Look we can go in circles on this but you can't divorce "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state" from the amendment.  Gun ownership is conditional on being part of the militia.  We now have a National Guard.  Back in the day we didn't.  The National Guard is the well regulated militia that we are supposed to count on to defend us.  

No it seems that common sense is a bit too difficult for you this morning.  The lack of "self defense" or "hunting" in that amendment weren't an oversight by stupid people who wrote the damned thing. It doesn't say that you have an unlimited right to own whatever weapons you want to hunt humans. 

When someone or some group is stockpiling weapons shouldn't we at least have law enforcement monitoring them?

Now if you're going to trot out the old tired defense that we have to armed against our own government.  It's not in the amendment either.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 22 2012 at 08:00

Gun control arguments have been going on for years, and like the politics arguments and the religion arguments it will never be settled.

Edited by GaryB - July 22 2012 at 08:22

Dean wrote: Richard O'Dwyer extradition opposed by vast majority in UK   ...the implications of this case are far reaching and could affect this site. The reasons why the extradition is being sort by the USA is that all .com and .net traffic passes through the USA, so even a site that is hosted in another country (in O'Dwyer's instance the UK, for PA it is Canada) and hosted no actual copyrighted material, its owner can be extradited for trial in the USA over links to copyrighted material on his .net domained web site.

Edited by Atkingani - July 22 2012 at 08:36

I never said anything about preventing the shooting. I'm just a supporter of individual rights.

Slartibartfast wrote: State's rights would have absolutely prevented this.  What it the hell is the matter with you people?

Oh dear. 

Where in the Constitution do you see states having rights?  States do not have rights- only individuals do.

Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Yeah, we all need to get behind the rights of individuals to stockpile weapons and murder people.   Individuals have the right to weapons.  Individuals do not have right to murder people.

 

Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Yeah, we all need to get behind the rights of individuals to stockpile weapons and murder people.   Individuals have the right to weapons.  Individuals do not have right to murder people.     Rights can change as times change though.  I don't suppose when people were originally given the right to bare arms they were thinking about rifles that can fire off so many rounds a second. Actually, they were thinking that people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.  Therefore, people should have tanks and fighter jets.

 

A Long Dark Night: Gun Violence Romanticized and the New Batman Movie Boys and men in America inherit a popular culture of indiscriminate vigilante rage.

On a lighter note I saw the movie last night and it was pretty awesome. And there were policemen in the theater.