Mom's Demand Action- no more dead children

[martybegan]

You do know I don't even own a gun, right? What I support is my ability to buy firearms such as semi automatic rifles, and handguns, and shotguns, scary accessories or not.

You also just rambled from gun control into "torture" (polices btw, Obama continues, I guess its OK when a democrat does it)

Also considering one can only really fire one semi automatic rifle at a time, what the hell does "stockpiling" have to do with this anyway?

I don't know what you own or don't own.

Well, if you want to call this conversation "rambling" on my part, I guess it's over.

I was pretty interested in it, myself, but perhaps you'd rather talk to other people now.

You didnt answer either of my other questions....

 

[Againsheila]

No,not unconstitutional. The constitution does not spell out how many guns one can have, what type or how much ammunition. These laws would simply limit unrestricted access to all types of weapons and masses of ammunition. It is sanity. The founding fathers never visualized the weaponry we have today, nor imagined that private citizens would want to stockpile such weapons. The intent of the constitutional language is to allow a man to own a firearm, not to allow every man to stockpile the type of military hardware that is available today.

It does not say "right to keep and bear arm", it says "arms"

Another end run around the 2nd amendment by a grabber.

LOL The language, 'to bear arms' means a gun, a single gun. That is how it is said. Sorry. It doesn't mean multiple guns.

So, English isn't your first language?