Being how this is your viewpoint, I'm sure you will side with me in my attempt to open a store and sell these to the general public...




And after that, I want to open up a dealership selling these:





After all, as you brilliantly stated -- weapons don't do the killing, people do. So as long as murder is against the law, selling weapons like these won't impact society any.

__________________


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

Amazing how the Supreme court is almost split down the middle on that particular decision when any 7th grader in America can CLEARLY interpret the 2nd amendment as the right of the people to bear arms.

It also seems that the handgun ban in DC has done nothing to curb the use of a handgun in a crime. Why...Criminals don't tend to follow the law on the books.

Correct. Having a law that bans something is not going to have much of an effect. All it will do is create a black market for that item and cause more crime Example: Prohibition.

If you want to get rid of hand guns on the streets, then you can start by shutting down gun production.

__________________


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

Better Example: coke.

That kind of analogy is so ignorant and exactly the kind of fear mongering anti-gun advocates, and anti-gar marriage advocates by the way, use. "If we let them have handguns then the next thing they'll want to have under the 2nd amendment is a rocket launcher." ("If we let two men get married then next thing you know people will want to marry their dogs.")

The ruling affirms the right of people to own and keep handguns in their homes. It still allows for reasonable regulation of firearms. It is not a blank check for people to go out and obtain things that are currently and always will be illegal for civilian ownership. Felons will not be allowed to own guns, the people of D.C. are not allowed to carry them outside of their homes, and that is true of most states as well. I do not agree with the absolute right of people to keep and bear arms but I also do not agree with illogical and oppressive regulation of firearms.

I love Diane Feinstein's statement that we are now less safe in America because of the ruling. I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement and I also don't agree that it applies to Feinstein as she made sure her bodyguards got concealed weapons permits that are impossible to get in her part of California.

__________________

That kind of analogy is so ignorant and exactly the kind of fear mongering anti-gun advocates, and anti-gar marriage advocates by the way, use. "If we let them have handguns then the next thing they'll want to have under the 2nd amendment is a rocket launcher." ("If we let two men get married then next thing you know people will want to marry their dogs.") I would ask you whether the war in Iraq was started by a Stinger missile or a Bradley fighting vehicle, or was it started by people?

The ruling affirms the right of people to own and keep handguns in their homes. It still allows for reasonable regulation of firearms. It is not a blank check for people to go out and obtain things that are currently and always will be illegal for civilian ownership. Felons will not be allowed to own guns, the people of D.C. are not allowed to carry them outside of their homes, and that is true of most states as well. I do not agree with the absolute right of people to keep and bear arms but I also do not agree with illogical and oppressive regulation of firearms.

I love Diane Feinstein's statement that we are now less safe in America because of the ruling. I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement and I also don't agree that it applies to Feinstein as she made sure her bodyguards got concealed weapons permits that are impossible to get in her part of California.

__________________

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...

What do you mean settle down??? What if a guy wants to marry his dog and buy it a gun???

The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written with black powder muzzle loaders in mind is the one that most anti-gun advocates rely on, stating exactly what you did. The problem is that The Constitution is not an absolute blueprint for every possible situation. It is up to courts to interpret it and apply it to the situation at hand, taking into account the framer's intent as well as the realities of present day. If we accept the argument that we should go with what was written and considered at the time then we'd lose some very important rights that have been interpreted by the courts.

For example, the 8th Amendment only prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". What does that mean??? What was "cruel and unusual" in the days the Amendment was written? Did they anticipate that lethal injection would be argued as "cruel and unusual"? What about whether it was "cruel and unusual" to execute child rapists? That was never anticipated by the framers.

If you're bored, search for case law on search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. It will blow your mind how many judicial decisions there have been and continue to be on the 4th Amendment.

My point is simply that the argument that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to today because of it's original context is logic that would eviscerate many other Constitutional rights and you can't pick and choose which Amendments you believe in.

__________________

That was the most tarded post yet

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.