idea what you're talking about nor any comprehension of what i've written. I have no problem with gun ownership in general, and in fact, I think everyone should take gun safety and know how to use a basic rifle and handgun. And I do own a handgun. I'm not scared of weapons - I'm scared of the maniacal fools who feel the need to be able to kill as many people as possible. I have serious problems with the ownership of weapons which are designed to do nothing else besides kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible. Such weapons have no purpose besides hurting people - if you do not intend to use the weapons to shoot people, you don't need a functional version of the weapon. Owning such a weapon shows an intent to cause bodily harm, which is interpreted in all states of the US as a deadly threat, and is a crime. If I drive a tank into the middle of the street, point the main cannon at your house, then hop out and profess my intention to do no harm, I'm full of shit, and should be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. If my neighbor sits on his porch with a grenade launcher, and assures all his neighbors that he's just looking for bees, he's full of shit. Edit: And, by the way, to say that the phrase "keep and bear arms" hasn't changed in the last 200 years is completely fallacious. Since that time, a single person has gone from being able to carry a weapon which can fire 3 rounds in a minute (at best) to being able to carry an obscene amount of firepower. To say that a person can keep weapons in their home in 1800 was much different than it is now, because those weapons in 1800 were often more effective as clubs than firearms.

I am actually okay with not comprehending your point(s). Mainly because you waffle on the issue. You state you have no problem with gun ownership, yet you have a serious problem (your choice of words) with weapons (in your esteemed opinion) designed to do naught but kill people. Here is a simple fact, a gun is an inanimate object. Seeing as we have (most of us) opposable thumbs and use tools, it is highly logical that any tool can be used (and most likely has) to kill humans. Some tools are better equipped for the task at hand, but all could/can be used for destructive purposes.

By your own logic you are guilty of intent to cause bodily harm. You state you own a handgun. I bet you can fire more than three rounds in a minute. (perhaps a little butter on those waffles?)

For the record I stated I would use a grenade launcher to hunt bees not sit on my porch and look for bees. (a dash of syrup too). Really no different than say owning a shotgun to hunt birds with. (more syrup?) Unless you waffle on your position (again) and own the shotgun for ....gasp.... HOME DEFENSE! (you hater you) So if I own an AR-15 (civilian version of the M-16) and hunt say, coyote or deer, does that mean I have the same intent that you clearly may have? Once again why is your opinion so esteemed on the subject of what I hunt with? Clearly a tank would be very non-sporting IMO but if that is your thing so what?

Edit:
On a serious note. While I try to use humor to illustrate my point the 2nd Amendment is very important. I believe the root of our disagreement lies in the symbology of certain firearms. For you that symbol of the M-16, AK-47 or whatever is repulsive to you, for me not so much. It isn't the weapon but what that weapon stands for. In your mind the only identifiable purpose is for mass killing of humans. To me I see the aesthetics and designs that are proven, capable, and usable by many users and appreciate not only the practical side but also the artistic side of weaponry (I won't limit the appreciation to only modern weapons) and the pain staking evolution of the same.

Your view actually reinforces why keeping the 2nd amendment is so important. Quite simply, the greater than thou attitude that your belief about firearms is the only viable viewpoint and it must be shoved down the uneducated throats of non believers at all costs is as repulsive to me as any other form of similar tyranny. Frankly you are mistaken on many, many factual issues in this debate, while I respect your viewpoint it doesn't make you any more correct.

Rhetorical question time: Why is the freedom to bear arms the "2nd" amendment? My answer has always been to protect the most important which is freedom of speech. Being necessary for the defense of freedom from those who wish to take it.

[mindstate]

I find it interesting that many people deride the ownership of an M-16 or an AK-47, but have no problem with a shotgun for hunting. Shotguns are far more intimidating and effective weapons than M-16's and AK-47's. It is also noteworthy that AK-47's are legal in Illinois, not sure about M-16's but I know the AR-15 civilian version of the M-16 is perfectly legal to own and operate in Illinois.

The only real restriction I'm aware of in my state for this sort of weapon is that the barrel can't be shorter than 16 inches, it can't operate in burst fire or automatic fire mode, and it can't be gas-piston operated unless I have an FFL license.

It is very important to note that these weapons are NOT "assault rifles" under the law. Legally, an assault rifle is one that can be switched from semi-auto to full auto by flipping a switch. Those are illegal in my state, so I wouldn't even try obtain one.

Anyone wishing to verify my claim can check out the editors note on page 4 of:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Straight from the horses mouth.

[Pachystima]

Originally Posted by mindstate To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I find it interesting that many people deride the ownership of an M-16 or an AK-47, but have no problem with a shotgun for hunting. Shotguns are far more intimidating and effective weapons than M-16's and AK-47's. It is also noteworthy that AK-47's are legal in Illinois, not sure about M-16's but I know the AR-15 civilian version of the M-16 is perfectly legal to own and operate in Illinois. The only real restriction I'm aware of in my state for this sort of weapon is that the barrel can't be shorter than 16 inches, it can't operate in burst fire or automatic fire mode, and it can't be gas-piston operated unless I have an FFL license. It is very important to note that these weapons are NOT "assault rifles" under the law. Legally, an assault rifle is one that can be switched from semi-auto to full auto by flipping a switch. Those are illegal in my state, so I wouldn't even try obtain one. Anyone wishing to verify my claim can check out the editors note on page 4 of: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Straight from the horses mouth.

I think that the Ruger Mini 14 has a gas piston. So do a lot of surplus M-1 and M-14 rifles as well as the AK-47, civilian AR-15, SKS and a lot of other guns. Are all of these illegal in Illinois? I know of many people who own these elsewhere without having a FFL. Seems unduly restrictive to me.

[Arkeph]

It makes sense to many that lots of powerful armaments are strictly forbidden (atom bombs, as was mentioned) or highly regulated. Some are on the side of strict bans on anything beyond a pistol (or beyond a knife) while others are more permissive. It's no surprise that arguing over a fuzzy line leads to flimsy arguments.

The fact that certain weapons are forbidden or highly regulated does seem to indicate that even flimsy arguments concerning public safety, intimidation, and responsibility have some weight when it comes to powerful weapons. So, governments have already instituted measures designed to minimize a threat to the public while preserving the larger share of freedom guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

IMO, the obvious restrictions have already been applied. Arguing for much more is a matter of one's own opinion.

[The One]

	Originally Posted by think To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does the individual citizen have a right to have a gun? Why or why not?

Yes. But, what is your position in this issue?

[blueback]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment."

"All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable.""