First, you misunderstood the question. To clarify, the question is, are guns going to be defined as the same ones used by the military (as when the D of I was written), or is there some definition you adhere to that creates a delineation between citizen firearms and military firearms?

Second, I believe that you misunderstand the reason for the 2nd amendment. Or we just fundamentally disagree about it. I believe that the 2nd amendment was written to ensure that the populace has the ability to defend itself against an out of control or oppressive government. Given the time in which it was written I think this is a perfectly reasonable argument. You seem to believe that the 2nd amendment was written with the intention that the citizenry be allowed the ability to hunt for food. While that is a perfectly acceptable use for guns, I don't believe that it was necessary to amend our founding document to address hunting. To wit, the statement you made about not having a problem with guns for "hunting or personal protection" doesn't stand up to the constitutionality test.

Third, your argument that bad things happen when guns fall into the wrong hands and should therefore be more regulated is akin to arguing that breathing causes death because oxygen kills cells, so we should all just stop breathing. Thomas Jefferson said, those who would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither and will surely lose both. I agree with him.

Fourth, you only attempted to address one of my points. Please feel free to address both.


Last edited by Kaotic; 02/04/12 01:38 PM.
[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]