News Right to Bear Arms: US Laws Explained

[Teegvin]

In the United States you have the right to keep and bear arms.

To what sort of arms does the Second Amendment refer?

Also, does 'right to bear arms' mean one can carry a weapon in public (not concealed, of course)?

 

[daveb]

The fill text reads

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.

What this generally means is that "the people" (who at the time were generally land owning white males but are now anyone considered a citizen) can own arms, but the government is allowed to regulate the issue. Where everything gets hazy is where exactly to draw the line between regulated and over-regulated. Not being a constitutional scholar, I would imagine the Supreme Court has taken the stand that as long as a law is not unduly burdensome to gun ownership (in the same way it has allowed some abortion laws to stand on the grounds they were not unduly burdensome), then the law is constitutional. I would think any outright ban on possession of arms would be deemed unconstitutional. As for whether a ban carrying a weapon in public is constitutional or not, I would hazard a guess that it is not unconstitutional, since most municipalities have such bans.

 

[Cyrus]

Personally, I think the constitution says what it means. At the time, people were allowed to carry around a gun for their time that was equivalent to that of any military gun of its day. In fact, it was a military gun. It says I have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear the arms the government thinks I should bear. If I want to buy a machine gun, then by god I should be able to. If someone wants to argue what do I need a machine gun for, I will tell you quite simply, because its my RIGHT to have one if I WANT to.


Back on topic: it is perfectly legal to have a concealed weapon if you have the proper permit. You are not allowed to openly walk around with arms, unless you are transporting them. Though I am not 100% sure.

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/Columbia_Code_of_Ordinances/Chapter_16/246.html

Section 16-246 Brandishing a weapon.


(a) A person commits the offense of brandishing a weapon when the person exhibit s any deadly or dangerous weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner to any person in the city or go es into any courthouse, church, school or any other public meeting carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon.


(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "deadly or dangerous weapon" means any weapon other than a firearm, from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or serious physical injury, may be discharged, or a knife, dagger, billy, blackjack or metal knuckles .


(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to police officers and other officers or persons whose duty it is to execute process or warrants or to make arrests.


(d) The crime of brandishing a weapon is a class A misdemeanor.

I guess you can't.

 

[daveb]

Personally, I think the constitution says what it means. At the time, people were allowed to carry around a gun for their time that was equivalent to that of any military gun of its day. In fact, it was a military gun. It says I have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear the arms the government thinks I should bear. If I want to buy a machine gun, then by god I should be able to. If someone wants to argue what do I need a machine gun for, I will tell you quite simply, because its my RIGHT to have one if I WANT to..

Actually, that's not quite true. It says "...well regulated militia..." which implies the governemnt can impose controls. What those controls are is up to debate, however. If the public safety requires that certain things be regulated or outlawed, then they are legitimately regulated or outlawed (the same way free speech of certain kinds can be regulated or outlawed). You cannot, for example, carry a gun on a plane. But as for types of guns, that's the reason for the debate for the waiting period over assault type weapons.

Back on topic: it is perfectly legal to have a concealed weapon if you have the proper permit. You are not allowed to openly walk around with arms, unless you are transporting them. Though I am not 100% sure.

The fact that you have concealed weapon "permits" shows that there can be some amount of regulation. And there are some areas where even concealed weapon permits are not granted without pressing reason (i.e., not just anyone can get one).

 

[moose]

I simply believe that people should have to right to bear arms in order to keep the peace. For example, Arizona's crime rate went significantly downards after it became even easier to obtain a CCW.

EDIT: What sort of arms? The ones which you can defend yourself and others with.

 

[Cyrus]

militia
One entry found for militia.


Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b. a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


Release date: 2005-07-12

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

A militia are ordinary citizens who may or may not be part of a regular standing army. I thought the whole point of being able to bear arms was so that the people could overthrow the government if it became tyranical. If all you are allowed to own are hand guns, I don't see how that reflects the intention of the amendment.

 

[Astronuc]

In the United States you have the right to keep and bear arms.

To what sort of arms does the Second Amendment refer?

Also, does 'right to bear arms' mean one can carry a weapon in public (not concealed, of course)?

'Arms' is not specified. If it was, then it would limit arms to single shot muskets and pistols of the 18th century. At the time that the Constitution was written, many citizens lived in rural areas and it was relatively common to own a single shot musket. Also, one could own single shot pistols.

Besides the regular army, many people volunteered to serve in the Revolutionary war. I believe the founders of the US realized that the citizens could and would be called upon to defend the country, as was the case against the British.

There were probably those who also felt that citizens would wish to bare arms against a 'tyranical' government, but I doubt that was in many minds at the time.

 

[Cyrus]

There were probably those who also felt that citizens wish to bare arms against a 'tyranical' government, but I doubt that was in many minds at the time.

He means me

If astronuc says I am wrong, then I'm wrong.

 

[Cyrus]

Alexander Hamilton argued:

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline [Page 219] and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.[104]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rkba_wayment.htm

Its an interesting paper.

Not sooo fast!

 

[Aether]

Section 16-246 Brandishing a weapon.

(a) A person commits the offense of brandishing a weapon when the person exhibit s any deadly or dangerous weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner to any person in the city or go es into any courthouse, church, school or any other public meeting carrying a deadly or dangerous weapon.

I guess you can't.

Can't what? AFAIK, these limitations also typically apply to CCW permits (as well as limitations against carrying firearms into establishments that sell alcohol, or post a "no firearms" sign). There are lots of places where it isn't illegal to carry holstered handgun, or a rifle/shotgun in a pickup-truck gunrack for example.

'Arms' is not specified.

A friend of mine told me story a few months of about some Israeli citizens who fired some mortars at their neighbors "in self defense". *grandma peers through binoculars waiting for the first round to land* ... "Paw! You're 200-meters long and 100-meters too far to the left..." *grandpa adjusts his aim*

 

[cronxeh]

In the United States you have the right to keep and bear arms.

To what sort of arms does the Second Amendment refer?

Also, does 'right to bear arms' mean one can carry a weapon in public (not concealed, of course)?

I don't know what it means to others, but to me personally it means that when my government decides to establish a police state with martial laws, I have the right granted to me by the founding fathers (who of course have seen this coming) to grab an AK-47 and restructure the government back to its free state, with the support of my fellow citizens

 

[Cyrus]

No no no, you mean M16. Well, it would be an AR-15 for you.

 

[cronxeh]

No no no, you mean M16. Well, it would be an AR-15 for you.

No can do. AK47 is more reliable, besides I know how to use one


and then there is the usual concept of an M16 being used to fight opressive governments.. it would be kind of ironic if it was used in this case, since the US isnt supposed to be opressive - but only a small group of individuals within the government. Its not the people who are the enemy in those situations, its a handful of people. As Jefferson once said.. "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

 

[Astronuc]

He means me

If astronuc says I am wrong, then I'm wrong.

I didn't say you were wrong Cyrus. I simply stated that I doubt there were many back in 1776 who were concerned about having to take up arms against the government of the United States. They were probably more concerned about other countries, particularly England, France and perhaps Canada.

If you want to find out what constituted 'arms' back then, find a dictionary published during or before 1776.

 

[cronxeh]

I didn't say you were wrong Cyrus. I simply stated that I doubt there were many back in 1776 who were concerned about having to take up arms against the government of the United States. They were probably more concerned about other countries, particularly England, France and perhaps Canada.

If you want to find out what constituted 'arms' back then, find a dictionary published during or before 1776.

well I am pretty sure jefferson being a philosophical kind of guy had only one definition for 'arms' - an assault type rifle capable of taking human lifes. i don't know perhaps the capabilities changed over the decades but the basic idea stayed the same.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary
'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

2. War; hostility.
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=arms

I agree that we are given this right as the ultimate defense against tyranical governments; esp our own, should it become necessary.

 

[BobG]

In the United States you have the right to keep and bear arms.

To what sort of arms does the Second Amendment refer?

Also, does 'right to bear arms' mean one can carry a weapon in public (not concealed, of course)?

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.

It's a real debate over what that means. It isn't written very well. Courts have had trouble figuring out whether it means each state has the right to maintain its own militia or whether the amendment refers to the rights of the individual.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

 

[Astronuc]

Two interpret the second Amendment, one has to go back to those times.

The fact that it is written "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies a condition upon the rest of the statement. Basically, individuals could and would be called upon to serve as citizen soldiers. The states and federal government had no desire to maintain a professional army, as did the European powers. However, today we see otherwise.

Basically the government did not want the populace to be disarmed, especially after surviving the Revolutionary War, ca. 1775-1783 (8 years!) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_War

Besides one could always regulate arms, or the ammunition, rather than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

 

[Entropy]

I think the second amendment should just be done away with. What does it have to do with today's world? Nothing. Make it legal to only have hunting rifles and only if you get a licence, a hard to get one at that. Hand guns and machine guns should be banned for civilians.

 

[cronxeh]

Two interpret the second Amendment, one has to go back to those times.

The fact that it is written "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies a condition upon the rest of the statement. Basically, individuals could and would be called upon to serve as citizen soldiers. The states and federal government had no desire to maintain a professional army, as did the European powers. However, today we see otherwise.

Basically the government did not want the populace to be disarmed, especially after surviving the Revolutionary War, ca. 1775-1783 (8 years!) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_War

Besides one could always regulate arms, or the ammunition, rather than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Well many people think that a well regulated militia means National Guard, which over the years got very twisted. In 1792 it was all able men 18-45 armed and equipped at their own expensive and regulated by the state. But in 1867 the Congressed "suspended the southern states' right to organize their militias until a state was firmly under the control of an acceptable government" - acceptable government? This is from national guard's website. It continues, "The U.S. Army was used to enforce martial law in the South during Reconstruction". The Army was used for suppressing labor unrest in the North and guarding polls in the South during the 1876 election. The Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, to limit the President's powers pertaining to military use during peacetime, because of this.

By a weird force of history, in 1903, the Dick Act was passed and replaced the original 1792 bill, making the National Guard part of the Army. Ironic twist, isn't it. 1916, National Defense Act, the President can now "mobilize the Guard during war or national emergency". National Guard Mobilization Act - 1933. Well just in time for the Great Depression, and just in time for Roosevelt selling out the country through the New Deal in 1933. During WW2 18 National Guard divisions saw active combat.

Fast forward a world war later, its 1973. The name of the war is Vietnam, the act is called the Total Force Policy, treating both active AND reserve forces as one single force, allowing rapid mobilization and supply of troops to the Vietnam.

Fast forward another 20 years, now the troops are part of UN and the American Delta Force soldiers put on a UN uniform, and become part of UNOSOM I (4/1992-3/1993)- as peace keepers in Somalia deployed by Clinton.

Another President, another peacekeeping operation under UN banner - Bush and UNOSOM II (3/1993-3/1995) aka Operation Restore Hope, where 25000 US troops were deployed. The objective of UNOSOM II was 'nation building'

Another Bush, another decade later, we have the National Guard deployed in Iraq.

 

[Tarheel]

I think the second amendment should just be done away with. What does it have to do with today's world? Nothing. Make it legal to only have hunting rifles and only if you get a licence, a hard to get one at that. Hand guns and machine guns should be banned for civilians.

It has to do with having the ability to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones should you (god forbid) ever need to.

"That will never, ever happen" <--- this is the typical anti-gun response.

Maybe so, I HOPE so.
But if for some reason it were ever necessary that I use deadly force to protect the lives of those I care about I would not hesitate, and the government should not prevent me the tools required to do so.

What is so scary about civilians owning guns anyway?
The VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible adults that keep their weapons safely stored under lock & key.

"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler, 1935

 

[deckart]

I think the second amendment should just be done away with. What does it have to do with today's world? Nothing. Make it legal to only have hunting rifles and only if you get a licence, a hard to get one at that. Hand guns and machine guns should be banned for civilians.

The argument is that the average law abiding Joe is now unarmed. But, Tom and his buddies, who do not have any respect for the law or law abiding citizens, are armed and know that Joe is not.

You get the picture?

 

[deckart]

I think the second amendment should just be done away with. What does it have to do with today's world? Nothing. Make it legal to only have hunting rifles and only if you get a licence, a hard to get one at that. Hand guns and machine guns should be banned for civilians.

Are you a citizen of the US?

Basically, myself and millions of other law abiding US citizens carry a firearm... and it isn't for hunting.

 

[moose]

Hand guns and machine guns should be banned for civilians.

Do you know how many murders in the US have been commited in the last 70 years with a machine gun by a civillian who legally owns it?

ONE! It was a police officer.

Truth is, anyone can get their hands on a firearm and the people who get them legally don't always want to destroy everyone ;) Especially the ones who purchase machine guns legally.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I think the right and left wing agree on this issue, for the most part. The idea that banning guns will make law-abiding citizens victims is just a fear tactic, in my opinion, but I respect the right to bear arms. To me, however, it is a method of securing power for the proletariat for when a revolution may arise.

 

[Orefa]

But if an armed population prevented governments from abusing their power then wouldn't there be a correlation between this and the stability of various democratic countries? I see no obvious difference in western countries between this constitutional right and, well, much of anything besides gun violence. The intended purpose does not seem to be served but the drawbacks are in the news daily.

 

[deckart]

I think the right and left wing agree on this issue, for the most part. The idea that banning guns will make law-abiding citizens victims is just a fear tactic, in my opinion, but I respect the right to bear arms. To me, however, it is a method of securing power for the proletariat for when a revolution may arise.

We will need more than machine guns for a revolution. In a sense, it's too late to overthrow a tyrannical government in the US if we needed to. Somehow we lost that ability a long time ago.

 

[turbo]

Two interpret the second Amendment, one has to go back to those times.

The fact that it is written "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies a condition upon the rest of the statement. Basically, individuals could and would be called upon to serve as citizen soldiers. The states and federal government had no desire to maintain a professional army, as did the European powers. However, today we see otherwise.

We must also bear in mind that the colonists who fought the British had been forced to serve the King in the militia, and when they decided to "kick the traces", they used the King's own weapons against his troops. The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to prevent the regular army from disarming the colonists who had been armed so they could serve as the King's militia. The framers of the Constitution knew that having a diffuse distribution of firearms all over the country would make it difficult for the British to re-take the territory.

 

[Teegvin]

Thank you all for the information and opinions.

My main question was if the 'arms' in question were guns, or if a citizen has the right to ony any weapon he wants to.

 

[Orefa]

My main question was if the 'arms' in question were guns, or if a citizen has the right to ony any weapon he wants to.

A citizen cannot own a nuclear weapon, so the answer must be no.

 

[Cyrus]

But if an armed population prevented governments from abusing their power then wouldn't there be a correlation between this and the stability of various democratic countries? I see no obvious difference in western countries between this constitutional right and, well, much of anything besides gun violence. The intended purpose does not seem to be served but the drawbacks are in the news daily.

What does that matter? Does the constitution say anything about there needing to be a strong correlation to own a gun? Yes its in the news daily, because the majority of criminals use illegal and stolen guns to commit crimes. Details, details...

 

[Teegvin]

A citizen cannot own a nuclear weapon, so the answer must be no.

I'm an idiot.

I never even thought of that.

I was more concerned with things like knives, swords, or good old-fashioned halberd.

I later found out that some states allow people to carry weapons other than fire-arms, and others do not.

 

[Cyrus]

Citizens are now allowed to buy fighter jets. Is there something wrong with that Orefa?

 

[Orefa]

I'm an idiot.

I never suggested you were. You clearly asked if citizens can own any weapon they want and the answer is clearly no.

 

[Entropy]

It has to do with having the ability to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones should you (god forbid) ever need to.

^^ Typical pro-gun responce ^^

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night? Your more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Basically, myself and millions of other law abiding US citizens carry a firearm... and it isn't for hunting.

Yeah, and I disagree with it. If isn't for hunting animals it's for killing human beings.

Truth is, anyone can get their hands on a firearm and the people who get them legally don't always want to destroy everyone ;) Especially the ones who purchase machine guns legally.

Yeah, and how is having a gun on yourself going to help you if someone, like a robber or something, pulls a gun on you first? He'll just shoot you if you go for your gun. So what's the point?

 

[Cyrus]

If you don't like guns then don't buy one Entropy. You have the right to disagree with guns, but you don't have the right to limit those who do want to have guns to own one. (Whatever type of gun it may be.) It is a fundamental right to own a gun. If you can't stand it that much, then you should try to amdend the constitution or live in another country.

 

[Orefa]

What does that matter?

Well, it matters that if the intended purpose is not served and if there are drawbacks then the amendment should probably be repelled. It seems sensible.

Citizens are now allowed to buy fighter jets. Is there something wrong with that Orefa?

I see nothing wrong with airplanes. The weaponry could be a problem though, depending on that is allowed and what restrictions apply. A local terrorist would love to take his neighbour's legally-purchased, well-armed fighter for a spin...

 

[Cyrus]

Well, it matters that if the intended purpose is not served and if there are drawbacks then the amendment should probably be repelled. It seems sensible.

Then let's fix the problem by giving people more guns and the proper training so that it does serve its purpose. What are the drawbacks to gun ownership? You have not provided any drawbacks. All you have done is provide a case based on illegal and stolen guns.

A local terrorist would love to take his neighbour's legally-purchased, well-armed fighter for a spin...

What kind of argument is that? A terrorist could just get a U-haul truck and fill it with fertilizer. Do you see the absurdity of your argument? Anything can be dangerous when used improperly. That does not mean you ban everything that can be a potential weapon.

 

[Orefa]

What are the drawbacks to gun ownership?

Oh my.

What kind of argument is that?

Pretty much the same argument that keeps nukes off the street.

 

[turbo]

Come to my house. You will be well-fed, warm, and comfortable. If you ask, you can see my gun collection (mostly old lever-action Winchesters). If somebody came after you while you were in my home, I would defend you to the best of my ability. If you were a battered woman and your estranged husband was hunting you down, you might appreciate that level of support.

If you would prefer that private citizens not have access to firearms, what is your alternative?

 

[moose]

Yeah, and how is having a gun on yourself going to help you if someone, like a robber or something, pulls a gun on you first? He'll just shoot you if you go for your gun. So what's the point?

My trainer has had someone shoot at him and yet he is the one alive today ;)

If there is absolutely no way out of a situation and you or a third party will definitely die and the guy has a gun pointed at you, you would nearly always be able to pull your gun out and shoot fast enough. If you are trained of course.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh my.

That is the only drawback you could come up with, 'oh my'? Oh my indeed.

Pretty much the same argument that keeps nukes off the street.

Keeps nukes off the street? You don't walk around town holding a nuke. It's not physically possible, so your argment makes no sense.

 

[deckart]

^^ Typical pro-gun responce ^^

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night? Your more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

? Nonsense.

Yeah, and I disagree with it. If isn't for hunting animals it's for killing human beings.

Exactly. What's your point?

Yeah, and how is having a gun on yourself going to help you if someone, like a robber or something, pulls a gun on you first? He'll just shoot you if you go for your gun. So what's the point?

Here is how it works, if you pull your gun and point it at somebody, you better be pulling the trigger. Now in your scenerio, you are right, I could very well be killed. Armed or not. Now, if I'm a third party in this situation, and I see this happening, I'm prepared to defend the other individual. Whereas if I did not have a firearm, I could very well be killed as well. Why would you want to take that ability (and Constitutional right) from an average law abiding American? What are you afraid of?

 

[BobG]

^^ Typical pro-gun responce ^^

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night? Your more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Entropy has a point. Firearm accidents occur much more often than firearms saving a family's life. In fact, intentional shooting of another family member occurs more often than a firearm protecting someone from a stranger. Actions taken to prevent firearm accidents or to make it harder to use them in the heat of anger (trigger locks, keeping ammo locked separate from guns, etc) reduce their effectiveness as a self defense tool. The self defense argument is similar to that of people who drive across the country because they're afraid to fly - both arguments fly in the face of statistics.

A better defense than guns is to increase your income. Your chances of being shot by a stranger are more affected by the neighborhood you live in than by whether you own a gun or not.

If I remember correctly from past discussions we had on this, the number of gun owners and gun control laws have no correlation at all to crime rates, so really doesn't support the arguments of either side.

 

[Entropy]

Exactly. What's your point?

I disagree with citizians using guns other than for hunting animals.

I could very well be killed. Armed or not.

No you're far more likely to be killed pulling out a gun in retaliation. If someone robs you on the street and you pull out a gun in retaliation, you're tempting that man to shoot you. Why take a chance with your life?

Now, if I'm a third party in this situation, and I see this happening, I'm prepared to defend the other individual. Whereas if I did not have a firearm, I could very well be killed as well. Why would you want to take that ability (and Constitutional right) from an average law abiding American?

Who the hell assults someone with others looking? No one is going to pull a gun on you in a crowded street.

(and Constitutional right)

If slavery was a Constitutional right, would you defend someone's right to have slaves just because it's in the Constitution?

What are you afraid of?

Being shot.

 

[Entropy]

If there is absolutely no way out of a situation and you or a third party will definitely die and the guy has a gun pointed at you, you would nearly always be able to pull your gun out and shoot fast enough. If you are trained of course.

Have just considered giving the assailent what he wants? Chances are slim to none that your going to me a complete pyscopath that will just walk up to you and kill you. And if you do meet someone like this, chances are he'll just shot you in the back without you even knowing. Most likely the guy just wants your money. Why not just give it to him instead of putting yourself in unnescessary danger?

 

[Tarheel]

Entropy has a point. Firearm accidents occur much more often than firearms saving a family's life.

Really? Do you have a source?

I would challenge that if you compared the number of accidental shootings to the number of legally registered guns you would find the number statistically insignificant.

As for firearm safety in my home, my firearms are locked securely in a safe, and only I know the combination.

Defend yourself from what? The british aren't going to invade anytime soon. Are you referring to robber in the middle of the night?

You ever heard of "Always be prepared".

Do you have absolute faith in the stability of this government? I don't.
No one knows what the future may hold for all of us, but if difficult times are on the horizon... I will be prepared.

You will be like a sheep to the slaughter.

 

[Entropy]

Do you have absolute faith in the stability of this government? I don't.

Dude, you're seriously paranoid.

 

[Tarheel]

Dude, you're seriously paranoid.

Yeah, You're right.
Nothing bad ever happens.

There are people all over this planet that NEVER THOUGHT what happens to them today would ever happen.

I hope your rose colored lenses are bullet proof.

 

[Cyrus]

Entropy, don't compare Gun ownership to slavery, that makes you look insensitive and foolish.


I already told you. If you don't like guns, then don't own one. Don't preach to the rest of us who have a constitutional right that having one is bad. If you hate it that much go try to nullify the 2nd amendment and see how far you get. Perhaps Rosy O'donell can give you some support.