Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[VinBucFan]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

Not saying they are correct, but the most conservative Supreme Court in recent history even disagrees with you.  I only offer that as a commentary on where the law is heading and I am sure you realize that "assault weapons" have already been banned in the US (even if ineffectively)

[Pewter Pirate]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

Not saying they are correct, but the most conservative Supreme Court in recent history even disagrees with you.  I only offer that as a commentary on where the law is heading and I am sure you realize that "assault weapons" have already been banned in the US (even if ineffectively)

That's okay, the conservative members of the Cout don't agree with each other a lot of the times.  It does not help your theory.  Gun ban is an emotional response that fails every time it is tried.  It just makes the gov't stronger and it's citizens weaker.

[VinBucFan]

my take is guns arent the problem, society is.  but i also dont understand the need for anyone to own a (so-called) assault rifle.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

Not saying they are correct, but the most conservative Supreme Court in recent history even disagrees with you.  I only offer that as a commentary on where the law is heading and I am sure you realize that "assault weapons" have already been banned in the US (even if ineffectively)

That's okay, the conservative members of the Cout don't agree with each other a lot of the times.  It does not help your theory.  Gun ban is an emotional response that fails every time it is tried.  It just makes the gov't stronger and it's citizens weaker.

actually, the conservative members did agree and even with that they only got the thinnest majority to support an all out ban  OF ALL GUNS being unconstitutional, all of the justices agreed that a ban of assault weapons is constitutional, with part of the reasoning being that similar bans existed when the 2nd amendment was created.

I have zero doubts that assault weapons will be banned again, the only question is whether the bans will close the loopholes that allowed Ms. Lanza to buy an assault weapon legally.

On the rest, you might consider that your government has moved considerably left (something I think both of us agree is bad), serious restrictions on guns are coming, especially because other Newtowns are inevitable (unfortunately)

[GameTime]

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

so why dont you go out and get some missiles and bombs?  they are much more effective than assault rifles, right?  its not most weapons anymore, its most effective.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

do we have a well regulated militia?  are you a part of it?  i wont argue your knowledge of history...but i also think you've watched one too many episodes of Revolution.  if an out of control tyrannical govt wants to do something, its not gonna be with footsoldiers imo.

[VinBucFan]

GT makes a good point, the notion that the 2nd Amendment serves the purpose of having a well regulated militia is a little odd in the modern day.

[Pewter Pirate]

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

so why dont you go out and get some missiles and bombs?  they are much more effective than assault rifles, right?  its not most weapons anymore, its most effective.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

do we have a well regulated militia?  are you a part of it?  i wont argue your knowledge of history...but i also think you've watched one too many episodes of Revolution.  if an out of control tyrannical govt wants to do something, its not gonna be with footsoldiers imo.

When the gov't is not  tyrannical there is no need for a militia.  However, if the gov't has all of the guns, a militia would have no weapons to form with.  The right is to bear arms, so a militia can be formed so the citizens can protect themselves.  The Constitution is to protect the citizens, and limit gov't power.  Bans on weapons makes citizens less safe, and the gov't stronger.  No, I am not part of a militia, I do not feel threatened by our govt' now, but in 20 years we all might, and if that time comes, we better hope the gov't does not have all of the guns

[VinBucFan]

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

so why dont you go out and get some missiles and bombs?  they are much more effective than assault rifles, right?  its not most weapons anymore, its most effective.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

do we have a well regulated militia?  are you a part of it?  i wont argue your knowledge of history...but i also think you've watched one too many episodes of Revolution.  if an out of control tyrannical govt wants to do something, its not gonna be with footsoldiers imo.

When the gov't is not  tyrannical there is no need for a militia.  However, if the gov't has all of the guns, a militia would have no weapons to form with.  The right is to bear arms, so a militia can be formed so the citizens can protect themselves.  The Constitution is to protect the citizens, and limit gov't power.  Bans on weapons makes citizens less safe, and the gov't stronger.  No, I am not part of a militia, I do not feel threatened by our govt' now, but in 20 years we all might, and if that time comes, we better hope the gov't does not have all of the guns

Those a re fair points well made, but I am not sure there is even a debate about whether the government will have ALL the guns because there is no doubt that is unconstitutional.  The question is whether the US needs 310 million guns, including guns whose only purpose is to kill multiple human beings quickly.

[Pewter Pirate]

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

so why dont you go out and get some missiles and bombs?  they are much more effective than assault rifles, right?  its not most weapons anymore, its most effective.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

do we have a well regulated militia?  are you a part of it?  i wont argue your knowledge of history...but i also think you've watched one too many episodes of Revolution.  if an out of control tyrannical govt wants to do something, its not gonna be with footsoldiers imo.

Foot soldiers is how you round up dissenters for re-education.    Foot soldiers are the only way to catch individuals hiding. 

[Pewter Pirate]

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

so why dont you go out and get some missiles and bombs?  they are much more effective than assault rifles, right?  its not most weapons anymore, its most effective.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

do we have a well regulated militia?  are you a part of it?  i wont argue your knowledge of history...but i also think you've watched one too many episodes of Revolution.  if an out of control tyrannical govt wants to do something, its not gonna be with footsoldiers imo.

When the gov't is not  tyrannical there is no need for a militia.  However, if the gov't has all of the guns, a militia would have no weapons to form with.  The right is to bear arms, so a militia can be formed so the citizens can protect themselves.  The Constitution is to protect the citizens, and limit gov't power.  Bans on weapons makes citizens less safe, and the gov't stronger.  No, I am not part of a militia, I do not feel threatened by our govt' now, but in 20 years we all might, and if that time comes, we better hope the gov't does not have all of the guns

Those a re fair points well made, but I am not sure there is even a debate about whether the government will have ALL the guns because there is no doubt that is unconstitutional.  The question is whether the US needs 310 million guns, including guns whose only purpose is to kill multiple human beings quickly.

When you slowly take pieces of a right away, it is easier for the next gov't administration to take away a little more until there is nothing left. 

[Chief Joseph]

2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller:
  'The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,'

[GameTime]

When the gov't is not  tyrannical there is no need for a militia.  However, if the gov't has all of the guns, a militia would have no weapons to form with.  The right is to bear arms, so a militia can be formed so the citizens can protect themselves.  The Constitution is to protect the citizens, and limit gov't power.  Bans on weapons makes citizens less safe, and the gov't stronger.  No, I am not part of a militia, I do not feel threatened by our govt' now, but in 20 years we all might, and if that time comes, we better hope the gov't does not have all of the guns

when do you plan on regulating this militia?  after the govt becomes tyranical?  you'll be on your own and your assault rifle wont be of much help imo.

and again, it sounds like you believe the govt will be trying to become tyranical with footsoldiers.  i just dont see that either. 

i understand the slipperyslope.  i just dont buy it.

[VinBucFan]

If you read history, and what happens when the government has most of the weapons you would understand.

so why dont you go out and get some missiles and bombs?  they are much more effective than assault rifles, right?  its not most weapons anymore, its most effective.

The reason we have the right to bear arms as well regulated militia, is to stop an out of control tyrannical govt't.  If the government has all of the "assault" weapons, a militia could never exist to stop the gov't.

do we have a well regulated militia?  are you a part of it?  i wont argue your knowledge of history...but i also think you've watched one too many episodes of Revolution.  if an out of control tyrannical govt wants to do something, its not gonna be with footsoldiers imo.

When the gov't is not  tyrannical there is no need for a militia.  However, if the gov't has all of the guns, a militia would have no weapons to form with.  The right is to bear arms, so a militia can be formed so the citizens can protect themselves.  The Constitution is to protect the citizens, and limit gov't power.  Bans on weapons makes citizens less safe, and the gov't stronger.  No, I am not part of a militia, I do not feel threatened by our govt' now, but in 20 years we all might, and if that time comes, we better hope the gov't does not have all of the guns

Those a re fair points well made, but I am not sure there is even a debate about whether the government will have ALL the guns because there is no doubt that is unconstitutional.  The question is whether the US needs 310 million guns, including guns whose only purpose is to kill multiple human beings quickly.

When you slowly take pieces of a right away, it is easier for the next gov't administration to take away a little more until there is nothing left.

I agree with that, but you used to be able to drink and drive, drive without seatbelts and drive any speed.  Those truths resulted in deaths that could be reduced with reasonable laws.  Guns present the same type of public health question.  There's always a tension between laws and freedom, but that tension doesn't eliminate the governments right to take reasonable steps in the name of public welfare. 

I am a small government guy, but the price of unfettered or nearly unfettered gun access is too much.

[VinBucFan]

2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller:
  'The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,'

right, that was the opinion of the sharply-divided court and that opinion only flew because the Court went on to say that reasonable restriction short of an all out ban are constitutional. Heller is not a pro-gun decision by any means

[Dolorous Jason]

[GameTime]

Foot soldiers is how you round up dissenters for re-education.    Foot soldiers are the only way to catch individuals hiding.

seriously, what movies are you watching?  you dont re-educate dissenters.  you eliminate them.