[TERMINATTOR]

Gotta tow the party line... "rights" are GRANTED by the gov, doncha know! "Scary" arms are excluded from "shall not be infringed". (/sarcasm) It's interesting to note, that Iraqui's are only "allowed" to KEEP (some) arms under this scheme, not to BEAR them.

The saddest part is that many so called "Second Amendment supporters" beleive in "reasonable restrictions", and that only (certain) "guns" are covered under the Second Amendment. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Militia - Got Liberty?

[Fiddlstix]

Great Graphic
The New Minuteman

[Epasonic]

"What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed" do they not understand? "

Sadly the line is not that distinct. The wording is "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."

The wording was intentionally left open to interpretation. Some view this as a statement that only military personel should have this right. Also under the other interpretation, the ammendment states nothing about ammunition. The government could legally ban ammunition, without infringing upon constitutional rights.

[MarkL]

I agree... Until the 1934 act that regulated the sale of machine guns, there were no regulations... It seems to me that with the exception of gangland crimes directly associated with prohibition, there really weren't any crimes committed with them...

While I disagree with some of what Pat Buchanan has to say, I still smile when asked about what he thought "reasonable" gun control laws were... I paraphrase: "If it doesn't have a trailer hitch, and isn't crew served, then an individual should be able to own it!"

Mark