Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
Sure you do. But does that mean the cold is gone? Or did you just do something to make yourself feel better while enabling the disease to attack your friends, family members and co-workers through your good intentions?
And why wouldnt you focus more on curing the disease than lining the pockets of the companys that just treat your symptoms?
Are you saying I should suffer through my cold more obviously so people will know better than to be near me? Is that what you do?

Relieving some of the symptoms of a cold is in itself a worthwhile goal. Especially since there is no cure for the common cold. You do what you can do, is all. You don't throw your hands up and do nothing just because you can't do everything.

Gun buy backs, confiscation from criminals and checks are already in place....hows that supply now? All im saying is people have a right, and infringing on it does nothing to stop criminals. Criminals arent buying their weapons at gun shows and gun dealers.
Sure they are, at least some, if not directly then by proxy. Out West in particular, gun shows are an absolute free for all and gun control is a concept rather than a reality.

As I said before, the gun lobby does their best to strip gun control laws of any real effect and then comes along afterwards and point to those toothless laws as not having an effect as the reason not to pass a further law. Until an actual gun control law comes along and gets passed and we can see what it does to gun violence, I'll continue to be unmoved by arguments such as this one you're making.

Anyway, gun crime by criminals isn't the only kind worth possibly doing something about. The less likely the average person is to having a gun, and/or the less damaging that gun, the fewer domestic murder cases we'll have as well as "dude just snapped" kinds of spree killers.

I agree with you, our focuses being different. But wouldnt you agree it shows the Founders wisdom that those two little words dont appear in any other of the first 10 Bills?
I would not agree with that, no. Each one has language unique to it.

And as far as well regulated goes, the regulation was not given to the Federal Government by the Founders, shouldn't that mean those regulating powers were to be reserved by the States?

I don't think there's ever been a successful legal argument made that the 2nd amendment says that the regulation of arms to be a wholly state concern. It's always been the interpretation that the federal government can do things and the state can do things, and where they're in conflict the federal government takes precedence (the "necessary and proper" clause overrules the 10th amendment where they come in conflict, at least usually).