[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence