GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Jimbone]

Agreed that it's the Bill of Rights but somebody has to draw a line on the types of arms or we'd all be walking around with RPG's and stuff.

That's always an interesting argument, but there has long been a delineation between private arms (handguns, rifles, shotguns) and state arms (cannons, tanks, fueled projectiles). State arms have never been on the table in any legitimate 2^nd amendment debate, and are only used for hyperbolic purposes. In other words, saying that the 2^nd amendment can be construed to extend to state arms is a red herring.

I don't think you can achieve real gun control on a state by state basis though. People just go to neighboring states to get the weapons that they want.

Actually you can't do that... if it's illegal to own in your state, you can't buy it where it is legal and bring it in.

Moving on to this:

Agreed that it's the Bill of Rights but...

This is where my problem is with most things these days. Either you have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, or you don't.

You either have freedom of speech, or you do not. There is no BUT. You either allow those retards from the Phelps church to or the KKK to speak, or you have to limit all speech. Is anyone seriously going to argue for that?

The founders were clear on their intents for anyone willing to go back and read. They left volumes of debate and writing on how they came to the decisions they made, and how things came to be written down and ratified. If you interested in the rationale on the 1^st amendment and what they intended, we don't have to guess about it. It's all still there to be read and understood.

And while you (not you specifically user, I am on a soapbox now) may not care about freedom and gun rights, you should. Because the next time it may not be gun rights and it may be some freedom you do care about that is being threatened.

I am not a gun nut. I am a Constitution nut. I hate those fucking Phelps assholes, but my continued freedom of speech is dependent on their right to continue to be able to speak. So I'll defend their ability to do so, as it is in the best interest of my personal liberty.

The same goes for the 2^nd amendment. It wasn't crafted so citizens could own guns to hunt. It was to protect against foreign - and domestic - tyranny. You either have the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, or you do not. There is no but.

If the people have an interest in changing the amendment, there was a clearly laid out process for amending. But the rush to subvert the will of the people certainly smacks of political expedience, and not a true desire to solve any real problem.