Probably the part where it says "shall not be infringed".
-edit
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I think part of the issue is that "arms" aren't clearly defined. Do they mean any weapon? Light infantry weapons? Cannons? The fact that they talk about needing a free militia to defend the state would imply that the citizens should have weaponry that can at least manage this in a setting of war. I don't think shotguns and handguns are sufficient in that case. Maybe a line can be drawn when it comes to cannons and artillery.
Last edited by downnola; 2013-01-28 at 03:33 AM.
Fused you might be interested in this since you linked the video of Biden
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Define "Assault Weapon" and how it is different from other guns. Telescoping stock, pistol grip, magazine, bayonette mount & a flash suppressor? How will banning those gun affect gun violence? What about all the guns not banned - are they safer or less effective? Do you know the difference between a full-automatic and a semi-automatic? Are these "Assault Weapons" a large factor in gun violence comapred to other weapons? What is the role of plain old handguns in gun violence? Is limiting availability of "Assault Weapons" going to have a significant effect on the issue?
With legislation targeting "Assault Weapons", isn't it important to know what the legislation will and will not address? Are the guns in the bill overtly effective at harming others or do they more-or-less just look more threatening?
The second amendment is a right like any other. Yes, based on the wording there needs to be regulation of this right.
What I don't understand is the fervor with which the left is advocating abridgment of this right. You never see this behavior with the right to free speech, due process, slavery etc.
Sure free speech isn't absolute, but are we not incredibly wary every time the government tries to abridge it? Of course we are.
Why do the liberals treat the second amendment differently?
And you took my entire post completely out of context by selectively picking apart my entire post.
REGULATED BACK THEN MEANT TRAINED, NOT REGULATED AS IN THE REGULATION OR LIMITING OF. THEY WERE NEVER IN FAVOR OF REGULATION.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is where it says gun regulation isn't allowed.
You sure do have trouble reading everything when it doesn't suit you, don't you?
No, you have no rights when you decide to give them up for "security" of the regulation/banning of guns.
Wells, how about this, you have the right to free speech, correct? Now what if we regulated your speech, by modifying your vocal cords, you still have the right to speak, but what you can say is regulated.
If you don't understand this, then you need to attend a class or something to deal with your anger/ignorance.
Meanwhile, our economy stays in the toilet, the deficit continues to rise, and the divide of our nation grows while useless POS politicians like the Neo-Nazi Feinstein pushes her personal agenda. It's time to tell these rich jerks to quit with the useless dog and pony sideshows and get to work on the real needs of this country. All this gun control #$%$, of which nothing real will get done, is just sleight of hand to avoid the real issues.
This is exactly the reason I used quotes from Ronald Reagan a superior Republican that many still worship to this day. Because anyone who wants anything to do with assault weapons being banned must be a Liberal? case and point my example showed even Republican President's have praised the idea of gun control. It's not a party issue when both sides of President have expressed support for it.
My quoting of Ronald Began becomes invalid and void once people stop assuming everyone who wants any type of Gun Control is a Liberal.
Look up what "well regulated" means in the time it was written. It has nothing to do with goverment regulations. To regulate means to make regular - or make effective or efficient.
In modern terms - "An effective militia, in being necessary to the security of a free State, should know how how to use a gun when they need to use a gun, therefore, let them have guns." If you form up a militia of private citizens who have never seen a gun before, it's going to be a really crumby militia. It's why Switzerland makes ownership and training mandatory - they're no good if people don't know how to use them when the time comes.
Fuck your assault weapons ban.
You can come up with no good reason to ban them.
They're used in only an incredibly small portion of violent crime.
If you want to address gun violence, you go after the people who use the guns. Leave the millions of us who are at no risk of violent crime alone.
This talk of banning certain guns makes me want to go buy an AR-15 just because fuck the hippies.
Last edited by Rocko9; 2013-01-28 at 03:49 AM.