Question about guns.?

Tell your mis-informed liberal friends, the Supreme Court has clearly stated, the second part of the 2nd Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is what our founding fathers had in mind.

See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

The RIGHT to self defense is not to be infringed. It doesn't matter if the weapon of choice is a revolver, semi-automatic pistol, shotgun, or a semi-automatic rifle. WE are guaranteed the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE and the RIGHT To BEAR SAID ARMS. Until the 2nd Amendment is amended or is struck down, it is the law of our land. The ability to defend ourselves helps to protect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Amendments to Bill of Rights.

Type of firearm or its intent is not an issue. We are granted freedoms by the laws of the land. With those freedoms comes responsibilities. We have the freedom to legally purchase a firearm, but possession of that brings about a lot of responsibility. The safe handling and the safe operation of a firearm is paramount. Remember, the murderer in Connecticut tried to buy a firearm from Dick's Sporting Goods and was turned down. The laws worked. Alas, the murderer had access to too many firearms owned by an irresponsible person. Person did not have the firearms locked up. And with killing on his mind, we know the rest of the story. Murder, by the way, is against the law. Murderer CHOSE to break many laws. Irresponsible firearm owner gave him access to five firearms and ammunition.

Always cite laws and Supreme Court rulings. That helps to derail a liberal's line of mis-guided thinking.

Good Luck.

The idea is that "laws" will stop someone. It's almost like the recenter shooter sat down and read the law book prior to going out on a shooting spree and if the law has been written, it would have stopped him.

It's very dumb. I say they should go ahead and pass these laws. Then when society goes down hill and people can't protect themselves, then maybe they'll see but I doubt it. They'll continue to pass laws thinking that it'll help but that'll be the end for them.

However for our founding fathers, muzzleloaders were military only in England where they come from. The military would be able to break into houses, hold the people up at gun point, demand "tax" from them, and then leave. They'd have no way to defend themselves because the government disarmed them. Same thing will happen here, unfortunately.

It's an asinine argument on it's face. You could as easily argue that we have no right to anything but newspapers printed one sheet at a time on a manual press or to speak to anyone farther away than the unaided human voice can carry.

And you can rest assured that the most extreme leftists really do want absolutely no firearms of ANY sort in civilian hands.

The percussion ignition for my muzzle loader was originally designed to be used by the military.

But the black powder ban is years away. First it's "assault weapons". Then it's all semi-autos. Then it's restrictions on pistol barrel lengths (no short ones). Then comes everything but single shot guns.

Then, maybe, they'll get to black powder.

If they're right, then the only way for a lib to exercise their 1st Amendment rights is to write on parchment with a quill pen using iron gall ink.

The intent of the 2A was to have a person as well equipped as an infantryman of the period.

This hasn't changed.

What I think is funny, they b**** about modern firearms and use modern methods of free speech which the founding fathers could have never imagined or comprehended how much damage the modern methods of free speech can do.

But the liberals are right. I mean its not like history repeats its self. Like tons of countrys have banned guns and it turned out fine! Just look at nazi Germany when they banned guns pfff.