So let me get this straight....

[LeftCoastVoter]

the second amendment is fine.

its the gun nutters interpitation that is out of line with reality

Well, I think it is really out of touch with the times. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, you are also right that it is being incorrectly interpreted by some. The word, "militia", should be a red flag. But some people have complexes about themselves and owning fire arms makes them feel important. I don't believe it has anything to do with protecting their families. When was the last time someone protected their family with an assault rifle?? The argument is just bull.

ahhh but the second sentence in no way limits it to a "well regulated militia" asswarp!

the right to "bear" arms can literally be interpreted as the right to "carry" arms. thus the constitution does not define the right to purchase arms, nor does it define what an "arm" actually is.

 

[Cassandro]

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

I didn't know it was legal to own machine guns. Where can I buy one?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

I didn't know it was legal to own machine guns. Where can I buy one?

you can own automatic weapons if they were manufactured prior to 1986, but you muyst find a dealer with a Class III FFL as they're the only ones who may deal in NFA weapons (machine guns, silencers, etc.) and select a weapon that was registered in the NFA registry before 1986 (this only applies for full-auto, silencers and AOW can be brand new). You must then take the your application to both the federal gov't and your local chief law enforcement officer, both must approve. you must also pay the $200 tax stamp.

 

[Stephanie]

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

No it doesn't. Smoking should be allowed where the owners of said businesses choose to allow it.

Should is one thing....but our government has already taken my right away from me as well as the business owners' right. So, with the dangers afforded by unfettered access to guns, wouldn't you consider that more of a danger?

yes they have taken away your right with smoking and many more when people do nothing. so are you going to let them take one away that was written in our Constitution or are going to finally stand up to them over something?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

Machine guns are already banned by a law passed in 1934 by FDR. In your case you should never be able to own a weapon of any kind, including knives and matches. You are mental unbalanced and you don't know which end is the business end of a weapon.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

No it doesn't. Smoking should be allowed where the owners of said businesses choose to allow it.

Should is one thing....but our government has already taken my right away from me as well as the business owners' right. So, with the dangers afforded by unfettered access to guns, wouldn't you consider that more of a danger?

yes they have taken away your right with smoking and many more when people do nothing. so are you going to let them take one away that was written in our Constitution or are going to finally stand up to them over something?

smoking is not a right specifically guaranteed under the constitution.

 

[Bill Angel]

Also, because this must be added. Has banning smoking in public areas ended second hand smoke? No, in fact I myself am on the receiving end of second hand smoke almost every day that I am around a group of people… So if Government fails on such an epic level to actually end or pretend it can end second hand smoke, how would banning firearm or how many firearms someone could have end people illegally obtaining and using firearms to illegally kill people?

Why are the regulations aimed at reducing a person's exposure to second hand smoke a failure? Consider all the places people CAN'T smoke anymore, such as in offices, shopping centers, and restaurants. Coincidentally those are also situations where people are not allowed to possess firearms.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

No it doesn't. Smoking should be allowed where the owners of said businesses choose to allow it.

Should sexual harassment be allowed as long as the owners choose to allow it?