In response to:

10 Stories That Prove Guns Save Lives

Whoknows Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 7:28 AM
Everybody keeps forgetting the whole arguement is about the 2nd amendment, not about hunting or self defense. The self defense is absolutely needed, but it is about the public being able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, which that time is getting closer as we speak.
Vic156 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 10:35 AM
The second amendment may not be about hunting. It however is most assuredly about self defense. Certainly our founders had tyrannical gov't in mind when they wrote it but they also had armed thugs in mind.
AZYaateeh Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 12:46 PM
If they really thought the citizenry could resist regular troops, then they were idiots. Lots of other special circumstances have to be in play for that to ever work, that's why it seldom does. It was rare then, it's basically impossible now (remember, tyrannical governments don't much mind "collateral damage").

However, I don't think they did mean that. I think they meant we can resist tyrannical government better when we're not dependent on it for protection from "armed thugs", as you put it.
evie10 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 9:59 AM
Yes, keep pressing this issue. Unless the anti-gun folks are willing to repeal the 2nd amendment to the Constitution - they need to shut up. We do not need to grant the government full control over us.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 8:15 AM
the NRA -FAILS- to make this point clear to Congress,EVERY TIME guns comes up for debate.

IMO,they intentionally avoid making the point. Wusses.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 8:17 AM
when is the last time anyone heard the NRA state publicly that AR-15s and other semi-auto rifles are today's MILITIA weapons and thus most protected under the Second Amendment?

I have NEVER heard of them making such a statement.

It MUST-NEEDS to be said by the NRA to Congress.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 8:18 AM
IMO,making that clear IN PUBLIC would derail much of this gun control legislation.

it would put Congress in the position of trying to enact laws they KNOW are unconstitutional.
rficara Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 8:29 AM
The Framers intended clearly that the People retain the common militia arms of the day. Then is was swords, muskets, pistols a small CANNON. That's why you see so many old cannon in town squares. The modern equivalent is the MODERN MUSKET (the full-auto M-16 which is legal if rare), the modern horse pistol a Glock 21 in .45ACP or 9mm for those who squat to pee, and the cannon would be replaced by the Ma Deuce .50 caliber, the 37 mm light anti-tank cannon, the recoilless rifle and the mortar IF we were intellectually honest. The trouble is that the REAL purpose of the RKBA is so "icky" even to pro-gun folks.

Ray from Bloombergia
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 9:39 AM
I can agree with a reasonable restriction on explosive-projectile weapons.
you just can't store those safely in most homes. the rocket motors are subject to cook-off in a fire,near impossible to extinguish,and both explosives and rocket propellant degrade over time,becoming unstable and hypersensitive.
gary395 Wrote: Feb 02, 2013 8:02 AM
" A free people....ought to be armed. " George Washington.

In a nation that already has more than 200 million guns, gun control does little other than make the work of rapists, robbers, murderers and nuts like Adam Lanza easier. When faced with gun control laws, the law abiding citizen has no choice other than to disarm or become an outlaw, but people with bad intentions are faced with no such moral dilemma. That's why the best friend of a rapist or a potential Adam Lanza is the gun control advocate who's working tirelessly to insure that his targets can't adequately defend themselves.

On some level,...