posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:30 PM
Originally posted by links234
I believe that the United States would do well to clarify the second amendment and not include individuals. The state's should be able to maintain
their militias in the form of the national guard but average citizens have little use for firearms. In my opinion.
The preamble of a "well regulated militia" is always where the anti-gunners will hang their hats. In the terms of the times the "militia" meant
every able-bodied male, such as you presently have in Switzerland where the government provides the firearm and tha ammunition--permanently. Nobody
gives them back.
"Well regulated" in today's sheeple environment means someone telling you what to do, but in the times 'well regulated" meant "working well,"
such as in a "well regulated clock," a clock that kept time correctly. In other words, "gun control" means the ability to shoot straight.
the fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep a firerarm is an individual right, not a state right, so the argument that it all
means the National Guard is rather moot. The Supreme Court disagrees.
I also don't know where most people live, but I get the impression that you average anti-gunner lives in a suburb of cul-de-sacs where everyone is
perfect and the Stepford Wives do the grocery shopping. Step outside in Chicago's South Side, a place which has the strictest gun control in America,
but the worst record of death by firearm, and report back.
Can you explain that, please? Places with the strictest gun control have the highest crime rates. That's a fact. Divide it by city or by state,
whatever you want. Red states are pro gun and have the lowest crime rates. Blue states are anti-gun and have the highest crime rates.