How do you feel about guns?
Are you a supporter of them?
Are you indifferent?
Are you against them?
Would you support overturning the second amendment or back ground checks. Of course if you're against them.
Mathew, you are full of shit on this topic.
The Second Amendment does not gaurentee you the right to own any kind of firearm that you wish for.The ability of the government to dictate what weapons can be used by all has already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
I neither support nor am I against them. You might as well ask me if I support or am against crescent wrenches. But I am not indifferant to them in the hand of crazies, or people that mishandle them. 32,000 guns deaths in the US in one year. That says a lot about the number of people that have guns that should not have them. Background checks would keep guns out of the hands of some of those people.
Every week you see an article in the paper about a child that has gotten hold of a gun and killed himself or someone else. But no articles on the adult that owned the weapon going to the penitenuary for negligent homocide. I see many people handling guns as if they were no more dangerous than a crescent wrench. They take more care in handling a steak knife. But the NRA and the gun nuts ecourage them to own guns, even military grade weapons. And, by 2015, gun deaths in the US will amount to more than the deaths in automobile accidents.
There will many more needless deaths with guns, and more Sandy Hook's.
Ahaha! Thank you sir! You hardly qualify to lecture anyone on the meaning of the Constitution when you can do little more than spell it.
Bold.
Actually it extends to firearms, which by definition assault rifles meet. You spew forth these liberal talking points and little else. The Supreme Court upheld the 2nd Amendment rights of Heller in D.C v. Heller (2008). Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion, limited firearms to things a normal civilian with proper training could wield within the bounds of traditional law. He meant that you cannot walk down the street with an RPG strapped to your back, or tow a howitzer down the highway. It means rifles, handguns, swords and the like.
The Supreme Court decision reads as such:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation.
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Sorry, your history is off.
You claim neutrality but in all reality, you just swallowed the same liberal gun control bullshit that Lakhota and Jake did. Please give that a rest.
) about guns?
they are one of the most important tools i own that will deter a criminal.., or a rabid insane liberal.
