Most people have no idea what a real assault weapon is. To them, if it looks bad, it must be bad.

You cannot ban certain types of guns and expect the crooks will no longer have them. That is why they are called crooks.

If a guy comes into my house with a machine gun, I hope to have one myself. Guns are the great equalizer.

Right. Just what you fear the most. A B&E with an UZI. Why not nuke 'em? They may come in with a suitcase bomb, too.

Paul,

With rhetoric (and don't kid yourself, it is nothing more than that) such as "Guns are the great equalizer," you make me deeply ashamed to have once considered myself a Republican. It will be a truly frigid day in hell before I ever understand how one can consider themself "conservative" and "tough on crime" yet believe that it is our fundamental right to possess such horrific weapons.

Congratulations, Paul - with one post, you have managed to sum up why I can never, EVER, call myself a Republican again. Now please go embarass yourself elsewhere.

Jeff

Second amendment and our founding fathers.

Do you know what rhetoric means?

I hope when you are faced with an assault weapon or any weapon, someone else comes to your rescue.

The big killer in America - cars! Let's ban the big ones! Oops! Ban 18-wheelers too. Wait! Let's ban the small cars!

Jeff, sorry you are a one issue voter!

Paul,

Where do these illegal guns that criminals get come from? people purchase them legally and then sell them illegally for a tidy profit. This is the problem faced by Chicago for instance. People buy guns in the pry it from my cold dead hands state of Indiana or one of the suburbs and sell them to the criminals. The failure to track and keep records on guns to the extent that would stop this action is thanks to the republican party and the gun thugs at the NRA.

As for the second Amendment, read the whole thing, it is not a sentence fragment.

"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."

The clause of a sentence (in case you were unaware thats the part before the comma) gives it meaning. And in case you were wondering those idiots in camo in the back woods of Michigan aren't protecting us from the guys with the blue helmets.

In case you were unaware, the second amendment protected state militias from being disbanded by the federal government and its function is now replaced by the national guard. The legislative history is well known, the Militia Act of 1792 for instance had all able bodied men spring for their own weapons. That tidbit is no longer an issue. The Dick Act (1903) replaced the Militia Act as the guard's charter. This has been the operating premise in the federal court system; i.e., that the 18th century notion of militia has evolved legislatively into the National Guard (Cases v. US; US v. Warin etc.). By the logic you're using, private citizens could avail themselves of some pretty nasty weapons.

> "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."

Ahh yes, but you have failed to point out what our founding fathers said about the second amendment. Do you want me to get you quotes? There are a bunch and you may not like what they say.

The second amendment issue has never reached the US Supreme Court. I wonder why? Kidding of course. It most likely never will.

Of course. As Jaime said, why not nuclear weapons for Texans? If we don't read the entire thing, all I know is that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"!

I'm certain Paul must therefore be in favor of Nukes, Bazookas and armored tanks for the citizenry! Am I correct?

Welcome aboard, Jeff! You'll find much not to like about the Republican party in Paul! He's the anti-Republican Poster Boy. Unfortunately for the country and our once great two-party system.

Actually Paul, it has reached the supreme court. US v. Miller. However, this did not settle the issue of the controling clause because Miller was decided during the transition from "militia" to national guard. No federal ruling that definitively identifies the militia with the national guard has been over turned and functions as precedent in the case.

I'll stick with the founding fathers, the federalist papers, and the NRA - thank you very much!

Paul,

Then what you are saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about OR that you will defend your right to own a single shot weapon made at the time of the ratification of the constitution. Strictconstructionism is a sword that cuts both ways.

"Second amendment and our founding fathers."

RIght. Funny story - I once lived in a small town outside Philadelphia that still carried a law on its books from the 1700s. That law was that it was illegal to hitch your horse outside the post office in direct sunlight for more than 15 minutes. How relevant.

"Do you know what rhetoric means?"

Sorry, Phaedrus. Perhaps I should have called it what it really is - RIGHT WING PROPOGANDA. Don't bother to actually think critically about an issue, Paul - just take another big swig of W's Kool-Aid.

"I hope when you are faced with an assault weapon or any weapon, someone else comes to your rescue."

Where exactly do you think I live - Compton? I would refer you to johnhp's earlier commentary about the manner in which those criminals get the guns in the first place. But since you are obviously living under constant threat of attack from the King of England (Second Amendment, Paul, remember?), you may want to spend more time securing your dwelling and less time spouting your foolishness on this blog.

"The big killer in America - cars! Let's ban the big ones! Oops! Ban 18-wheelers too. Wait! Let's ban the small cars!"

Nice response, except for your faulty logic. You're missing the point. When cars are used as intended, they are useful tools of a mobile society. When guns are used as intended, they do exactly as they are intended - they KILL.

"Jeff, sorry you are a one issue voter!"

Paul, I'm sorry you're a simple-minded right-wing stooge. Never did I say I was a one-issue voter, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. In fact, I agree with many issues of a true conservative platform (especially fiscal conservatism, which your boy has conveniently overlooked for the last four years), as well as other issues of the Democratic platform. But since you insist on reducing this to one issue, I can play your game. I will vote against HYPOCRISY every time!

Jeff,

King of England remark. Too funny.

Perhaps we should also ask Paul why his own family hates him. That's precisely who usually ends up killing people. How sad it must be to go to a Thanksgiving dinner or Easter brunch wearing a bullet proof vest.

This is a simple solution. Let people who sell guns privately be allowed to obtain form 4473s and pay a small fee via the phone and do a NICS background check. I am a gun owner and wish they had this as an option. I asked and was refused to be able to do this. They set the rules and then they whine about it. Truly sad, think about it... It is not fair that they only require you to have a bill of sale at best when selling a gun, it is pathetic. I dont want the wrong people to get guns, but ask around and see your options set by our great nation...