In response to:

Gun Control Takes Center Stage

nametabs Wrote: Jan 31, 2013 5:56 AM
and the government had the same, fool. The citizens must be as powerful as the government to keep the gov from becoming oppressors.
Texas Chris Wrote: Jan 31, 2013 11:48 AM
The Supreme Court is a FEDERAL agency. We actually expect them to find in favor of limitations on federal power?

Mais non, sha!

The Second protects the right of the people to arm themselves with the weaponry and technology of the day. All of it, anything the individual could afford.
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?
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Jan 31, 2013 9:22 AM
Bruce probably knows that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be as well armed as the military but is so intent on the democrat agenda that he will say or do anything so that he SEEMS to be making a reasonable point. But he is completely wrong and probably knows it.

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...