In response to:

Gun Control Takes Center Stage

Bruceybaby Wrote: Jan 31, 2013 11:19 AM
You're both wrong - the citizens were supposed to bear arms so that the country would not need to have the burden of a standing army - look it up. Also, the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify which arms you can or cannot have. But limits have been imposed (you can't have a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile) that are reasonable, and the Supreme Court agrees with this. So the question is, what arms are reasonable to be in circulation?

The race to further the gun-control agenda in the wake of last month’s tragic shooting by a crazed gunman in Newtown, Connecticut is moving into high gear. The Grand Old Lady of Gun Control, California Senator Diane Feinstein, last week introduced a bill that not only seeks to reinstate the 1994 “Federal Assault Weapons Ban” (AWB), but goes far beyond the scope of the earlier law (which expired a decade later) in undermining Second Amendment protections for law abiding Americans.

Feinstein’s proposal specifically targets 157 modern sporting rifles -- or, as she almost gleefully refers to them, “assault weapons.” In...