Defibrillators are boring, though. :-(
Matt, no one tells the difference at a gun shop between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal.
You tell the difference when a criminal breaks into or otherwise gains entry to your home.
If you came from a gun ownership family then you can ignore my plea for you to receive some sound firearms training with your weapon(s) of choice.
I think it was really meant to easily equip a militia army. Back then it was usual to have a small standing army and then quickly increase it with conscription. Anything else was too expensive for most countries. Having people armed meant that there were already trained in shooting and that they owned some of their own equipment. At that time, the best weapon was also a rifled musket. Not automatic rifles.
Having some restrictions on guns isn't a bad thing. That doesn't mean banning them outright or making them to hard to get. There is a healthy middle ground somewhere
In the context of time which that amendment was written, I think it safe to say that all persons had a right to own a firearm. For me the question has always been, at what point the government should restrain ownership of certain types of weapons. For example, should an individual be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon, or what caliber of weapon, etc.
For example, should an individual be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon, or what caliber of weapon, etc.
To me it is irrelevant if your law-abiding. A semi-automatic firearm in the hands of a competent knowledgeable gun owner can make it perform "automatic."
Guns are great and I think anyone (sans convicted felons/etc) should have the right to own one if they wish. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves...911 isn't always an option.
I don't own a gun, but like the idea of purchasing one at some point.
When I think of the mass killings on campuses and the hijackings that led to the killing of thousands of innocents on 9/11, it occurs to me how differently things might have turned out if a few civilians had been armed when the sh*t went down. I don't think banning guns accomplishes much more than leaving them ONLY in the hands of the people we don't think should have them and the authorities, who so frequently don't show up in time to make a difference.
You really think people should be free to carry guns on aircraft in the USA ??? Keep in mind the large proportion of americans on medications including psychiatric drugs and that on top of it the airlines plying their passengers with booze while squeezing them into ever less leg room while crammed into metal tubes with shitty air quality and staff bent out of shape by constant talk of terrorists.
Yeah Great Idea !
I think weapons and potential weapons get on every single commercial flight as is. I think you're suffering from a false sense of security if you think a plane can't be hijacked without a gun. And terrorists will get guns on planes if they want to anyway, if only by getting confederates hired into airport and airline staff.
If an undercover air/sky marshal had been on board the doomed flight that plowed into the PA countryside during 911 yeah I think the outcome would of been very different.
Or if a civilian had been armed. There are probably a couple or a few police officers or soldiers on any flight. If they are trusted with weapons on the ground, why not in the air? If it was dead certain a few guns were on board every plane, would a terrorist even attempt a hijacking?