THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE ROLLING OVER IN THERE GRAVES KNOWING WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THIS OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT TO OUTGUN ITS CITIZENS!
What part of 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' don't they understand?
We'd be better off with a donkey president since it seems the elephant party is only good at playing defense.
ANARCHY ANYONE?
Oops. Misstep by Rudy. Although maybe he means "reasonable restrictions" like you can't have a cannon on your rooftop. Or mount a machinegun on your car. Maybe those kinds of "reasonable restrictions." After all, there are "reasonable restrictions" on the First Amendment: pornography, can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, can't threaten to kill the President, etc.
Would, say, keeping concealed carry from convicted felons be a "reasonable restriction"?
OK, I want an electric Gatling gun and a belt fed grenade launcher.
>THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT.
I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the 2nd is a personal right conferred to individuals.
I'd take whatever recognition of one's rights the commentariat and politicos are willing to admit, and then use that as the basis for getting more later. The left has been quite effective at using such incrementalism for many decades now, and we need to learn to do the same.
No thanks, Rudy.
Rudy is no conservative. He is history. Bye bye.
Dang where did all these liberals come from? Did DU just runneth over?
Ping
From a public safety standpoint, I just can't justify private ownership of anything too big. Traffic is crazy enough around here without some idiot mounting a recoilless rifle on his truck.
I take it that most of you who have replied were taught in GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS. You need to sit down and read why the Second Amendment was placed 2nd.
The men who founded this country wanted to make sure that if the government they founded got as oppressive as the one they overthrew, there would be a mechanism in place to overthrow it. From the brainwashed replies posted here, I'd say we've reached that point.
In light of all the already existing "reasonable restrictions", what new restrictions could possibly be conjured up?
It just gets better and better with that fellow doesn't it?
Uh-huh. All rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly where they infringe upon or threaten the rights or others. Or would you defend your next-door neighbor's right to have a homemade thermonuclear warhead?
And as a personal tactical note, the EXCESSIVE use of ALL-CAPS makes you come off as the online equivalent of the street lunatic screaming that THE END IS NIGH!!!1!
The moron's reasonable restrictions included not allowing NYC folks to renew the handgun permits. Giuliani can take a flying leap into the grand canyon.
Where do Hillary, Obama, and Edwards stand on the RTKBA?
Of course, what they consider "reasonable" and "common sense" includes the banning of, outrageous taxation of, or storage requirements which would render firearms useless, to just name a few.
When people start whipping out vague words like "reasonable" restrictions on an absolute and unalienable right, they are to be scrutinized at a minimum, and seldom trusted.
You will pray for anarchy if Hillorat is the next President. I think that he`s right by the way, do we want convicted felons to have firearms?