[vincent]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by shadecorp

I am all for us "GOOD" guys having unlimited rights to any firearm.
Including Full Auto.
However,
That does NOT include my gangsta neighbors.
We MUST have laws and restrictions.
Sadly, Laws and restrictions apply only to us "GOOD" guys.
Be careful who you vote for.
Amen.

The restrictions you suggest are on people, not the Second Amendment. Correct? There is a distinction.

[95sniper]

Originally Posted by shadecorp

I am all for us "GOOD" guys having unlimited rights to any firearm.
Including Full Auto.
However,
That does NOT include my gangsta neighbors.
We MUST have laws and restrictions.
Sadly, Laws and restrictions apply only to us "GOOD" guys.
Be careful who you vote for.
Amen.

That is exactly right, I don't want all restrictions taken away, but they don't need to restrict things even more... I can think of many things that are more important to our country at this time, why are the feds so worried about our guns and not our nations debt

[Arizeus]

The 2nd amendment wasnt meant for hunting and putting food on the table. Its meant for to defend ourselves against the government when it gets to big and out of controll

[therewolf]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

wtf??........

Sorry, a sardonic reference to "Jeopardy!", in which

Alex Trebek is the host...

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by therewolf

Sorry, a sardonic reference to "Jeopardy!", in which

Alex Trebek is the host...

Ah. OK, was totally lost on me (I won't say it was "over my head" because it was a TV reference- )

[Ben91]

IMHO the only arms that should be restricted is large destructive devises (i.e. Mortars, artillery, rocket launcher's, etc.) And the only restrictions on those is safe handeling classes. Like a driver's license.

[RevDerb]

Like the Bible, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written in words whose definitions do not evolve over time. The 2A clearly declares that NO LIMITS are to be placed on ANY American in regard to bearing and keeping arms. And, BTW, the Bible does not contain the 10 Suggestions.

[hawkguy]

RevDerb;1010987]Like the Bible, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written in words whose definitions do not evolve over time. The 2A clearly declares that NO LIMITS are to be placed on ANY American in regard to bearing and keeping arms. And, BTW, the Bible does not contain the 10 Suggestions.

ha! put twenty of the most devoted christian followers in the world together in one room with a bible, and you will get twenty different views on virtually every sentence in the bible. proof that man can interpret the same words in VASTLY different ways.

"arms" was simply never clarified in 2A. even the most staunch supporters rarely think citizens should be able to own chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. most don't even want to citizens with access to powerful explosives. all are "arms." just as a musket is "arms." this leaves the 2A more debatable than it simply appears.

the average swat team/police have access to the m-16/ar-15 or the like. this should be good enough for american citizens as well. i think the gun restrictions as they stand are OK (of course i live in texas, not cali )

but any further gun restrictions imo, need to be focused on keeping guns away from the violent, not the law abiding.

[axxe55]

Originally Posted by hawkguy

ha! put twenty of the most devoted christian followers in the world together in one room with a bible, and you will get twenty different views on virtually every sentence in the bible. proof that man can interpret the same words in VASTLY different ways.

"arms" was simply never clarified in 2A. even the most staunch supporters rarely think citizens should be able to own chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. most don't even want to citizens with access to powerful explosives. all are "arms." just as a musket is "arms." this leaves the 2A more debatable than it simply appears.

the average swat team/police have access to the m-16/ar-15 or the like. this should be good enough for american citizens as well. i think the gun restrictions as they stand are OK (of course i live in texas, not cali )

but any further gun restrictions imo, need to be focused on keeping guns away from the violent, not the law abiding.

while agree with your assessment of interpretations of the Bible and such, i think the founding fathers knew that some idiots would try and interpret the 2nd admendment from it's true meaning, so therefore they made it simple and concise. even small children have no problem understanding it, why do some adults?

i believe in no gun restrictions whatsoever, period. the one we have now are unconstitutionas as it is. there was a time when a person could walk into a hardwar store and buy dynamite. i don't think the average citizen should have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. nor do i think the average citizen needs them either.

the thing is all gun control laws are answers to problems that were never solved, crime. in the wake of stupid tragedies involving firearms of some sort, they get on the bandwagon and start trying to push more gun control on us in response to these incidents. they blame the firearms and the LAC is the one who is punished not the perpertrator or the criminals. time has proven that gun control laws, restritions and bans have been ineffectual in detering or preventing crime, and more restrictions or gun control laws will not change this one iota.

my simple belief is, "Shall Not Be Infringed". if they want restrictions or controls, they need to go to the source and that's the criminals. i think we all know the criminals are going to fully disregard any new laws as they have disregarded past ones.