2nd Amendment

[OstrichSaK]

That's the strong end of that argument for the fed law. I am not expressing disagreement with it in spirit, but yes I am in function: I don't want that federal law/permit.

My reasoning is a lean in the direction of time taking care of this. The states that didn't recognize so-and-so other state's permit now do, one by one they get together and largely due to pressure from good folks just like you who see the need for nationwide recognition of our rights to carry as (proven) law abiding citizens.

It's very very close to the same thing, only the way I advocate negates the fed law/permit need as long as we're willing to wait it out.

Now, I will say this: the first time I see a state in my reciprocity bunch turn and disallow where they once allowed, I'll be pretty mad.

Like Nevada? I have a Colorado and Florida permit which I got (using the exact same certificate and qualifications by which I attained my Colorado permit) and got the non-resident FL permit for the sole purpose of going to Las Vegas as we go several times a year. I wanted to jump through all possible hoops to be legal when traveling there. Welp, as of January 1, 2009 that permit is useless to my wife and I. Lots of hoops jumped through for no reason.

You keep talking about a 'federal permit' but you do realize there is no such thing nor does this bill push for such an animal, right? Bugs me when people make such statements because then others gloss through these discussions and read that and assume it's a bill to implement a federal CCW permit system which it's NOT proposing. At all. It's merely a bill that would require states that allow permits to recognize permits from residents of other states in the same manner. There is ZERO push for a uniform federal permit or uniform federal laws. None. It just means if you have to let permit holders from others states enjoy the same laws you allow for your own permit holders. This is as common sense as a bill gets really. Why there are ANY pro-2nd amendment people against this bill is beyond me.

 

[Frisco]

I'm calling it a "fed permit" as an issue, not as a card like the ones I have in my wallet.

But your point is a good one, because it would require those reading through here to actually read it all instead of breezing through and drawing conclusions based on a cryptic idiom.

But, I'll hang in there with my idealism on this, for now. I still think the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Click a state or three on the map here:

Handgunlaw.us

 

[OstrichSaK]

I'm calling it a "fed permit" as an issue, not as a card like the ones I have in my wallet.

But your point is a good one, because it would require those reading through here to actually read it all instead of breezing through and drawing conclusions based on a cryptic idiom.

But, I'll hang in there with my idealism on this, for now. I still think the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Click a state or three on the map here:

Handgunlaw.us

Sure, overall things have progressed lately but it's not swinging in the right direction for everyone and definitely not quickly enough. On an individual basis I remind you of the story I just told where the step backwards by Nevada has indeed caused a significant effect to me personally since that's the state we travel to the most. I bring this up also to point at that as it currently stands most states can make backward moves like this at any time & there's not much you as a nonresident can do about it. If this bill passes these instant subtractions of our rights can't occur state to state. To say things are going in the right direction currently so we don't need such a bill is extremely near sighted.

 

[Frisco]

Nobody in this discussion is "near sighted" because of their stated views.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Nobody in this discussion is "near sighted" because of their stated views.

Don't be so thin skinned. I wasn't attacking your vision. It's hard to have conversations on this forum because people take things so personal.

 

[batgeek]

more federal foot stomping on states rights. not needed.

 

[OstrichSaK]

more federal foot stomping on states rights. not needed.

So by that statement I conclude the following:

Federal < State
State > Individual

After all, this is about individual rights that are being denied by states.

 

[batgeek]

however you wish to look at it.

 

[AndyLL]

LOL... The hypocrisy is stunning.

No matter how you spin it this is using the power of the federal government to override the states wishes.

Ron Paul agrees. As much as he supports gun rights he does not support this bill because it uses the federal government to override a states right to make laws within that state.

 

[AndyLL]

So by that statement I conclude the following:

Federal < State
State > Individual

After all, this is about individual rights that are being denied by states.

An individual of your state should not be able to override the individuals in my states... that is the whole point of states rights.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

As has been said elsewhere, states don't have rights they have powers, we the citizens are the only ones that have rights. In this instance it is at the request of the citizens that this bill was introduced, if it was totally at the whim of the fed's I would be against it, but that is not the case. If it was a federal permit system I would definitely be opposed to that!

As stated by Ostrich, this is a case of states impeding citizens rights and if your not a resident of that state you have no say in the matter at all. It is at that point that federal representation becomes necessary, it is a system of checks and balances that are supposed to protect our rights.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

An individual of your state should not be able to override the individuals in my states... that is the whole point of states rights.

But are you as an individual voting to prevent residents of other states the right to carry? I highly doubt it, this is a decision done by the state government and not the voting populace.

 

[Frisco]

I part company with most gun rights activists because I disagree with them about this. I feel that Americans don't need the full (and likely wrong) interpretation of the 2nd amendment, "to protect ourselves against the government," etc.

In the U.S., the government is freely elected, not ushered in via bloodline or military promotion, etc. Some of us don't trust our government 100%, that seems to be common in every society and is a good thing. But to believe we need to be armed to the teeth so that we can mobilize and fight the U.S. Armed Forces in order to overthrow our rulers is not just a gross exaggeration, it is foolhardy and rather comical at the same time.

If enough people want change in the land on a national scale, important things happen on a mass scale, the Civil Rights Movement, a dedicated non-violent operation led by a Christian Minister, is one example. Slow moving, but effective in the long run and a lot less tragic than a shooting war in the streets against a mechanized Army. Do you really want your neighbors to have access to the sorts of weapons the Army has? Ever seen Beirut?

The Constitution and amendments are quite a template for our society, we're lucky to have it. But we are also clever enough to understand that the farmers of the 1700s with their squirrel guns could then be a threat to the armies of the day, thus certain wording in certain amendments. Only 60 years after that portion of the great document, that portion of the 2nd amendment became outdated.

 

[TxGoat]

The 2nd Amendment was put in place to keep the authority at the time (red coats) in check. The law is no longer relevant. If the British armies had nuclear missiles and weapons of mass destruction, would the framers have enacted the 2nd Amendment and included your right to carry nuclear weapons on you? If our current government wanted to break into your house and take you into custody or end your life, any weapon you have access to legally would be ineffective at stopping them. The right to bear arms is just a symbolic outdated law. If it had the same meaning as it was when it was drafted then why aren't citizens allowed to buy tanks, missile launchers, surface to air missiles? I think it would be interesting to see how the founding fathers would've interpreted this law in today's society.


Oh and the obligatory.....

 

[Adauth]

Whats sad is that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away everyday, and most people don't even notice, and the worst part is that most of the ones that do, do nothing about it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Whats sad is that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away everyday, and most people don't even notice, and the worst part is that most of the ones that do, do nothing about it.

People need to pay attention. We will wake up one day and get it. By then it might be too late.

Consider guns and SCOTUS. Those judges can refuse to hear cases and they cannot be fired. They are the gatekeepers and if bad ones are appointed and they decide guns are bad, they can refuse to hear cases that come before them and we are more or less stuck.

Guns do not need to be banned. All that needs to happen is more fees, rules, taxes, limiting how many gun stores can exist, ban on imports, higher ammo taxes and other things can impact gun ownership.

We are lost and we need to find the way back to a government that both understands and respects the Constitution and our absolute rights.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I part company with most gun rights activists because I disagree with them about this. I feel that Americans don't need the full (and likely wrong) interpretation of the 2nd amendment, "to protect ourselves against the government," etc.

In the U.S., the government is freely elected, not ushered in via bloodline or military promotion, etc. Some of us don't trust our government 100%, that seems to be common in every society and is a good thing. But to believe we need to be armed to the teeth so that we can mobilize and fight the U.S. Armed Forces in order to overthrow our rulers is not just a gross exaggeration, it is foolhardy and rather comical at the same time.

If enough people want change in the land on a national scale, important things happen on a mass scale, the Civil Rights Movement, a dedicated non-violent operation led by a Christian Minister, is one example. Slow moving, but effective in the long run and a lot less tragic than a shooting war in the streets against a mechanized Army. Do you really want your neighbors to have access to the sorts of weapons the Army has? Ever seen Beirut?

The Constitution and amendments are quite a template for our society, we're lucky to have it. But we are also clever enough to understand that the farmers of the 1700s with their squirrel guns could then be a threat to the armies of the day, thus certain wording in certain amendments. Only 60 years after that portion of the great document, that portion of the 2nd amendment became outdated.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place to keep the authority at the time (red coats) in check. The law is no longer relevant. If the British armies had nuclear missiles and weapons of mass destruction, would the framers have enacted the 2nd Amendment and included your right to carry nuclear weapons on you? If our current government wanted to break into your house and take you into custody or end your life, any weapon you have access to legally would be ineffective at stopping them. The right to bear arms is just a symbolic outdated law. If it had the same meaning as it was when it was drafted then why aren't citizens allowed to buy tanks, missile launchers, surface to air missiles? I think it would be interesting to see how the founding fathers would've interpreted this law in today's society.


Oh and the obligatory.....

The argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated doesn't carry much weight, the fact is it is a Constitutional right but we have groups who feel those rights should be arbitrary and up for change on a whim. The gun control "Idiots", yes I used that term, claim banning guns is what will reduce crime when in fact the opposite has been proven over and over again. I have never once heard one of them use the argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated, that usually comes from the pseudo-gun supporters or fence straddlers.

If it comes down to it, would you rather be totally stripped of your rights? Yes we aren't as well armed as the military, but rest assured, if we as a populace called for the resignation of our current government it would not be bloodless. I wish that would be the case, but the people in power are not going to just give up and don't forget the monster corporations who have access to forces like Blackwood.

I apologize if I come across as a revolutionary nut-job, I'm not, I have just adopted a more realistic outlook. I hope these things never come to pass, but things aren't looking good right now.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I apologize if I come across as a revolutionary nut-job, I'm not, I have just adopted a more realistic outlook. I hope these things never come to pass, but things aren't looking good right now.

Those that hate guns would think nothing of banning all guns. They would, however, "take up arms" if freedom of speech or freedom of assembly were taken away.

If we get to a point where our guaranteed rights are ignored completely, we are screwed.

You are not a nut job by any means. Please do not apologize.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Armed citizens = free people

Unarmed citizens = subjects

The 2nd amendment gives the 1st amendment teeth.

Those who think that the 2nd amendment was put into place to 'protect from the redcoats' know nothing about history or what this country was founded on. Study some history and pay special attention to previous dynasties if you think our country is so great it can't happen to us because we're following the exact path all others have prior to tyranny of dictatorship.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Those that hate guns would think nothing of banning all guns. They would, however, "take up arms" if freedom of speech or freedom of assembly were taken away.

If we get to a point where our guaranteed rights are ignored completely, we are screwed.

You are not a nut job by any means. Please do not apologize.

Thank you Bob!

That is exactly what is happening, our rights will begin to disappear one by one.

Armed citizens = free people

Unarmed citizens = subjects

The 2nd amendment gives the 1st amendment teeth.

Those who think that the 2nd amendment was put into place to 'protect from the redcoats' know nothing about history or what this country was founded on. Study some history and pay special attention to previous dynasties if you think our country is so great it can't happen to us because we're following the exact path all others have prior to tyranny of dictatorship.

You know I completely blanked on that part, The 2nd amendment was not written to protect us from Redcoats, it was written to protect us from our own government.

Here are a few quotes to this effect:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

 

[TxGoat]

Whats sad is that more and more of our freedoms are being taken away everyday, and most people don't even notice, and the worst part is that most of the ones that do, do nothing about it.

The right to bear arms is more of a token freedom that gives us the illusion of freedom IMO. I could understand if we were afforded the right to carry the same grade of weapons that our government carries.

Lets go back several hundred years, lets say clubs were the preferred weapons of choice and a government was formed and in order to demonstrate "good faith", it was written into law that a man was entitled to carry a club for his protection and to ensure that his government didn't encroach on his rights. Decades pass with that same law in place, meanwhile the government has amassed weapons that rely on "magic" (gunpowder) to strike an enemy down from a distance, and can do a lot of harm in high concentration (bombs). The government to appease the people claim, "feel free to keep your sticks err clubs since that's your right, but you can't have the same "magic" that we possess."

What good then is a rifle when the government has nuclear power, large missiles that can reach around the world, biological weapons that can kill you within seconds of a breath, armor that can render that weapon of yours ineffective?

I think the whole gun debate is just another divisive diversion to keep the status quo in place. It's a non-issue that's put in the forefront of our politics to keep people from voting for their best interest. It allows parties to claim victory for their base while they're busy selling this country off to the highest bidder.

I personally don't care if my neighbor has a gun, as long as they're not some Yee-Haw that fires it off at any occasion, but I think to tell yourself that it's some sort of "inalienable right" that belongs alongside the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in my opinion only proves that you've fallen right into their hands and have lost sight of what true freedom really means.

The argument that the 2nd Amendment is outdated doesn't carry much weight, the fact is it is a Constitutional right but we have groups who feel those rights should be arbitrary and up for change on a whim. The gun control "Idiots", yes I used that term, claim banning guns is what will reduce crime when in fact the opposite has been proven over and over again. I have never once heard one of them use the argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated, that usually comes from the pseudo-gun supporters or fence straddlers.

If it comes down to it, would you rather be totally stripped of your rights? Yes we aren't as well armed as the military, but rest assured, if we as a populace called for the resignation of our current government it would not be bloodless. I wish that would be the case, but the people in power are not going to just give up and don't forget the monster corporations who have access to forces like Blackwood.

I apologize if I come across as a revolutionary nut-job, I'm not, I have just adopted a more realistic outlook. I hope these things never come to pass, but things aren't looking good right now.

Why does it not carry much weight? The law was put in place back when people fought with muskets. Have you seen what "modern warfare" is all about (and I don't mean the game)? A good test of how outdated it actually is, go out and try to buy a replica musket from the Revolutionary war, next try to buy ANY of the more popular weapons used in any of the wars from the past 20-30, hell past 100 years. Let me know the outcome. It's outdated because the advancement of warfare has neutered the law itself and how it's interpreted.

 

[OstrichSaK]

blah blah blah....government has nuclear power...armor that can render that weapon of yours ineffective....It's a non-issue...I personally don't care if my neighbor has a gun, as long as they're not some Yee-Haw that fires it off at any occasion...blah blah blah

Not really sure how you think the government is going to use nukes or chemical warfare on people of it's own nation... where members of the federal government resides. As for the US military vs the citizens; you do realize how many active military members there are compared to civilian gun owners, right? Why do you think the US mainland has NEVER been invaded by a standing army of an aggressor nation? Having access to more power weapons only helps to lower the blood shed of civilians once a revolution happens. Yeah, I said once it happens because most every nation of the world has had at least two since our last one. Don't think that our nation is above it and the way our federal government is gaining power it's going to be sooner than later. you do realize that it is our duty as citizens of this nation to take this country back (by force if need be) from the federal government if it becomes too powerful? I love how anti-gun people see ALL those who own firearms as 'whack jobs' who just pop off rounds in their house or out back on a regular basis but those in the military or in law enforcement are made of different genetics and can do no wrong with a firearm. I know better.

I think to tell yourself that it's some sort of "inalienable right" that belongs alongside the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in my opinion only proves that you've fallen right into their hands and have lost sight of what true freedom really means.

The good news is I don't have to tell myself anything. It was decided many, many, MANY years ago what rights free men were born with and the Bill of Rights was put into place only to outline those and spell them out for people like you who don't think they're necessary or important any longer. I love how in your world our federal government has our best interests in mind and works only to serve the needs of the many as they selflessly give of themselves with absolutely no greed behind any of their actions. Just curious, in the last century or so what has our federal government done to earn such unwavering trust from you?

Why does it not carry much weight? The law was put in place back when people fought with muskets. Have you seen what "modern warfare" is all about (and I don't mean the game)? A good test of how outdated it actually is, go out and try to buy a replica musket from the Revolutionary war, next try to buy ANY of the more popular weapons used in any of the wars from the past 20-30, hell past 100 years. Let me know the outcome. It's outdated because the advancement of warfare has neutered the law itself and how it's interpreted.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here but the point is lost on me. I can only assume that you're saying that because weapons have progressed this somehow makes the right to bear arms more dangerous or risky?

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Not really sure how you think the government is going to use nukes or chemical warfare on people of it's own nation... where members of the federal government resides. As for the US military vs the citizens; you do realize how many active military members there are compared to civilian gun owners, right? Why do you think the US mainland has NEVER been invaded by a standing army of an aggressor nation? Having access to more power weapons only helps to lower the blood shed of civilians once a revolution happens. Yeah, I said once it happens because most every nation of the world has had at least two since our last one. Don't think that our nation is above it and the way our federal government is gaining power it's going to be sooner than later. you do realize that it is our duty as citizens of this nation to take this country back (by force if need be) from the federal government if it becomes too powerful? I love how anti-gun people see ALL those who own firearms as 'whack jobs' who just pop off rounds in their house or out back on a regular basis but those in the military or in law enforcement are made of different genetics and can do no wrong with a firearm. I know better.



The good news is I don't have to tell myself anything. It was decided many, many, MANY years ago what rights free men were born with and the Bill of Rights was put into place only to outline those and spell them out for people like you who don't think they're necessary or important any longer. I love how in your world our federal government has our best interests in mind and works only to serve the needs of the many as they selflessly give of themselves with absolutely no greed behind any of their actions. Just curious, in the last century or so what has our federal government done to earn such unwavering trust from you?

You have answered these points well enough that I am leaving those alone.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here but the point is lost on me. I can only assume that you're saying that because weapons have progressed this somehow makes the right to bear arms more dangerous or risky?

He is saying that the military is an undefeatable power, at least by the citizens and the lowly weapons we posses.

He apparently does not comprehend that the guns available to civilians are just as powerful as what the military has. Ammo is ammo, 5.65 or 7.62 NATO rounds are no more powerful than their .223 or .308 Win civilian counterparts and just because a weapon is semi-auto as opposed to full-auto doesn't make it any weaker, on the contrary it is a more accurate weapon when fired single shot.

Body armor is an issue, but it is designed to stop handgun rounds, large caliber rifle rounds will penetrate most body armor (what it won't is to bulky and heavy to be effective in the field), its only purpose under that circumstance is to minimize damage.

And look what is done cheaply to disable our Armored vehicles in Iraq, that can easily be reproduced here.

I hope it never comes to this, but it is a "Right" granted us by the Constitution and if this one gets taken away the others will fall very soon after that. This is the one standing in the way of us being stripped of our other rights.

 

[TxGoat]

Not really sure how you think the government is going to use nukes or chemical warfare on people of it's own nation... where members of the federal government resides. As for the US military vs the citizens; you do realize how many active military members there are compared to civilian gun owners, right? Why do you think the US mainland has NEVER been invaded by a standing army of an aggressor nation? Having access to more power weapons only helps to lower the blood shed of civilians once a revolution happens. Yeah, I said once it happens because most every nation of the world has had at least two since our last one. Don't think that our nation is above it and the way our federal government is gaining power it's going to be sooner than later. you do realize that it is our duty as citizens of this nation to take this country back (by force if need be) from the federal government if it becomes too powerful? I love how anti-gun people see ALL those who own firearms as 'whack jobs' who just pop off rounds in their house or out back on a regular basis but those in the military or in law enforcement are made of different genetics and can do no wrong with a firearm. I know better.



The good news is I don't have to tell myself anything. It was decided many, many, MANY years ago what rights free men were born with and the Bill of Rights was put into place only to outline those and spell them out for people like you who don't think they're necessary or important any longer. I love how in your world our federal government has our best interests in mind and works only to serve the needs of the many as they selflessly give of themselves with absolutely no greed behind any of their actions. Just curious, in the last century or so what has our federal government done to earn such unwavering trust from you?



Not really sure what you're trying to say here but the point is lost on me. I can only assume that you're saying that because weapons have progressed this somehow makes the right to bear arms more dangerous or risky?

I don't feel like segmenting each specific point of yours so I'll just reply. A couple of things, the first is I am not claiming that anyone that is "pro 2nd amendment" is a "whackjob", I said I have NO PROBLEM with my neighbor owning a gun as long as he's not some "YEE-HAW" (meaning he has NO respect for a firearm, which lets face it there are people that get a hold of a firearm that have NO BUSINESS owning one and that's on BOTH sides i.e. that guy doing gun-safety training that shot himself in the foot).

My second point, you pretty much validated my prior post about the issue being more of an issue used to divide and distract from actual issues (like our rights and interests being sold to the highest bidder). I don't think having all the handguns/rifles in the world is going to do you a lick of good if the government decides it wants to wipe you off the map thus I think it's like arguing that you want to use a BIG knife at a gun fight.

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in because they were under English oppression. The amendment was intended to dissuade a tyrannical government from forming after the U.S. was free from English rule. Like I said, the amendment has lost it's intended bite due to the technological advances in weapons and warfare.

As far as having faith in my government, wrong again but I understand how this topic tends to invoke passion in people. I mean those in power know that the best way to divide people is to introduce a topic that they're emotional about. It's much easier to bend a person's rational thinking by trying to stir them emotionally.

To summarize, my opinion is not that we need to get rid of everything that kills or maims and replace it with teddy bears, stuffed unicorns, and stuff that glitters (I actually would like to introduce more pointy things that maim and kill if anything as a means of population control), my opinion is that the original intention of this amendment has been mostly neutered and the actual argument now is just a ploy used by politicians to garner votes so they can get down to the business of selling our interests to the highest bidders. "Well, I'm going to introduce a bill that allows the U.S. government to listen to your phone calls, enter your house without a warrant, and hold you indefinitely if we suspect you of something, but don't worry, we're going to let you keep that relatively harmless assault rifle, Oh and the new bill that I'm introducing, you'll like its name. It's going to be called the "Patriot Act"."

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I don't feel like segmenting each specific point of yours so I'll just reply. A couple of things, the first is I am not claiming that anyone that is "pro 2nd amendment" is a "whackjob", I said I have NO PROBLEM with my neighbor owning a gun as long as he's not some "YEE-HAW" (meaning he has NO respect for a firearm, which lets face it there are people that get a hold of a firearm that have NO BUSINESS owning one and that's on BOTH sides i.e. that guy doing gun-safety training that shot himself in the foot).

Yes, there are many people that should not have firearms and I think reasonable safeguards are prudent.

My second point, you pretty much validated my prior post about the issue being more of an issue used to divide and distract from actual issues (like our rights and interests being sold to the highest bidder). I don't think having all the handguns/rifles in the world is going to do you a lick of good if the government decides it wants to wipe you off the map thus I think it's like arguing that you want to use a BIG knife at a gun fight.

You are assuming that everyone fighting for the 2nd amendment is ignoring everything else around them, quite the contrary those who support it are usually very well informed on the major issues and threats to our rights.

The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in because they were under English oppression. The amendment was intended to dissuade a tyrannical government from forming after the U.S. was free from English rule. Like I said, the amendment has lost it's intended bite due to the technological advances in weapons and warfare.

As Ostrich said earlier, the government is not going to turn nuclear or biological weapons on U.S. soil.

Do you realize what the 8th largest army in the world is? Based on license registrations in only 6 U.S. states it is the American hunters!

As far as having faith in my government, wrong again but I understand how this topic tends to invoke passion in people. I mean those in power know that the best way to divide people is to introduce a topic that they're emotional about. It's much easier to bend a person's rational thinking by trying to stir them emotionally.

Magic and politics, it's all smoke and mirrors.

To summarize, my opinion is not that we need to get rid of everything that kills or maims and replace it with teddy bears, stuffed unicorns, and stuff that glitters (I actually would like to introduce more pointy things that maim and kill if anything as a means of population control), my opinion is that the original intention of this amendment has been mostly neutered and the actual argument now is just a ploy used by politicians to garner votes so they can get down to the business of selling our interests to the highest bidders. "Well, I'm going to introduce a bill that allows the U.S. government to listen to your phone calls, enter your house without a warrant, and hold you indefinitely if we suspect you of something, but don't worry, we're going to let you keep that relatively harmless assault rifle, Oh and the new bill that I'm introducing, you'll like its name. It's going to be called the "Patriot Act"."

The Patriot Act was supposed to be a necessary evil during the period immediately after 9/11 to help in locating the terrorists responsible and prevent further attacks and you will find most people in favor of abolishing that one.