You don't get to bring up logic when you so frequently fail to use it properly. There must be a balance between the rights of the individual and that of society. For example, there are restrictions against owning nuclear weapons, tanks and surface to air missiles. Those are all "arms." Why does society violate the 2nd amendment rights of individuals by outlawing these weapons for individual use? Please don't quote the 2nd amendment without also noting the context of when it was written and for what purposes.
The same ones that killed less people than lightning has in the last 10 years. Meanwhile in one year, more children died from car negligence in the US than 10 years of lightning strikes. Where is our priorities?
They did so only to skirt the laws of dueling. Alexander Hamilton certainly owned and used private arms. His prized powder horn is on display at the manhatten museum of American finance. A tribute of gun utility and pride of ownership.
if it is truly "for the children" then why not bring back prohibition? It ruins more lives and kills more people than guns do annually. Obama's the last person that needs to tell people examine their conscience. He supplied drug runners with guns in Mexico, endless drones dropping bombs and killing indiscriminately and supplying firearms to third world countries to destabilize their countries, and let's not even bring up the Bengahzi coverup. and using actors in times of crisis to push an agenda. I don't plan on killing anyone in my lifetime, not sure where "my" conscience comes into play. He needs to go after the people doing the killing.. however that's not the admin's M.O.
If you want different firearm restrictions, why not [colllection of nonsequiturs unrelated to different firearm restrictions] This is why your side of the debate has been, and should continue to be ignored and marginalized. And so you won't be allowed to participate in the serious policymaking - which is probably for the best.
You do realize that you've now spent way more time saying "I've already told you guys my opinion..." than just answering the questions posed at the beginning?
Once again this is one of the worst examples of gun rights and ownership. The duel was illegal even by the laws of the time, as noted it wasn't with guns that Hamilton or Burr owned, it wasn't self-defense, and Hamilton ended up dying in agony while Burr's career and reputation was ruined forever.
What are the restrictions for owning nuclear weapons? Im thinking of owning a couple dozen in case someone breaks into my house. Tanks are legal as long as any firing mechanisms are disabled.
After seeing that I might just settle for taking out the provisions that are currently handcuffing law enforcement from doing their jobs.
Once again, it was stupid to duel, the point was founding fathers took part in private use of firearms. Hamilton may not have owned the pistols used the duel since they were flown on a lake with the transporters not actually seeing the pistols to escape prosecution but he had a rifle indeed and his prized possession was a powder horn.
Source? I've found various historians that suggest his prize possession was a duplicate of the Constitution or a particular set of books he was fond of lending to young, ambitious men. Alas, I have found no mention of the powderhorn. Besides, the powderhorn is important not because it was Hamilton's powderhorn but because he carved a number of drawings and messages on it throughout his life.
You shoot them AFTER they shoot someone. That's the damn point. Guns don't protect anyone from getting killed, they just allow you to return fire and hopefully more people don't get killed. They had an armed sherriff's deputy.
And at least one of them died horribly from them costing another his political career. But fine keep on bringing up the Hamilton Burr duel as justification for gun rights.
Lol, I'm not bringing it up for justification of gun rights, simply to point out a founding father thought enough of guns, and gun accessories to leave a legacy...for only 1 out of millions of potential reasons...just look up the Wichita massacre as justification for gun rights. That one case alone is justification for gun rights/home defense in my opinion...some scary reading too, so make sure to lock the doors, and turn on the lights while reading about 2 brothers crime spree and what they did in full detail.
You know.... It's important to remember that the second amendment doesn't use the word gun. Just sayin'
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but we don't gag people as they go in. You punish those who abuse the right, you don't take the right away. I know exactly what context it was written in, because it has withstood challenges for more than 221 years (it was ratified in 1791). Most recently in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller. I've also read the Federalist Papers, which explain it's purpose further... something I guarantee the vast majority of people claiming they know what it means, have never set eyes on.
