In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 12:52 PM
First, some facts. The musket was NOT "the most powerful weapon." That would have been cannon, and several militias at the time DID in fact own and use cannons. I thought of that, and almost included it, but it was so silly I left it out. Unfortunately, your interpretation of "militia" using the modern definition makes your entire argument wrong. The militia, as referred to in the Constitution, is the Army; the "people" are civilians. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain an armed civilian populace against an armed Government. Canons were powerful, but because they were less mobile, were not the most powerful weapon of the time. Either way, I'm not aware of any individuals today who own nuclear weapons.

Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns

Dear Steve,...

Sunday, May 19 | 04:16 PM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 04:16 PM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 04:16 PM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 04:16 PM ET