You must have speed read ? ?

I said this just above.


there is NO accident it is always negligence.

And so you did. My bad.

Sorry I just don't "buy it". The Ferrari does NOT kill people usually (you're really stretching it thin with the accident thingy) and there are far fewer of them than assault rifles. Maybe if we priced assault rifles like Ferrari's I might could live with it. (not really)

There is just NO need for an ordinary citizen to have military weapons, (not directed at you) and I'm sick of hearing the 2nd amendment BS from the NRA and wayne LaP dog... it guarantees "the right to bear arms" but doesn't guarantee what they are ! Pea-shooters, slingshots !

If they're plentiful and around- the "wrong" people will get them and use them. Plain and simple... How many people in US cities have been run over by a tank ? ZERO - WHY? You can't get them ! It's totally logical and practical - get them totally off the streets !. Won't stop all gun violence, but it will severely impact the probability of massacres like Newtown and Aurora, CO.

My reading of the 2nd amendment is that it prevents the Federal government from making ANY restriction on civilian firearm ownership. What it does allow is for a state to decide whether it considers its civilians to be members of the state militia (not reserves) and as such arm itself as a last line defense force, and what weapons they should purchase for themselves (regulated militia).

The recent history during the 17th century had countries requiring able bodied civilians train with the weapon of the day in case of need in the defense of the realm - example the UK required regular practice with the longbow, a law which was repealed in the late 20th century! So it's not surprising that the US founders were not in support of creating a regular army (which could be used for offense) but should allow the states to call up civilians as an irregular defense force - and BYO gun.

Is the 2nd amendment an anachronism? Quite probably. Is it a total mess today? Quite probably, since we have legal challenges to state restriction on firearm ownership (something the 2nd allows) and we have the Federal government setting restrictions (something the 2nd is supposed to prevent).

Bottom line (in my view), does someone NEED an assault rifle? No, in the same way someone doesn't NEED a car that will drive over 180 mph. But both allow someone to do something considered illegal, IF the purchaser chooses to. (I'm not trying to equate murder to speeding). Heck even buying a handgun allows someone to be able to commit murder, should they so choose.

Personally I agree with you that I don't see a need for anyone to own an assault weapon. But I also don't feel a need to say what someone else is and isn't allowed to do, so long as anothers rights are not infringed. But the proposed laws as they stand do not eliminate the problem, if you want to ban something you need to then remove it from the field of play, if you don't the threat is still out there.

I would say that all of these dead people have had their rights infringed.
Which is the greater right? The one to own high end weaponry.. or the one to live your life in the pursuit of happiness, et al...

It's a mixed bag, really. I would love to own a Bushmaster. Pretty damn cool piece of tech. But... if it means that certain elements in our society doesn't have access to them either... then I am willing to give up that right. Maybe they could have Bushmasters only at ranges so you could rent one but not own one. Then only a few individuals would have to be "watched" and given psych exams, etc. The range "wardens".

Thomas Jefferson liked to hunt and wander the woods with a rifle... but he also said this:

He once said that to ask a country to be governed by a Constitution that was passed in previous years is like asking a grown man to wear a child's coat, that without the living constitution idea, it became the most awful of Jeffersonian things, irrational.

So then by that rationale we can't prevent anyone from having a nuke, or a bazooka, RPG, Gatlin-like machine guns (Puff the magic dragon)! No, I think that's the loosest interpretation ! I don't think it'll fly.

Hey I can justify a air cannon with the same rationale - my house might get attacked by a mob after a natural disaster and law enforcement breaks down !! it's just not realistic !!

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment — not word one — that precludes common sense. And as sick as I am of the half-baked analogies and false equivalencies, I'll offer up one of my own. One can purchase and drive a Ferrari, despite it's potentially dangerous speed and power, because it still incorporates the things that state gov'ts require for street legal vehicles. It has rear view mirrors, head and tail lights, turn signals, etc. But a AAA rail dragster is not street legal because it does not include such features — even though it's still an automobile. Common sense attributed to the law. Driving the Ferrari at it's top speed through a residential neighborhood is the absence of common sense attributed to the driver — contrasted against the common sense law of a 25 mph speed limit.

Are you seeing the flaw in your analogy yet?

Why is it that only the 2nd amendment leads to the conclusion that there can be no restrictions on the right it expresses, the ownership of guns? The same doesn't seem to apply to the 1st amendment. For some reason we all (I think all) agree that freedom of the press doesn't extend to publishing child pornography. Or that freedom of assembly means that the state cannot require licenses for such assemblies, in the absence of which the assemblers can be stuck in jail. And we all know about restrictions on freedom of speech, from slander at one end to "fire in a crowded theater" at the other. Religion seems to be an exception to the rule on restrictions--except of course that it's not, since there are more cases than you can shake a stick at about what is or is not constitutional exercise of religion. And what about "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment. What is an "unreasonable search" or "seizure"?

But only the 2nd amendment, ambiguous in its initial phrase as it is, is said to be immune from moves to define what it does or does not protect.