Look here gun owners, you should see the link first.
The second amendment didn't foresee the near possibility of people with handheld cannons and weapons that could fire at faster than the rate of an entire hundred-person army of musketmen. With that in play, I have something else here to say.
Weapons cause too may problems, and no, I'm not talking about your dandy little hunting rifles. No one thinks it's worth it to go after your stupid semi-automatic rifles, so you can stop being defensive.
The link above is just an example of the strangest solutions pro-gun citizens have been coming up with. Those solutions are the result of stubbornness, the refusal to come to any agreement on gun legislation due to denial, and once again, nobody is coming after your hunting rifles or pistols.
Gun owners...
Yer second amendment is a piece of crap. If you kept a musket in your closet, NOBODY is going to give a cowshit for legislation. You would be better off killing people with the bayonet on your musket than with the actual musket in a school.
However, if you bring around an assault rifle, loose it in the bathroom and your drug-addicted teenager gets home from a pissy cocaine trip and shoots up the family and half a school, I find it strange why you are baffled by and oppose gun-restriction legislation.
You need to identify our position before you be defensive and sit yourself in the little imaginary bubble.
-
As someone who owns no weapons and doesn't care about them, I would like to leave this response, the first amendment didn't foresee the near possibility of people communicating with large numbers of people across the world nearly instantaneously, does that give the government the right to ban the internet?