So what happened to the five year jail term in Massachusetts for having or using a gun without a license???
To hard on the lawyers or judges???

I have thought that to be law for thirty , to fifty years.
Five years in a tent city should straighten things out

Interesting how Hitler added the pistol grip and extended round magazine to make it look more scary :devil2:

I figured you guys are smart enough to just get the summary product.

Interesting read on this topic.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rocon/guns.htm

You didn't really provide either.

The serial number isn't to prevent a gun from being used illegally, it's to make it easier to understand the flow of illegal weapons. Odds are a lot are coming from the same group of corrupt dealers and straw purchasers.

Read that link I posted above...

You people don't get it
It's not about the type, kind or size of the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment , it is to give the right to the people to protect themselves from the government. Have you heard of the federal employees like homeland security who were asked if they were told to fire upon the American people, would they? And when a negative answer given those were fired ? This is our government over stepping their bounds.
I will not hide my head in the sand
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Outstanding !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!

What did Washington do during the Whiskey Rebellion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You might want to check your history since the 2nd amendment was ratified after we declared our independence and Washington became our first president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well aware of the timeline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what you are saying it was the citizens who were to defend the state/country from an invasion by the British.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is your opinion

But not mine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not offer any opinion slip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "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." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as in various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not by the "militia," of "their own" government.

That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, that's one of those specious little arguments the left throws out in the hopes that we're too stupid to see through them. Currently, among lot's of other things, for instance, Obamacare. They were depending on the stupidity of the American people to not grasp what was really going on.

As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier. They were highly intelligent students of history. The knew very well that the weapons as well as all the other contrivances of their own time were technologically superior to those of the past. And that the technological advance of history was not going to stop with their generation. Heck, Franklin was discovering electricity. There were many technological inventions and advancements being created right in their view. That's why they made the structure of the Constitution general enough to apply to future generations, rather than so specific and cumbersome so that it could only apply to conditions as they were.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."

This is an example of how paranoia propaganda is spread. I don't think we need militias yet but the conspiracy freaks are coming out of hiding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are documents designed to be "deterrents from government oppression"(our government, not foreign governments) and a framework for the relationship between our government and the individual....I think it's pretty obvious...is it not?

as you said previously "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...

That is the most important part
I think debutch should go on CNN and explain things, he does a good job.

Our rights to bear arms have been infringed on enough already
I would like access to claymore mines and rocket launchers so we can make America great again :-)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...103-story.html

Already happening
There are some real whack job extremists out there
Not sure if you have paid attention to what the agenda of our government has been for the past eight years but it's pretty obvious to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they were fighting a tyrannical government.....the framers were intent that Americans always have the ability to fight a tyrannical government, even their own, if they found if it's operators leaving the framework of the Constitution

I think I need to back step a little and say I know exactly what the 2nd amendment says. My point is that they should have been a little more explanatory in what they meant. That said, the way I see it, our rights have been infringed upon a lot already. We should be able to own fully automatic weapons and an Abrams tank if we wanted.

This reminds me a lot of the Rhode Island state constitution stating that we are allowed to "freely" access the shore to fish and gather. However, don't try doing that with out a salt water fishing liscence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bruce,the origins of that conflict go back more than 8 years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONqcBKhikfk

watch and learn

they want to have complete control, if they get that then how are we free?

Great post! Thankyou!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You didn't ask for proof. You wanted evidence. And I provided way more, either circumstantial or direct, than you gave for "What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones?" You gave none.

Never mind that even if we take the faulty low-ball estimate of designated gun-free zones only being 15% to 25% of all mass shootings compared to 85% occurring in private homes or work places, the number of designated gun-free zones is miniscule compared with the number of detached private homes (over 91 million to which should be added another 30 million apartment buildings multiplied by the number of living units therein) plus the untold number of workplaces. By that closer analysis the comparatively miniscule number of designated gun-free zones accounting for 15% to 25% of all mass shootings is far more significantly reflective of the importance of location than the rest of the shootings spread over the many millions of not actually designated gun-free zones. Then, again, most of those gun allowed places are actually gun free most of the time.

And never mind the simple logic that a criminal, mass shooter or other wise, would rather that his victims were unarmed. That's too simple a concept and is not subject to impersonal statistical analysis. It would be possible to ask criminals what they would prefer. What do you think they'ld say if they were honest? I know, I know, mass shooters, according to you, all want to commit suicide. But don't they want more easily and assuredly to kill the right number of victims before they croak?

Then there is that troublesome human nature thing which prefers the path of least resistance. But . . . NAHHH . . . that's not an attractive sort of discussion for sophisticated, academic, progressive minds. And, certainly, military logic which seeks advantage in battle would be below the dignity of such minds.

No, it's a higher calling to consider more interesting and challenging notions on which to build a conclusive battery of statistics. The unreachable intellectual elevation of such studies would be more impressive, thus convincing, to the weaker minds of the general public. It is the appearance, the relative superiority of perception, the convolution of context, which produces the more sophisticated aroma in the contest of narrative . . . that passes the smell test.

I would guess that for you, the long history of tortured efforts to create the image of Hillary as Commander in Chief would make the aroma emanating from her butt crack an essence of fine perfume. And such from Cheney just a stinky fart.

And it's amazing how you can cling to and still insist that the notion of a crude video must be recognized as at least a part of the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, but the idea that mass shooters would prefer a gun-free zone to do their work rather than doing it in an armed zone is just a myth.

I think if you read all 10 Amendments....you will find your answer...V mentions land and Naval forces as well as the Militia (citizen army)....a clear distinction...and as II states..."necessary to the security of a free state"..they weren't talking about free from foreign entities, they were talking about free from "oppression" by the Government that they were Establishing, as you put it, , which is as history has taught us, thanks to the propensities of man, inevitable....an armed citizenry is the ultimate guarantee against that....every Amendment limits and restricts the Federal Government from infringing on individual Americans, it is a list of individual protections.....as II restricts the Federal government regarding these rights no where does it empower the Federal Government in the area of citizens arms....you might argue "well regulated" but it would make no sense to give the Federal Government the power to regulate a citizenry's ability to protect itself from an oppressive and/or tyrannical Federal Government would it?

And as far as "well regulated"
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

isn't it interesting too that some will sneer at the idea that an oppressive domestic government might deny or infringe on enumerated Constitutional rights as they simultaneously argue that some individuals are currently being oppressively denied all sorts of "rights" not mentioned in the Constitution

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

once again

Our ruling

Clinton said the gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-all-lawsuits/

They are not protected from act of negligence.

Curious if you're upset with all those that " bribe " or just those you don't agree with . If you have a representative that you think can be bought then you should vote them out of Congress or the Senate .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just for you answer my previous question.
Can I sue Bic because someone used a Bic lighter to burn my house down?
Someone drowns in a tub should the tub manufacturer be held responsible?
Someone dies in a car accident should the manufacturer of the fuel be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try sueing Halliburton if your well water is contaminated from fracking. They are immune and do not even have to share what chemicals they use.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald will Veto

A person driving gets distracted by texting and kills someone. Should the phone manufacturer or the carrier be held responsible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..

http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device