• The constitution even says so

    He second amendment says, "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." show me your well regulated Militia, I think we call that the military now. So the 2nd amendment really says in the military people can have guns.

  • If Not Guns, Then Knives

    Guns and knives, what's the difference really? The argument goes like this: Citizen ownership, and possession of firearms in the United States causes an abnormal amount of people to die. I don't think i need to throw statistics at you to show you that this is the truth. Is it necessary to own a gun? Yes. Is it necessary to have freedom of speech? Yes. Is it necessary to cooperate with one another to create a place of equality and civility? Of course. For the most part, we are not children, and do not need this kind of suggested precaution. Guns are items of power, they shift emotions at the quick flick of a finger and have a ruthless potential for destruction, but you know what? So does God. If not guns, then what will be the next weapon of choice?

  • Guns equal self defense

    By taking guns out of the average American's hands, the only guy with a gun is the murderer, and by making laws to outlaw guns, you keep people from hunting, keep people from defending themselves, and these laws don't even guarantee that people will be safe. A law isn't going to stop the shooter, he plans on killing people, and either killing himself or getting locked up for life, perhaps death row. Illegal guns enter America every single day. So by banning guns, you are weakening the internal America.

  • Nope. No way and the question made me laugh.

    When the framers wrote the second amendment, they had just borne witness to a brutal revolution that claimed the lives of many of their families, neighbors and friends. They fought and died for among other things, the right to keep and bear arms, specifically military arms, should the time come when the government again oversteps its bounds.

    It is with this context in mind that I write my reply: the LAST thing the founding fathers would want is to have guns restricted ONLY to the military and police. Should tyranny rise again, guns are one mechanism of resistance that will allow us to fight for and hopefully regain, our independence. Militia, as you point out, is a key part of the document, therein, it refers to American citizens, ie "the people" being able to maintain a free state through the use or force of arms.

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does "the people" refer to "the government." Therefore, ALL US citizens are considered militia. ALL US citizens have the responsibility to rise when and if out government goes out of control and that time may come again.

    So no, the second amendment does not restrict rifles to the military. It specifically endows us the right to keep and bear arms, MILITARY arms like the AR-15 and AK-47, should the need arise. I consider my rifle, an HK91, a tool, an interesting curiosity and much like a fire extinguisher, "break glass in case of emergency."

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.