Settle down.... in case you failed to see my point, I was being a bit sarcastic. I am all in favor of the second ammendment, but I do agree with bans on certain kinds of guns, like the semi-automatic assult rifles for example.

The NRA always states that the second ammendment is absolute. But if you take the second ammendment in the context that the founding fathers meant it, the purpose was for civilians to be able to protect themselves against government abuse, i.e. the government's military. They were thinking in the context of the American revolution and how civilians fought against the British, and they did not want to take away the right of civilians to do that in the future.

At the time, guns were the most powerful weapon used in war. So keeping that in mind, it would make sense to allow civilians to use the same powerful weapons that the military does. The problem with this line of thinking is that the founding fathers could have never guessed how destructive future weapons would become in the future. A criminal with a one-shot musket in the 18th century could only cause so much damange. But take a criminal today and give him an assult riffle, and you have a scene like what took place at Virginia Tech. Times change, and so should laws when the old law no longer makes sense.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...