It's not the people who actually buy there guns legally and are registered in the system.. but the people who can buy em off the streets for a couple hundred bucks.. People who abide the law shouldn't be punished nor restricted but those who acquire it illegally.. Don't even get me started on the whole "medical reason" thing...
I'm sorry my opinion infringes on yours but its in the constitution for you to possess a firearm if you wish, if you don't like it don't buy one. But if it comes to a situation where a gun is needed I would rather be prepared. It's better to have one and not need it than need one and not have one.
Gun shots actually kill quicker than bows if you're hunting I believe but I've never understood the general American obsession with guns. The British aren't coming back to force hot tea on you so why the utter insistence on the 2nd amendment?
It's a right to bear arms.. of course people will be a little unappreciative when your rights are taken away. As far as I know, teas aren't rights. Then again, I don't know what it's like in Britain .-.
Has anyone even read the 2nd amendment? It doesn't say squat about hunting, sporting, or self defense. As for high capacity clips, we are already outgunned if we had to take our government back from a tyrannical administration. For those that worry about weirdo's getting guns: name one proposal that would stop What happened at SandyHook. The guy got the guns from his mother (which according to police, were obtained legally) an shot her, stole her car, and you know the rest. He failed to pass a background check weeks earlier (according to police). "you don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer..". if i was hunting, how do you know i'm not a good shot? However, how many bullets do you know you Need, till you need them? Guess he has a crystal ball and he knows 7-10 rounds will do it. The federal government says this will make a difference. But in what way? For the better? Remember, this is a government that can't even stop murder, sexual assault, and drug trafficking in its prisons.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right. In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military. This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession. Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation. However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.
I understand gun use for hunting.. And hunting only. Unless aliens come down and it becomes Battle of Los Angeles, I seriously don't see a point of having one. But then again, it's just my honest opinion.