[Ruger22lr]

I believe it means we should have access to civilian made firearms like Remington 700's etc and weapons that the infantry foot soldier carries and have carried in the past. Ex. AK47, M16, M4 etc.

[TNFrank]

Not to Hi-Jack but I always love it when the anti-gun bunch try to take it to extreme by saying "So, do you say that the 2nd Amendment gives you the Right to own a Tank or an H-Bomb then?" No, dummy, not a tank or H-Bomb but any weapon that's in common use by Infantry personnel which I do think would include a LAW or RPG but not crew served stuff like Mortars or Cannon. Those were held in common by the Militia as a whole, not an individual solider.

[TDS92A]

The only reason they bring up that tired old argument is because they do not know the difference between an AR-15 and a Cruise Missile.

Originally Posted by TNFrank

Not to Hi-Jack but I always love it when the anti-gun bunch try to take it to extreme by saying "So, do you say that the 2nd Amendment gives you the Right to own a Tank or an H-Bomb then?" No, dummy, not a tank or H-Bomb but any weapon that's in common use by Infantry personnel which I do think would include a LAW or RPG but not crew served stuff like Mortars or Cannon. Those were held in common by the Militia as a whole, not an individual solider.

[Cattledog]

Personally I believe that my militia, being necessary to the security of my free tri-city area, requires at least enough firepower to hold back mobs of whomever that would threaten our freedom, peace and security.

That's the way our founders wanted it. They would all agree that any private militia should have a means of defense at least comparable to current government infantry.

I don't need or want a tank, missiles or any other ridiculous items that derail a perfectly legitimate conversation of what our founders saw as the necessary arming of the American public.

[danf_fl]

Instead of saying "I don't need.....", say "I have the right to......."

By saying "I don't need to have a B1 bomber" could be compared to a waterfowler shotgun hunter say "I don't need an AR, so don't let it be had".

But if I say "I have the right to the same level of firepower as a military soldier", now that is positive!

[axxe55]

really doesn't matter whether i have need or want of it, i can because the 2nd amendment says "Shall Not Be Infringed"

i have not yet read where there were any restrictions in the 2nd amendment. i fully believe that had the founding fathers, in all their infinite wisdom had wanted restrictions, they would have wrote them down!

i have more faith in their wisdom, than any politician or any liberal who thinks that the Constitution is outdated, or their words are out of context in todays world. how dare someone to think they have the knowledge or forethought to second guess these brave men who risked all to give us the great country, the rights and freedoms we have. the sheer audacity of some people just amazes me sometimes.

if people were to study many articles written by these men, that were not in the BOR or the Constitution but were in reference to what was, they would clearly understand the mindset and thinking of these great men. their fears were of a government that becomes too powerful and controled the governed, the people. this was the reason of the 2nd amendment, to limit the power of the government when it attempted to overstep it's bounderies.

we the people, for the people, of the people and by the people!

[Warrior1256]

Military style weapons were EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers meant the people to have! They had just fought a bloody war to overthrow a tyranical government. They wanted citizens to have the means to do the same thing if it became necessary again.

[carltonsprague]

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes

enabling the people to organize a militia system

participating in law enforcement

deterring tyrannical government

repelling invasion

facilitating a natural right of self-defend

does it say anything about what weapons we can/cannot own so why would the government want to change it. Does the government have a bigger agenda?

[Tackleberry1]

My only question is... why are we not pushing for legislation to overturn the regulations on Automatic weapons?

I mean, if the media can't tell the difference and continue to intentionally misinform the sheeple... then... Wouldn't a bi-partisan bill co sponsored by dozens of Republicans and Democrats to LEGALIZE the ownership of fully automatic select fire assault weapons sort of FORCE the media to tell the truth?

God knows they'd be falling all over themselves to paint supporters as "extreme fringe" for daring to think that legalizing "MACHINE GUNS" is a good idea!

Um... Wait... What were we trying to ban last week???

Tack

[bamashooter68]

I believe we have the right to own a rifle, carbine, or handgun similar to the military weapon's of the day.

I grew up playing with toy M-16's. Carried a real one in the Army and own one now as a civilian. These guns and their 20-30rd magazines are as normal to me as buttered toast.

If the government and the progressive gun grabbers want to do something helpful, they need to find out what is making our young people snap and get them off this BS medicine they dont need.