I actually agree with you -- which is why I'm torn. I don't think that there are any gun laws that would have prevented the incident at Sandy Hook as those guns were legally acquired. And to ban guns from a home where there are mentally unstable people, as good as an idea as that might be, would put us down the slippery path of declaring people guilty by association.

The thing is, Oklahoma City happened in 1995 and we haven't had any successful copycats since then. In the meantime, there have been a sizable number of mass shootings. I don't think you can really equate the two. The comparison isn't really valid as evidenced by the real world.

There isn't a gun law on the books (or ever will be) that will stop someone from doing what they are bent on doing. The criminals don't care about the laws... that's why they are criminals.

If you pass more restrictive laws all you are doing is hurting the law abiding citizens... and possible turning them into criminals as well. I know a LOT of people that will never give up their guns. The believe the constitution was written for a reason and they support the oath that the military takes to defend the consitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

If you pass more restrictive gun laws then you are a domestic enemy of the constitution. As it stands.. .there are way too many states that have essentially destroyed the 2nd Amendment.

No where does it state... you have the right to bear arms if you pay the state first. But that is essentially what the states are doing. If you don't pay to have a CCW then you are in violation of the law. However that law violates the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! Period. I know that in Arkansas you must pay the state to carry concealed, and it is illegal to open carry.

But yet there are too many people in this country that don't care if they infringe on other peoples rights... as long as theirs isn't infringed on. Everyone wants to point the finger at the guns as a problem, but yet it is the person behind the gun that is truly the problem.

Chicago destroys the 2nd Admendment but yet they have the highest gun crime rate in the country... and that city is supposed to be a gun free zone. Yep.... those tighter restrictions on guns really are working. When in fact what it's doing is making an easy target for the criminals. Think about it... if you're a criminal which would you rather have. A city that bans the citizens from keeping guns or a city that promotes the citizens arm themselves. The criminals want the easy target. There is too much risk involved not knowing if your intended mark is going to pull out a gun and blow your head off.

As for the OKC bombing I listed that one to prove a fact. You don't have to have guns to commit mass murder, and it's easy enough to do exactly what they did in OKC. If you take away guns, then those set on destruction will just find another way. I know this from first hand experience since Im in law enforcement.

But doesn't the 2nd Amendment in its entirety state that the reason for the right to bear arms is to have a well-regulated militia? Does that mean that that this particular right is dependent on being part of such a militia? How do we interpret "well-regulated"? Does that mean something like the National Guard?

The first part of the 2nd Amendment does talk about a well regulated militia. However the second part talks about "the people". It's two different things entirely.



It's the second part of the 2nd Amendment that most gun haters seem to forget about. The right of the PEOPLE. Back when this country was formed it was the ordaniry (sp?) people that stood up against the corruption of govt. Without the people there can be no challenge to a corrupt government.

I know I haven't seen any articles recently, but quite a while back you kept seeing articles about this militia or that militia getting raided by the feds. If that is the case... then why would you want to be a formal part of a militia?

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That wording is plain and simple. There doesn't need to be any interpretation. Unlike "A well regulated militia".

Could that mean the National Guard. I guess it could... but I wouldn't say the guard is a militia but more a branch of the military. Therefore a militia has to be made up of people, and if you infringe on the rights of the people then you infringe on the rights of the militia that our founding fathers declared absolutely necessary to the security of a free state.

That is actually what our govt wants to do. They know that if they can get the guns out of the hands of the people then there will be no militia to stand up to a corrupt govt for the security of a free state.

I mean... just look at all the corruption that gets reported on daily in the papers and online news sources.

As the United State Supreme Court stated in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 597 (2008), "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." The majority also rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

As a person who has never owned a gun, I find myself strangely realizing how conservative my viewpoint on the issue is, now that it has been put front-and-center in the media lately. N2Deep, so far I think I agree with everything you have said in this thread, and your historical analysis is right on. Obviously, ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was a compromise made among several states and their particular representatives, so there are many reasons for why the final language of the Second Amendment was agreed upon, including protecting against foreign invasion, deterring tyrannical government (like the Patriots were doing in throwing off the King’s rule), facilitating self-defense, and suppressing insurrection.

N2Deep, you can't cherry-pick the parts of the 2nd Amendment that you like and disregard the other. You have to address the law in its entirety. Remember, I actually agree with you and own guns myself. But I have to say, LeRainDrop's arguments are more compelling and well documented.

What am I cherry picking about the 2nd Admendment? I support the entire thing from the milita to the people. It's that most folks want to pretend the part about the people is not there.

Thanks. This is a topic that is very passionate for me because I have owned guns all my life. I was taught at a very young age that you didn't play with daddy's guns.. .they weren't toys.

I mean no disrespect with this next statement. It seems that most people that are like you



Dont care if we loose the 2nd Amendment because they have never owned a gun or don't care to. Therefore if they don't care to then why should anyone else. It seems that is the mindset of those that would wish to do away with guns.

Once again.. I mean no disrespect. Just point out what I have seen first hand from conversations I have had on the subject. It's nice to see someone that has never owned a gun actually open to seeing the other side of the coin.

Folks want to know why I'm so dead set on this.

I closed down my business because the govt is trying it's best to make keeping reptiles illegal. They have already added 4 species to the Lacy Act.

I closed down my homesteading blog because the govt is going after folks for stupid because they don't have any money and they see it as a source of revenue.

I am backed in a corner and I refuse to give up my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

You want documented... you got it. This is just a few of the reasons the 2nd Amendment should never be tampered with.

wanna know why they have the highest violent crime rate in the country. The people cant fight back and protect themselves. The criminals and cops are the only ones with weapons.

Something that wasn't covered by the main stream media because it wasn't sensational enough for them.



If he was off duty then he was also out of uniform. If a citizen didn't have concealed carry then this guy would have been able to shoot up a movie theater. But the facts hold true. The only way to stop an armed criminal is with an armed citizen. Usually the cops only respond to the aftermath.

I could keep going all day with why we need to keep the 2nd Amendment in tact and quit infringing on it. The first articles just enforce why we need to have a well regulated militia and the rights of the people should not be infringed. Our govt is power hungry and they will do whatever it takes to move their agenda forward. Even if that means experimenting on the American people without their knowledge.

One correction: the off duty deputy was a FEMALE I actually read this this morning on facebook. According to that source, the perpetrator went to a restaurant to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people fled next door to the theater, to where he followed them and attempted to shoot more. This is the perfect example of a private citizen preventing a bad guy from causing further destruction by using her own gun.

"Cherry-picking" is a poor choice of words on my part. You did mention it, but didn't actually address it. Instead, you formed a question about it when the actual Amendment implied that it was a precondition for the rights of gun ownership. LeRainDrop addressed it with some court rulings, so I'm willing to let the matter drop.

How do you know it's not because criminals bring in guns from outside the city where they're easily obtained? Statistics are statistics and I'm fine with that. But you don't give any real evidence for what you claim is cause and effect.