In response to:

Why I Support the Second Amendment -- and Democrats Should Too

Bob319 Wrote: Apr 04, 2013 8:08 AM
There are two camps on this 2nd amendment debate - One group claims they can read the amendment to say the feds can or should restrict ownership - the other group reads the amendment and sees the right to bear arms. The question is what are the 'arms'. Today the common wisdom is firearms, rifles and pistols. But arms really means cannons, bombs, etc. Back in 1934, they passed a law that defined automatic weapons, saw off shotguns as illegal. Hence the gov't has already defined what the 2nd amendment is all about. If, in 1934, they said how big the clip could be we wouldn't be arguing it today.
Bob319 Wrote: Apr 04, 2013 8:13 AM
The gov't, via a law, defined the 2nd amendment. What is being consisted today is how we define that line. I guess machine gun Kelly and the FDR charm allow the 1934 law to be written. It was wrong then, but we are living with its results. We have already messed with the constitution long ago in a different generation - we have to deal with what we have. in 1934 they rewrote the 2nd amendment, we don't need to do that again.

As Congress prepares to consider new gun control legislation, I stand firmly against any attempt to restrict the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. As a concealed weapons permit holder, I value the freedom to exercise my Second Amendment right as protected by the Constitution and in accordance with gun laws designed to promote safe, responsible use. The right to bear arms is a unique and fundamental aspect of American liberty because, when exercised responsibly and in accordance with the laws in place, it makes our families and our property safer.

Last week, I announced I would join efforts to...