In response to:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Notice - NONE of the nutters will address the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" CONDITION on gun ownership. Why not, isn't it a "no-brainer"?
Or are you actually aware that we CAN restrict your access to certain arms?
I have MANY guns, I have no problem with guns. I have no problem with gun ownership - for collectors, hunters and enthusiasts. But doesn't EVERYONE agree we need to keep them out of the hands of fanatics, mentally unstable and clinically insane individuals?
Of course we all do!
So quit pretending that this is about anything else.
Enjoy.
"Don't you care about the kids being killed in Chicago as much as you care about the kids in Sandy Hook?"
You can get Shapiro's new book Bullies free with a subscription to Townhall Magazine. Subscribe here.
"Well-regulated" meant properly trained and equipped. In order to be properly equipped, the CITIZENS who would form the militia needed to "keep and bear" MILITARY-grade weapons. The purpose of the militia was to defend the people from enemies - foreign or domestic. The Framers feared a democracy - mob rule. Ben Franklin, when asked, "What sort of government have you given us?" replied, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it." They were wary of a government accumulating power and becoming tyrannical.
For which they meant those who would attempt to overthrow the constitutionally elected government of the United States of America from outside or within.
You're taking Franklin out of context - he recognized the challenges of self-governance, he didn't fear it!
Do you think our policies should drafted toward keeping folks like Lanza, Holmes and Laughner from gaining access assault weapons?
ANSWER THAT ONE QUESTION! Because THAT is the ONLY question!
See, that was easy.