Swank said:
First off, since this issue is obviously incindiary for you
Yeah, that Constitution thing is such a pain in the ass, huh?
"Any infringement on the right to bear arms compromises our constiutional freedoms and is unAmerican!!!" What a crock. You're a law student man, you've been trained to put together a more cohesive argument than that.
It may not be the most complex and extensive argument. It need not be. It you're opposed to something that is foundational to our Constitution...you're unAmerican. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to express the view, as I'll not suggest such a thing. The Constitution gives you rights to express many heinous ideas, just none more heinous than this.
Are you allowed to walk into a crowded movie theatre and yell "fire!" Can you walk up to somebody and threaten to harm or kill them? Nope, you can't.
No, and there were a small amount of restrictions on the Second Amendment that have been understood from around the beginning. Children don't have the right purchase arms, despite the flat-out lies on the website you cited. You don't have a right to take your gun with you on a tour of the White House or Capital Building. So, of course, it is not PURELY ABSOLUTE as none of our freedoms truly are. So your argument does not justify further restrictions.
The constitution is a deliberately vague and interpretational document.
The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it is to be interpreted as deemed appropriate for new technologies (an example is how the First Amendment relates to internet and other media not around during the writing of the the Constitution). The intent and purpose of an Amendment can be found using Congressional records and similar historical documentation. If you don't like the Second Amendment, then campaign to repeal it. But don't lie and say its purpose was to provide for a national guard. Those that lie about the purpose of the Constitution in order to strip fundamental rights are ENEMIES TO AMERICA far more dangerous than the worst of terrorists. I can't say it strongly enough.
The very fact that things like grenade launchers are illegal is already an infringement on your right to bear arms - we're just arguing over a matter of degree here. Do you think rocket launchers ought to be legal and available to teh public? No, you don't?! Why are you trying to trample on my rights!
That actually IS a good Constitutional argument.
I get tired of morons that argue that founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment back in the days of muskets and never envisioned semi-autos. The problem with that is back then the police, state, and foreign governments had nothing more than muskets too, aside from cannons and artilery. I personally believe that Second Amendment gives citizens the rights to weapons used against personnel, but not against heavy weapons. No one would argue I such be able to buy an Apache helicopter, but a legal case could be made for a grenade launcher. Would I buy one if it were deemed legal for civilians? Yes. Am I going to campaign for this change? No, I choose not to.
Now, no gun control measure that I know of wants to restrict your ability to own sporting arms, such as your grandfather's shotgun (ah, the sentimentality).
Yes, a bill John Kerry voted for would have banned semi-automatic shotguns. My buddy's dad has used one for many years to hunt small game. It is a lie to say that gun control does not effect hunting, let alone to consider the purpose of the Second Amendment. There was a bill proposed years ago that would have banned all military cartridges. What was listed on it? The 30-06 among other things, only the most popular deer rifle in America. The 30-06 originated as a military cartridge. There was a proposal years ago for some massive tax on primers, used for reloading cartridges. I don't even know how to do this. Reloading is a science and the only people that reload their own shells are serious hunters and competitive shooters. The congressman and senators are smart enough to know the crack dealer does not have a reloading press in his basement. No one seriously thinks that criminals reload shells, as the difference between store-purchased ammo and the match grade results from hand reloading mean nothing at close range, where criminals use their weapons. Bills such as these have no other purpose than to strip away the Constitution.
John Kerry, having supported legislation like this for his entire career, is unfit for command. There is nothing he can possibly do to earn my vote. The fear of him forces me to vote for Bush, far too much of a leftist for me. If John Kerry announced he would abolish the income tax, I would still vote for Bush. There is nothing more important than the most fundamental elements of our Constitutional rights.
Gun control restricts access to fire arms, especially to young people and criminals. Is this really a bad idea?
Felons cannot own firearms. You must be 18 to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase a hangun. Are more restrictions a bad idea? YES!
I'm a gun owner and sportsmen myself, and a firm advocate of gun control.
I'm stunned. I hardly know what to say. I guess "yay" to the former and "nay" to the latter. Are you honestly a sportsman or are you just making this up like John Kerry?
Remember when he talked about crawling through the brush to stalk deer with his double-barreled shotgun? That's funny. I don't know anyone that crawls and stalks deer, nor anyone that uses a double-barrel to hunt deer, nor many states where such a gun would be legal for deer regulations. Hunter my ass! I'll vote for John Kerry if he can show me how to gut a deer.
Gun control isn't a liberal conspiracy to take away America's sporting and personal protection arms - it's controlled measures to prevent crime and the proliferation of dangerous and useless firearms.
It IS a conspiracy to take away our rights. Why didn't we have far worse problems 40 years ago? Before 1964, you could buy handguns sent to your home through mail-order catalogs. Surely, that act of gun control that banned handgun sales through mail was devastating to the street gangs of the time, right?
That being said, check out this link, which I have little doubt will piss many of you off to no end.
First, some obvious lies in their information. Second, their not my enemy, but America's enemy.
By the way, suggesting that the crime rates in New York and Washington DC are directly related to tough gun laws is laughable, for such a battery of reasons I don't even need to explain it, thinking people can see through it without my help. Would you say those cities are better off with easier access to a greater cariety of deadly weapons?
Well, explain it. We're probably not as smart as you, so don't assume anything. :s
Would D.C. be better off with greater access to weapons? Yes. Right now, you can only own rifles and shotguns, which must be locked in a case AND disassembled. Would a D.C. resident be better off being able to get to his gun and actually be able to use it in the event of a criminal act? Yes.
(ii) and 
