Since the supreme court ruled that we have a right to keep guns

Absolutely. They should also have the second amendment explained to them slowly and clearly so that they can finally understand it.

They need to realize that the First Amendment grants us the right to Free Speech but the Second Amendment guarantees it.

That was only in DC. not the entire United States.

Its a very specific ruling that went back to the days of Reagan when he got shot.

It concerns the keeping of a handgun in the home, not a rifle or shotgun.

I don't think our founding fathers ever though people would be into mass murders at post offices, hotels, schools, hospitals and universitiesys, if they had they might have been a little more careful in their wording.

I am not pro gun control. I think its way too late for that and so it wouldn't make sense. But that doesn't mean I can't see what happens when there are guns on any street corner.

Its pointless to gloss over what we read on a daily basis in every newspaper in every city and small town in America. Each day some one is shot, killed or wounded, by accident or design. To know this is not to take away rights, but we do need to look for some way to keep guns away from people released from psych wards.

Regarding the tax exempt status, they won't lose it just because their stance isn't in agreement with yours. There are other rules that govern what constitutes a tax exempt group.

actually, in case you may study the finished textual content of the alternative in Dredd Scott v. Sanford, you'll discover that the U.S. if so grow to be rather sparkling that persons had "the right to pass about brazenly armed." The "defense force clause" is a subordinate clause, and for this reason some distance a lot less important than some people imagine. even if it really is ruled to be the operative component to the change, it really is fantastically a lot "sport over" for the structure. the authentic question, and the desire for anti-gun kinds, is even if the U.S. will restriction its selection to the federal authorities (for the reason that DC is federally owned and not in any respect component to a State), and their selection gained't call into question any bans in different cities, alongside with NYC. Oh, i'll assure you, the "defense force clause" does SAY what it says, even with the indisputable fact that it rather obviously does not have the price you look to envision it to have. try this: replace the 2d comma with a era, and then see which of both elements varieties an finished sentence. it really is all you want do to appreciate it.

They have a right to lobby, let's not take away their rights in order to establish ours. They certainly would not return the favor. They would tax the pro gun groups or even make such groups illegal.

Yes

Works fine for me, but let's make sure we start collecting tax money from those "non political" places called churches.

"trying to take away rights of all Americans?"

that is a stretch. Not wanting child molestors and convicted murderers and felons to have AK-47 seems reasonable to me.

I know you NRA types flip out when felons on parole cannot get assault rifles and handguns.

The easiest way to handle this is to ignore them. They've got to run out of supporters eventually.

we should be aloud to keep our guns and not to have to pay taxes to do it.

JYanez2, you are SO right!