http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickqu.../popup5895.htm

 

linky no worky...

 

fixed.

 

uuuuuhhh....

 

don't know. i'm bored.

 

I don't believe it was meant for individuals to randomly get all kinds of guns..
so i voted no. i think it was meant more for Militia's. Although I think individuals should certainly get to bare guns.

 

all it says is the right to bear arms. Which it does. I voted yes.

Doesn't say anything about randomly getting all kinds of guns.

 

I dont see what the point of that poll is..

 

usa today is probably working on a story in relation to some bills that are in progress in relation to that amendment so they want info for the article.

it's an old poll but I told my buddy I'd put it up. pro gun fellow. So I did.

probably has no point at all but like I said... I'm bored.

 

what a dumb *** question poll...

 

I voted yes. But, the problem is that law can be loosely interpreted. Guns have evolved so much from when that was written. I feel everyone has the right to own a gun to protect their family/property etc..However, there is no reason to own a machine gun etc...

 

The law was really there to protect the citizens from a full out government controlled state. Thus keeping a democracy possibly. Without that amendment the government could outlaw guns and pretty much at any given time force you to do whatever they want. That and the police where intended to be the people's military. But I don't think they forsaw nuclear weapons and an army as massive as ours.

In any event its a nice thought that we have some protection from that happening...haaa.

I don't think they should be allowed to change it. Bottom line is, they can pass as many laws as they want and all they'll succeed in doing it is unarming the law abiding citizens. I really don't see gang bangers caring that it's illegal to have guns.

 

so in this same context, the first amendment was written back when the only printing press was the single sheet devices.

no tv, internet, radio, etc.

therefore, freedom of the press dont apply to those medium...

starting to get our point of view (second amendment supporters)?


look, why cant i own a machine gun? after all, they are just objects.

what you want to regulate, are people who commit crimes.

but the left wing liberals cant seem to comprehend that.

that's why in kalifornia, we have over 2,000 (yes, 2k) of gun laws in the books already.

do we really need MORE LAWS?

i mean the most basic one: use a gun to commit a crime? goto jail...

that seems to too hard for some people. does it matter if i use a machine gun or a single derringer?

 

We should all go trade in our modified Subies then because what need is there for all that power when we can just drive a Kia Rio?