Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[JoeB131]

You have no right to an opinion on gun ownership because you have your mind made up about the issue.
You believe anyone who owns a gun is a fanatic.
And don't try to bullshit your way out this either.
You are a card carrying lib. You people hate guns and gun owners.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

Dictionary.com says that there is...

Unsurprisingly | Define Unsurprisingly at Dictionary.com

Incidently, I don't think there is an absolute right to won a gun in the second amendment, but even if there were, the Founders did not consider something like a AR-15 that can be modified to fire full automatic when they wrote it down.

I do think people who claim they need guns to "fight the government" are fanatics, crazy, and stupid. First, because the government is the extention of the people, whether you like it or not. Oh, you can scream about "low information voters" and "Moochers" all day, but the fact is, you all put Plutocracy on the ballot, and people said, "no thank you". Threatening violence if you don't get your way on stuff is more poisonous to constitutional government than anything the government could do.

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid.

 

[Dubya]

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

Dictionary.com says that there is...

Unsurprisingly | Define Unsurprisingly at Dictionary.com

Incidently, I don't think there is an absolute right to won a gun in the second amendment, but even if there were, the Founders did not consider something like a AR-15 that can be modified to fire full automatic when they wrote it down.

I do think people who claim they need guns to "fight the government" are fanatics, crazy, and stupid. First, because the government is the extention of the people, whether you like it or not. Oh, you can scream about "low information voters" and "Moochers" all day, but the fact is, you all put Plutocracy on the ballot, and people said, "no thank you". Threatening violence if you don't get your way on stuff is more poisonous to constitutional government than anything the government could do.

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid.

What we have on this thread are a typical group of gun nuts, pretending to be patriots defending the rights of American citizens. They aren't patriots and they aren't even good citizens of America. They don't offer anything to solve obvious problems and are themselves part of the problem. Some even deny problems exist. They don't defend the right to keep and bear arms, but defend their desires to own whatever guns they want. They argue their point like a 3 year old spoiled child, who only knows I want.

I don't agree with every proposal to solve America's gun problems, but I do recognize that people making such proposals are looking for solutions. I believe we need a system of universal background checks and registration that insures the gun owner still possesses the weapon. That's why I believe the best method is a renewable registration. If a person wants to sell their weapon, the registration has to be transferred. All firearm type weapons should be registered so that includes the police, gun stores and the military. They should be ballistic tested regularly and the tests kept on file. That would discourage somebody from using that firearm to shoot someone. People possessing unregistered firearms should be arrested, fined and jail or probation and have all their firearms confiscated. They should lose their rights to possess firearms for a minimum to maximum period and all these punishments should have a range, so they can deal with the cases individually. Transferring firearms by any method other than inheritance should be considered trafficking firearms, though in some cases it's minor trafficking. The open market for guns in America needs to be shut down.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are not limiting ones right to speak when you just don't listen - you are exrecising your right of choice.
People who don't vote are usually more vocal than the ones who do. I don't take them seriously but the still have the right to speak on any subject they choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Again you are free to choose what you listen to but the speaker can continue his speech as long as he wants.
Its ok, I can choose not to listen to your banter too - it is one of my rights as well.
I can't keep you from expressing your opinion even though you are sure it is right but I can choose not to listen.

When I stated "It's been a pleasure debating this issue with you" that meant the discussion was terminated.
There was no reason for you to reply.
I had already left the room.
Looks to me like you are hung up on the notion that we have the right to be acknowledged.
Whatever.
We're done here.
I've unsubbed from the thread.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid. __________________

Then why aren't we still British?

 

[OODA_Loop]

All firearm type weapons should be registered so that includes the police, gun stores and the military. They should be ballistic tested regularly and the tests kept on file. That would discourage somebody from using that firearm to shoot someone.

Yes we just lack ballistic testing from keeping criminals from shooting people.

A file with the serial number and ballistic "fingerprint" of the guns Lanza used = 20 alive first graders

 

[MDiver]

You need to remember the the "National Rampage Association" as you call it, is actually not one specific entity, but rather an organization made up of a couple of millin "voters."
There are also other gun owner organisations, such as the GOA, each of these and other organizations are made up of legitimate gun owner voters, most of whom agree with the organizations stance.
Bottom line is that if you want our guns, you're going to have to kill us to get them.

 

[Darkwind]

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

Dictionary.com says that there is...

Unsurprisingly | Define Unsurprisingly at Dictionary.com

Incidently, I don't think there is an absolute right to won a gun in the second amendment, but even if there were, the Founders did not consider something like a AR-15 that can be modified to fire full automatic when they wrote it down.

I do think people who claim they need guns to "fight the government" are fanatics, crazy, and stupid. First, because the government is the extention of the people, whether you like it or not. Oh, you can scream about "low information voters" and "Moochers" all day, but the fact is, you all put Plutocracy on the ballot, and people said, "no thank you". Threatening violence if you don't get your way on stuff is more poisonous to constitutional government than anything the government could do.

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid.

It appears that you are wholly unacquainted with world history.

 

[Mushroom]

What we have on this thread are a typical group of gun nuts, pretending to be patriots defending the rights of American citizens. They aren't patriots and they aren't even good citizens of America. They don't offer anything to solve obvious problems and are themselves part of the problem. Some even deny problems exist. They don't defend the right to keep and bear arms, but defend their desires to own whatever guns they want. They argue their point like a 3 year old spoiled child, who only knows I want.

Sorry, how exactly am I part of the problem? And forgive me, but part of your argument sounds like that of a 3 year old child.

"defend their desires to own whatever guns they want"? Come on, really? Well, all you need for transportation is a Yugo, so suppose I want to pass some legislation to say that you are only allowed to have a car of no more then 4 cylinders? I can design it as a way to save gasoline and to make the roads safer (since a Yugo would obviously do less damage to somebody then an SUV would). And after all, I would have more of a right to do that, since cars are not covered in the Constitution at all.

I don't agree with every proposal to solve America's gun problems, but I do recognize that people making such proposals are looking for solutions. I believe we need a system of universal background checks and registration that insures the gun owner still possesses the weapon. That's why I believe the best method is a renewable registration. If a person wants to sell their weapon, the registration has to be transferred. All firearm type weapons should be registered so that includes the police, gun stores and the military. They should be ballistic tested regularly and the tests kept on file. That would discourage somebody from using that firearm to shoot someone. People possessing unregistered firearms should be arrested, fined and jail or probation and have all their firearms confiscated. They should lose their rights to possess firearms for a minimum to maximum period and all these punishments should have a range, so they can deal with the cases individually. Transferring firearms by any method other than inheritance should be considered trafficking firearms, though in some cases it's minor trafficking. The open market for guns in America needs to be shut down.

Guess what, it is already a Federal law that all transfers of firearms (other then muzzle loaders) have to go through the background checks. So all you are doing here is repeating what the law already says. That is why if you want to sell a gun to your neighbor, you have to go through a licensed gun dealer to do it.

I thought we went through all this several pages ago?

And sorry, if you are arrested and convicted of a firearms violation, you loose your right to carry a weapon forever. That is already the law, and now you want to give those people a second chance to do it again?

And what the heck good would "ballistic tests" do? That would be absolutely pointless, and simply add to the work load and expense of law enforcement. And do you know how absolutely pointless such a system would be?

Barrels (the round tube like thingie the bullet goes through) are not registered or serialized. They never have been. There is absolutely nothing stopping me from going online and buying 10 seperate barrels for my pistol. I can then go on a crime spree, simply throwing out each barrel afterwards. Then when I am caught, they can do "ballistics tests" all day long on my pistol, they will never match any of the slugs recovered.

In fact, that would make it almost impossible to even tie the crimes together, since each scene would appear to have seperate weapons involved each time.

In fact, I just looked. A new barrel for my pistol is $23. So you have just made a huge headache that would be absolutely worthless. The only reason why what I just described does not happen more is that most criminals are as dumb as a bag of dog droppings. Of course, almost no criminals use guns that they purchased legally in the first place.

 

[Darkwind]

What we have on this thread are a typical group of gun nuts, pretending to be patriots defending the rights of American citizens. They aren't patriots and they aren't even good citizens of America. They don't offer anything to solve obvious problems and are themselves part of the problem. Some even deny problems exist. They don't defend the right to keep and bear arms, but defend their desires to own whatever guns they want. They argue their point like a 3 year old spoiled child, who only knows I want.

Sorry, how exactly am I part of the problem? And forgive me, but part of your argument sounds like that of a 3 year old child.

"defend their desires to own whatever guns they want"? Come on, really? Well, all you need for transportation is a Yugo, so suppose I want to pass some legislation to say that you are only allowed to have a car of no more then 4 cylinders? I can design it as a way to save gasoline and to make the roads safer (since a Yugo would obviously do less damage to somebody then an SUV would). And after all, I would have more of a right to do that, since cars are not covered in the Constitution at all.

I don't agree with every proposal to solve America's gun problems, but I do recognize that people making such proposals are looking for solutions. I believe we need a system of universal background checks and registration that insures the gun owner still possesses the weapon. That's why I believe the best method is a renewable registration. If a person wants to sell their weapon, the registration has to be transferred. All firearm type weapons should be registered so that includes the police, gun stores and the military. They should be ballistic tested regularly and the tests kept on file. That would discourage somebody from using that firearm to shoot someone. People possessing unregistered firearms should be arrested, fined and jail or probation and have all their firearms confiscated. They should lose their rights to possess firearms for a minimum to maximum period and all these punishments should have a range, so they can deal with the cases individually. Transferring firearms by any method other than inheritance should be considered trafficking firearms, though in some cases it's minor trafficking. The open market for guns in America needs to be shut down.

Guess what, it is already a Federal law that all transfers of firearms (other then muzzle loaders) have to go through the background checks. So all you are doing here is repeating what the law already says. That is why if you want to sell a gun to your neighbor, you have to go through a licensed gun dealer to do it.

I thought we went through all this several pages ago?

And sorry, if you are arrested and convicted of a firearms violation, you loose your right to carry a weapon forever. That is already the law, and now you want to give those people a second chance to do it again?

And what the heck good would "ballistic tests" do? That would be absolutely pointless, and simply add to the work load and expense of law enforcement. And do you know how absolutely pointless such a system would be?

Barrels (the round tube like thingie the bullet goes through) are not registered or serialized. They never have been. There is absolutely nothing stopping me from going online and buying 10 seperate barrels for my pistol. I can then go on a crime spree, simply throwing out each barrel afterwards. Then when I am caught, they can do "ballistics tests" all day long on my pistol, they will never match any of the slugs recovered.

In fact, that would make it almost impossible to even tie the crimes together, since each scene would appear to have seperate weapons involved each time.

In fact, I just looked. A new barrel for my pistol is $23. So you have just made a huge headache that would be absolutely worthless. The only reason why what I just described does not happen more is that most criminals are as dumb as a bag of dog droppings. Of course, almost no criminals use guns that they purchased legally in the first place.

Nor would a criminal care about the ballistic fingerprint of the gun they are using. None of them are going to stop and say to themselves, "Gee, I better not use this gun because it might be traced back to the guy I stole it from!"

The gun grabbing nuts aren't looking for solutions. They are looking to entrench the power of their masters.

In America, we don't punish the innocent for the crimes of others. Apparently, this clown does wish to punish everyone because he is scared.

Their argument is a fallacy, and their notion that they aren't taking anyone's gun proves just how poorly thought out their position is.

A good analogy would be them passing a law that everyone had to drive VW bugs because one person was drinking and driving and killed a bunch of people with a Cadillac Escalade. So they are going to ban Escalades to prevent drunk driving and deaths!

And they actually have the gall to call others nut jobs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

Dictionary.com says that there is...

Unsurprisingly | Define Unsurprisingly at Dictionary.com

Incidently, I don't think there is an absolute right to won a gun in the second amendment, but even if there were, the Founders did not consider something like a AR-15 that can be modified to fire full automatic when they wrote it down.

I do think people who claim they need guns to "fight the government" are fanatics, crazy, and stupid. First, because the government is the extention of the people, whether you like it or not. Oh, you can scream about "low information voters" and "Moochers" all day, but the fact is, you all put Plutocracy on the ballot, and people said, "no thank you". Threatening violence if you don't get your way on stuff is more poisonous to constitutional government than anything the government could do.

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid.

OH brother.........
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3942460-post65.html

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not simple…

What would constitute probable cause to violate a citizen’s right to privacy by compelling him to sustain a mental health screening by the state? Wanting to own a firearm, as protected by the Second Amendment, does not constitute ‘probable cause.’

And if a citizen has a prescription for Risperdal or Clozapine, both perfectly legal and legally acquired, that is not grounds to deny him his Second Amendment rights absent due process.

Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege, the state is not so authorized to manifest such undue burdens to the exercising of that right.

So you also think that the insane have a right to own firearms?

No.

And what I ‘think’ is irrelevant.

It’s a fact of law that a person cannot be subject to punitive measures, or have a civil liberty restricted or preempted, absent due process.

That someone might be taking certain drugs or ‘acts crazy’ is not justification for the state to prohibit gun ownership.

If the state has evidence a person has a mental condition or illness that may result in harm to himself or others, that’s a matter for a magistrate to review during a hearing, and if adjudicated mentally incompetent, where that determine is part of the public record, then that person may be lawfully denied purchasing a firearm.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have no right to an opinion on gun ownership because you have your mind made up about the issue.
You believe anyone who owns a gun is a fanatic.
And don't try to bullshit your way out this either.
You are a card carrying lib. You people hate guns and gun owners.

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

That someone has made up his mind and refuses to change it doesn’t mitigate his right to nonetheless express his opinion.

 

[JoeB131]

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid. __________________

Then why aren't we still British?

Because France and Spain intervened...

Incidently, that was a fight between the AMERICAN government and the BRITISH government. If they actually took a vote on it, most people would have probably voted to stay in the Empire.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unsurprisingly, this makes no sense.

Millions of ‘liberals’ own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, own them for self-defense. Millions of ‘liberals’ support current Second Amendment jurisprudence and consider it settled law.

And Joe has every right to express his opinion concerning guns, as to have an opinion on an issue usually means someone has indeed made up his mind.

No.. I disagree. To be worthy of opinion one must be willing to debate the issue.
The OP has mind made up. He is convinced only HIS point of view is valid.

There is no such word as "unsurprisingly"

Dictionary.com says that there is...

Unsurprisingly | Define Unsurprisingly at Dictionary.com

Incidently, I don't think there is an absolute right to won a gun in the second amendment, but even if there were, the Founders did not consider something like a AR-15 that can be modified to fire full automatic when they wrote it down.

I do think people who claim they need guns to "fight the government" are fanatics, crazy, and stupid. First, because the government is the extention of the people, whether you like it or not. Oh, you can scream about "low information voters" and "Moochers" all day, but the fact is, you all put Plutocracy on the ballot, and people said, "no thank you". Threatening violence if you don't get your way on stuff is more poisonous to constitutional government than anything the government could do.

Second, the Government always win. They always have bigger guns, better guns, more powerful guns. Which is why from Shay's REbellion to the Civil War to Waco, when stuff gets real, the government wins, and usually to the cheering of most of the people. So any idiot who gets out there and says, "I needs my guns to fight the gummit" is beyond stupid.

Indeed, no right is absolute, including the rights enshrined by the Second Amendment.

That’s not at issue (or should not be…).

What’s at issue is what constitutes justifiable restrictions and/or regulation with regard to gun ownership, and what does not.

This ultimately comes down to what is a weapon ‘in common use at the time’ as opposed to a weapon ‘dangerous and unusual.’

No court has ruled as to which category the AR or other weapons subject to a possible ban falls.

It’s sad we can’t have a knowledge and civil debate as to how a given court might rule and why, but such is the nature of the issue.

FWIW, and IMHO, I believe the AR is a weapon ‘in common use,’ and should not be subject to a ban. As with handguns, it’s a weapon selected by a significant number of Americans for self-defense, as well as a sporting rifle. The very purpose of the DI design is to facilitate long range accuracy on a semi-automatic platform. Further, there is no evidence an AR or similar rifle is used in large enough numbers of gun crimes to justify a ban, as most crimes are committed by handguns, nor is there evidence banning the AR would result in the desired decrease in gun violence the state seeks.

Given these and other factors, the state would lose when such a gun ban law is challenged in court.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It’s sad we can’t have a knowledge and civil debate as to how a given court might rule and why, but such is the nature of the issue.

"Knowledge and civil debate ?"

When the NFA was passed and Miller handed down there were enough crime numbers to support the"dangerous and unusal" test.

There are estimated to be 16,000,000 semi-automatic rifles and 100's of millions of high capacity magazines in private hands. There is a semi-auto rilfe and high cap mag in practically every cop car. 1000's are lawfully used in sanctioned competition every weekend and they sell them at WALMART and major sporting goods retailers.

There were 323 homicides by all types of rifles in 2011.

 

[Mushroom]

No.

And what I ‘think’ is irrelevant.

It’s a fact of law that a person cannot be subject to punitive measures, or have a civil liberty restricted or preempted, absent due process.

That someone might be taking certain drugs or ‘acts crazy’ is not justification for the state to prohibit gun ownership.

If the state has evidence a person has a mental condition or illness that may result in harm to himself or others, that’s a matter for a magistrate to review during a hearing, and if adjudicated mentally incompetent, where that determine is part of the public record, then that person may be lawfully denied purchasing a firearm.

Alright Mr. Libertarian. Got ya, no problem.

Of course, the only time you ever hear of these kinds of hearings is after somebody actually commits a crime, as part of their defense. And this is for a pretty good reason.

Back in 1979, Addington Vs. Texas started changing national laws on the care of the mentally ill. In short, the declaration of an individual as mentally incompetant (which was always a civil matter) was ruled unconstitutional. And as such, the laws started to drastically change. Individuals who were determined to not be a danger to themselves or others were allowed to check themselves out of treatment facilities. Family members could no longer "commit" senile and other unhinged relatives.

But the long and the short of the matter is, under your definition, it would be absolutely impossible to ever deny anybody a firearm based on "mental stability", since such a declaration is in no way a legal matter, but a civil one.

And we all know how long this would take. So instead of a psychiatrist reporting that Mr. Jones is a possibly violent paranoid (who has fears that the government wants to arrest him) to local Law Enforcement who can then go check him out, this gets tossed into the civil court system, behind the divorces and probate hearings. Of course, by the time this all actually hits court Mr. Jones has snapped and shot up a McDonalds (because he things the burgers have nanobots) and a local TGI Fridays (because he thinks it is really a secret base for the FBI).

But at least none of his rights were violated, so we can all sleep safe at night.

 

[Contumacious]

No.

And what I ‘think’ is irrelevant.

It’s a fact of law that a person cannot be subject to punitive measures, or have a civil liberty restricted or preempted, absent due process.

That someone might be taking certain drugs or ‘acts crazy’ is not justification for the state to prohibit gun ownership.

If the state has evidence a person has a mental condition or illness that may result in harm to himself or others, that’s a matter for a magistrate to review during a hearing, and if adjudicated mentally incompetent, where that determine is part of the public record, then that person may be lawfully denied purchasing a firearm.

Alright Mr. Libertarian. Got ya, no problem.

Of course, the only time you ever hear of these kinds of hearings is after somebody actually commits a crime, as part of their defense. And this is for a pretty good reason.

.

Forget the UNCONSTITUTIONAL background checks.

Learn gun control by practicing, practicing , practicing .

Never let your guard down

And you are set.

.

 

[Dubya]

You need to remember the the "National Rampage Association" as you call it, is actually not one specific entity, but rather an organization made up of a couple of millin "voters."
There are also other gun owner organisations, such as the GOA, each of these and other organizations are made up of legitimate gun owner voters, most of whom agree with the organizations stance.
Bottom line is that if you want our guns, you're going to have to kill us to get them.

The bottom line is very few people believe in changing the 2nd or want your guns, fool! It's real brave to make such a claim when no one want your guns. Most of the people just want guns taken out of the hands of criminals and regulations put on guns.

 

[Contumacious]

You need to remember the the "National Rampage Association" as you call it, is actually not one specific entity, but rather an organization made up of a couple of millin "voters."
There are also other gun owner organisations, such as the GOA, each of these and other organizations are made up of legitimate gun owner voters, most of whom agree with the organizations stance.
Bottom line is that if you want our guns, you're going to have to kill us to get them.

The bottom line is very few people believe in changing the 2nd or want your guns, fool! It's real brave to make such a claim when no one want your guns. Most of the people just want guns taken out of the hands of criminals and regulations put on guns.

I see, but the entity which lied us into war against Iraq gets to keep their firearms?!?!?!?

.

 

[PaulS1950]

The second amendment does not grant any rights. It was put in place to guarantee that our "natural" right to keep and bear guns would be protected by the federal government. It further states the attached to that right is the responsibility to defend the constitutional government from external as well as internal attacks or tyrany against the people by the government.