In response to:

Why the 2nd Amendment

Dan107 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 8:55 AM
What the progressives fail to realize is that in the real world, the criminal has an overwhelming advantage in a gun free zone. He/she is the one who subjugate a thousand. With a well armed citizenry the ratio becomes 1000-1 against the criminal.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 9:59 AM
Dan,

The real problem lies in the varying approaches. Most conservative arguments address instances where a criminal already has possession of a gun, and most liberal restrictions are designed to prevent that from happening in the first place. If the right doesn't think that's a worthy goal, or a goal that is possible to achieve, then they should be honest and say so up front.

But obscuring the conversation, as right wing pundits have done, doesn't help anyone.
dcopeland Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 10:22 AM
Uh, the definition of a criminal is one who breaks laws. What about that do you not get?
redneck8 Wrote: Jan 02, 2013 10:36 AM
Worthy goal....maybe, if you can get the weapons out of the hands of government
Possible goal....never
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming. ... We don't need all these guns to kill people." Lewis' vision, shared by many, represents a gross ignorance of why the framers of the Constitution gave us the Second Amendment. How about a few quotes from the period and you decide whether our Founding Fathers harbored a fear of foreign tyrants.

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is...