[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by tesla69

True, but killing does not equal murder any more than a car is designed to murder. The deadly accident is an integral of the car, but no one suggests it is purposeful. But just like guns, cars kill. And they can murder.

It is a major error of judgement to think the US elites will in any way protect the masses unless its in their interest. Look at how they dealt with Katrina. and one of the first thing the Govt did there was start confiscating weapons - yet we hear how the cops stopped people at gun point on the bridges and made them return to New Orleans. We should be hearing about this every single day.

sure you start from the premise that an armed populace is harder to control by tyrants. which i think is the basic idea behind the 2nd amendment:

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.

i think tyrants however are too well-armed these days for a .38 to put a dent in their plans. besides, where's the "well regulated militia" we're talking about?

in any case-- you can kill with anything-- sure. but about guns etc. *where do you draw the line*? is it with handguns? automatic weapons? how about hand grenades? high-power explosives? rocket launchers? is it ok for the people to keep an apache helicopter in their backyard?

since the word Arms doesnt' specify "handguns" "sabers" or "blowguns", do i have the constitutional right to make mustard gas in my kitchen? what about the right to keep weapons-grade uranium in my fridge?

these are obvious exaggerations. i reiterate my point-- there IS a line. where do you draw it?