Immediate ban on all guns.
Guns only for military/police.
Bolt/pump/lever action ok, no semi-autos.
Gun laws are fine as they currently stand.
Select-fire weapons should be allowed.
You can have them when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
I want a tank.
1) Win the next game.
2) See goal #1
"The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
Is it training camp yet?
Just because you don't agree with someone,
does not give you the right to attack them.
Its not realistically possible to ban guns and enforce that ban and every semi-sane politician knows that. Relax guys. Nobody is gonna take your guns.
A terrible tradegy occurred. A sick bastard walked into a school and shot little kids. Now, some people are deciding to attack the Second Amendment.
Hate speech happens. People are inspired by the words of others to injure, maim, & even kill groups of people they don't like. We, as Americans, continue (rightly so) to defend the First Amendment.
The Bill of Rights is not a frigging salad bar. You don't get to decide which Constitutionally protected individual liberties are important, & which aren't.
How dare you.
Don't want to exercise your Second Amendment rights? Fine, don't.
But, I'll thank you to keep your grubby dick-beaters the hell off of mine.
Which part can I clarify for you?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.
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
(well-regulated militia) seems to be a package deal...
Honestly, the gun laws that exist (if they were executed to their full extent) would suffice for "well-regulated."
However the entirety of the first line is only proving a claim,
"A well regulated Militia = being necessary to the security of a free State"
premise: a well-regulated militia necessitates a secure state.
premise: Citizen's being able to own firearms is necessary for the formation of militia
conclusion: therefore citizen's will have the right to own firearms.
the latter portion explicitly states the right, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." this being the case, the first portion can only be used to provide historical context as to why the right was explicitly stated. Regardless the constitution was supposed to be a breathing document, if the right to bear arms is no longer important to the american republic then the constitution should be amended. The historical context behind the initial framing should not be cited as the primary modern reasoning behind the right itself.