From the OP twitter -
"As passed by the Congress:
"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."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"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."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

So which of you gun owners is part of this well-regulated militia, because that is what is constitutionally protected?

Looks like no christmas card from the NRA for Frum this year. An unusually cogent piece.

The wording can be rephrased as- the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
This means the same thing but is probably easier to understand.
A country (America) needs a militia (military wing) to keep itself secure. To this end, every citizen who is in the militia can own a gun. If each member of the militia owns his own gun the costs are kept down, which was probably important at the time.

That's an interpretation, which is as valid as any.
If you are not in the militia, defending America's security, then you do not have the 'right' to own a gun. Pretty straightforward.

Quote

That's an interpretation, which is as valid as any.

I'll disagree with that one. I'm not entirely up to date on the case law, but the Supreme Court's interpretation is significantly more valid.

Quote
Manlove
"In the land of the Second Amendment, nobody will take your guns away. But if you love your children, you should get rid of them voluntarily."

or teach your children to use them properly.

I know that sounds absurd but think about it for a minute -- by teaching children that guns are tools and need to be handled with respect, we remove the boogeyman factor. Most people just say "guns bad, no-no touch."

Well that is like teaching abstinence - it's a nice idea that we can all wish would work, but it doesn't. Kids are curious creatures and if we don't give them answers then they go looking for those answers themselves. In the case of abstinence, that means higher teen pregnancy rates. In guns, that means more accidental shootings.

So just like some say teach birth control, I say teach gun safety. Let a child learn about the gun and actually use one in a safe, supervised manner. Take the mystique away and the child gains both an understanding and a respect for the gun.

In earlier times, guns were seen as tools; they were used for a purpose. Children grew up around them and were introduced to them from their earliest days. By the time a child was 8-10, many already either owned a 22 plinker or had pretty much unlimited access to their family's gun. Were there accidents? of course but there wasn't wholesale slaughter. When I was in high school in the 70's, it was not unusual for someone to have a rifle or shotgun in the rear window of their pickup - no one cared or was concerned.

But today the lesson is never touch a gun, guns are dangerous, guns kill... So teaching gun safety has gone away. Now we just teach gun abstinence.

Well abstinence-only education doesn't work for sex, why would we think it would work for guns?


(and for the record - I'm a very hard core, left leaning Democrat with some socialistic ideas but I also believe in common sense.)

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2012 04:34PM by Ombligo.

I doubt the founding fathers ever intended to exclude civilians from owning guns. They understood the need for an ability to procure food and self defense against hostile Indians.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

(Sorry I was replying to manlove's comment above. I'm in agreement with Swampy)

It's not historically that straightforward, however. And the US supreme court has only ruled on the issue once, in 2008. And it ruled that the right to bear arms is in fact an individual right.

As you may recall, in the late 18th century the British goverment, still in control of its North American colonies, tried to confiscate the colonists' weapons and ammunition (Lexington and Concord, etc.)

You know the rest.

So there was an implicit understanding in adding this second amendment that gun rights were meant for individuals, not just active duty soldiers. And there was the understanding that people living in the colonies needed weapons for hunting and for protection against Indian attacks, wild animals, etc and that help was not a quick yell away in many cases. The right to own a gun was included in the earliest laws of the colonies. It was well entrenched by the time the US was writing a Constitution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2012 04:34PM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
August West

Quote

That's an interpretation, which is as valid as any.

I'll disagree with that one. I'm not entirely up to date on the case law, but the Supreme Court's interpretation is significantly more valid.

Actually, it's not significantly more valid, it just bears significantly more weight!

Quote
swampy
I doubt the founding fathers ever intended to exclude civilians from owning guns. They understood the need for an ability to procure food and self defense against hostile Indians.

Another interpretation, as valid as my own and indeed as that of the SCOTUS.
But there are no hostile Indians and food comes from Walmart!

I give up. Do what you want with your guns. Just don't shoot me or my family, intentionally or by accident. Beyond that, you are free.

Manchild,

I appreciate where you are coming from. I fully support your choice to believe as you do. I happen to hold a differing view.

It was a fun debate and gave me insight into your view. Thank you.

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.

Quote
Manlove

Quote
swampy
I doubt the founding fathers ever intended to exclude civilians from owning guns. They understood the need for an ability to procure food and self defense against hostile Indians.

Another interpretation, as valid as my own and indeed as that of the SCOTUS.
But there are no hostile Indians and food comes from Walmart!

Hostile Indians have become the Crips and Bloods. And you show your city boy stupidity when you say food comes from WalMart so no guns are needed. Food comes from hard working farmers who stll face predators (wolves, cugars, snakes etc) in the field.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2012 04:57PM by swampy.

Quote
Manlove
The purpose as I see it for an armed militia was to prevent the Govt of the USA from forcibly subjugating the American people to it's will.

Actually, the purpose was primarily to prevent the government of England (and other foreign governments) from forcibly subjugating the american people by allowing creation of a well-regulated citizen militia to oppose invading professional armies.

The current application of the second amendment (personal ownership of firearms for uses other than supporting the US government's need to repel invading armies) is completely bogus when compared to the framer's obvious intent to provide a method for maintaining a militia in the absence of a standing army.

However, my understanding is that the US Supreme Court made a very poorly defined ruling in 1939 (U.S. vs Miller) that, while it appeared to restrict gun ownership to weapons that could be usable by a militia, was very poorly worded and thus has been interpreted (some would say misinterpreted) to allow virtually unrestricted personal gun ownership...thus leading to the insanity of the current firearms free for all.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
Manlove
But there are no hostile Indians and food comes from Walmart!

OK that cracked me up.

Another little bit of American irony here, from what I understand most of the sovereign tribal nations do not allow any guns, regardless of the laws of the surrounding US state.

Quote
davester
... the insanity of the current firearms free for all.

Insanity it is.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Quote
davester

Quote
Manlove
The purpose as I see it for an armed militia was to prevent the Govt of the USA from forcibly subjugating the American people to it's will.

Actually, the purpose was primarily to prevent the government of England (and other foreign governments) from forcibly subjugating the american people by allowing creation of a well-regulated citizen militia to oppose invading professional armies.

Fair enough. I think I used this definition in another post. I vacillated!

And good for the sovereign tribal nations.

Swampy, I know where food comes from. Just because I don't live in the country doesn't actually mean that I think food grows on shelves. Well done for spotting the irony.

Ombligo- likewise.

Quote
swampy
Hostile Indians have become the Crips and Bloods.

...who are incredibly dangerous thanks to the firearms free-for-all successfully promoted by the NRA.

Quote
swampy
Food comes from hard working farmers who stll face predators (wolves, cugars, snakes etc) in the field.

What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
cbelt3

This is not a paranoid fantasy by the NRA. LIke any other right, if one allows a slow nibbling away, eventually one has no rights.

Right to assemble ? Oh.. except you need a permit. Nibble.

Right to Free Speech ? Oh.. except when someone is offended. Nibble.

Right to own Property ? Oh.. except when your local government wants to give it to a developer who gave money to a politician's campaign. Nibble.

Right to marry whomever they wish ? Oh.. not if you're the wrong religion. or the wrong race. or the same gender. Nibble, nibble, nibble.

and so forth.

Protecting rights as detailed in the constitution is every American's duty. Sadly many people on either side of these arguments forget that, and only want to protect those rights that they hold dear, and do NOT recognize that denying other rights to others is functionally the same thing.

You don't have a woman's right to an abortion on your list. Does what you say about the other rights apply to that right as well?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2012 06:11PM by Ted King.

right to drive without wearing a seatbelt?

right to smoke in a bar? (at least in nyc...)

Quote
cbelt3
Lemon Drop--- I'm afraid that if you believe that the goal of certain gun control groups is 'control' as opposed to 'total ban', then you are mistaken. I'm at work, so no linkies, but I've seen quite clear declarations that some organization's goals are a complete gun ownership ban by private citizens.

This is not a paranoid fantasy by the NRA. LIke any other right, if one allows a slow nibbling away, eventually one has no rights.

Right to assemble ? Oh.. except you need a permit. Nibble.

Right to Free Speech ? Oh.. except when someone is offended. Nibble.

Right to own Property ? Oh.. except when your local government wants to give it to a developer who gave money to a politician's campaign. Nibble.

Right to marry whomever they wish ? Oh.. not if you're the wrong religion. or the wrong race. or the same gender. Nibble, nibble, nibble.

and so forth.

Protecting rights as detailed in the constitution is every American's duty. Sadly many people on either side of these arguments forget that, and only want to protect those rights that they hold dear, and do NOT recognize that denying other rights to others is functionally the same thing.

---

"Was that wrong? Should we not have done that?"

---

Live from Berserkeley, California | Originally from the City of Brotherly Freakin' Love

Quote
cbelt3
Lemon Drop--- I'm afraid that if you believe that the goal of certain gun control groups is 'control' as opposed to 'total ban', then you are mistaken. I'm at work, so no linkies, but I've seen quite clear declarations that some organization's goals are a complete gun ownership ban by private citizens.

This is not a paranoid fantasy by the NRA. LIke any other right, if one allows a slow nibbling away, eventually one has no rights.

That "certain" gun control groups want to ban weapons is totally irrelevant. There are extreme positions on all sides of all issues. So what?

That the NRA paints all gun control groups with this kind of brush IS a paranoid fantasy. In fact, today's NRA is 100% paranoid fantasy.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2012 06:48PM by davester.

Quote
davester

That the NRA paints all gun control groups with this kind of brush IS a paranoid fantasy. In fact, today's NRA is 100% paranoid fantasy.

Isn't it time that the NRA was proscribed as a terrorist organization given that their policies have killed many more americans than all the islamic terrorists combined.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

Some of those assault weapons are banned in Massachusetts.

Guess who the nancy=pants was who signed that atrocious take-away of our rights ?

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

Wow, Bill Moyers puts it out there.

He calls the NRA "the enabler of death -- paranoid, delusional, and as venomous as a scorpion."

[billmoyers.com]

Quote
billb
Some of those assault weapons are banned in Massachusetts.

Guess who the nancy=pants was who signed that atrocious take-away of our rights ?

Wait, was it IttMay Omneyray?

Quote
billb
Some of those assault weapons are banned in Massachusetts.

Guess who the nancy=pants was who signed that atrocious take-away of our rights ?

I bet his position today is as vehemently supportive of that ban as it is of romneycare and his earlier recommendation that the ACA adopt romneycare as a model.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

"...construed as a god-given right"


Me sir..! I said that sir!

Quote
Manlove
I read it and agreed almost entirely with it. Guns are not needed. They are a glamour items bought by people with too much money and not enough sense.

I don't know what part of the country you live but in our little section we need guns.

We live on a decent size cattle farm and we're not about to stand by and watch a varmint kill and eat a baby calf.
We've also had to take down numerous foxes, coyotes, skunks, etc. Most of the skunks and foxes were either acting
strangely or appeared to be rabid. Ever been chased by a skunk in the daylight? We've also had put down a number
calves that or unknown reasons could not be doctored back to health.

At one time, about 30 years ago, I was an avid hunter of deer, squirrels, rabbits, doves, etc. I never killed anything
that we didn't eat. Today I could never go back to hunting unless things got so bad it was the only way to feed my
family. My weapon of choice now is a camera.

I will say this, during a ewscast over the weekend a video was shown and buyers interviewed inside the show. There
were assault weapons for sale at the show that sent shivers up my spine. They cut ally looked like weapons that
should ave been at a military contract show, some scary that I have no idea what someone needs them for. My late
Grandfather had a single shot bolt action .22 caliber rifle that was the most accurate shooting rifle I've ever seen, it
was his varmint rifle, he also lived on farm.

Quote
davester

Quote
billb
Some of those assault weapons are banned in Massachusetts.

Guess who the nancy=pants was who signed that atrocious take-away of our rights ?

I bet his position today is as vehemently supportive of that ban as it is of romneycare and his earlier recommendation that the ACA adopt romneycare as a model.

He should make a campaign promise to take advantage of a democrat congress and get a gun bill passed within 100 days of being elected.

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

What some of you seem to be arguing is the difference between controlled items (firearms) and non-controlled items (accessories, ammunition, etc).

In the case of controlled items, a law-abiding citizen cannot simply order firearms over the internet. In the situation of the article where the reporters were purchasing firearms "online" these were situations where the individuals were connecting via websites like Craigslist and then illegally transferring firearms without registration (which may or may not be illegal - depending on your jurisdiction).

I'm sorry, but the purchase of a tactical vest in this country is not an indication of criminal intent or purpose - regardless of personal beliefs.

Then there was the argument about ammunition being weapons - with the example being that an unloaded firearm can be used to bludgeon someone and that a cartridge (that's a bullet with explosive accelerant in a metal casing) is indeed a "weapon." Truth be told, while you can bludgeon someone with a firearm, it is very difficult to kill someone with merely the bullet or cartridge sans firearm. Contrast that to a bow and arrow where you can still stab and kill someone with an arrow much easier than with a bullet.

As it stands, a citizen can choose to own or not own firearms.

>>some scary that I have no idea what someone needs them for.<<

There you again. How do you feel if someone told you you really didn't need guns on your farm? YOU determine your needs, not someone else.

"Then there was the argument about ammunition being weapons - with the example being that an unloaded firearm can be used to bludgeon someone and that a cartridge (that's a bullet with explosive accelerant in a metal casing) is indeed a "weapon." Truth be told, while you can bludgeon someone with a firearm, it is very difficult to kill someone with merely the bullet or cartridge sans firearm. Contrast that to a bow and arrow where you can still stab and kill someone with an arrow much easier than with a bullet."

...or something like that!

Grateful11 I appreciate your points and can see how a gun would make all the things you say you do/did with them easier and you also have a sense of perspective ..."I will say this, during a newscast over the weekend a video was shown and buyers interviewed inside the show. There were assault weapons for sale at the show that sent shivers up my spine. They cut ally looked like weapons that
should ave been at a military contract show, some scary that I have no idea what someone needs them for. My late Grandfather had a single shot bolt action .22 caliber rifle that was the most accurate shooting rifle I've ever seen, it was his varmint rifle, he also lived on farm."

I have farmer friends in the UK who keep shotguns for rabbit and pheasant shooting. Not a problem for me.

>>I have farmer friends in the UK who keep shotguns for rabbit and pheasant shooting. Not a problem for me.<<

John Holmes carried a shotgun into the theatre. No problem?

The Old NRA

- NRA founded by veterans of Civil War to teach gun skills and safety
- NRA supported the first federal gun control laws in 1930s
- NRA began opposing some gun control in 1950s, and took on militant anti-gun control stance by 1970s
- NRA radicalism in 1980s-1990s led to loss of membership and political influence; major gun control bills passed Congress in 1990s

The NRA was founded shortly after the Civil War by Union officers disturbed by the poor gun skills of the troops they had commanded in battle. Fittingly, for its first fifty years, the NRA built rifle ranges, sponsored shooting competitions, and organized gun safety courses. Its techniques and standards were adopted by the United States Army and municipal police departments; the NRA was perceived as a mainstream and civic—minded organization working at common purposes with local and national governments.

Before the 1930s, the NRA did not get involved in politics. And when it did, during the 1930s debates surrounding the first federal gun laws, it largely supported the government's objectives. The two major gun control laws of the decade, the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act, were both endorsed by the NRA.

[www.shmoop.com]

---

[www.giyf.com]

[www1.whdh.com]

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Avenger
>>some scary that I have no idea what someone needs them for.<<

There you again. How do you feel if someone told you you really didn't need guns on your farm? YOU determine your needs, not someone else.

Well Trollboy here's what they had rows and rows of for sale, they even had pink ones. Below is actually
a Sniper rifle so I'll put that in there so you won't need to correct me but that's what they were selling.

Can you tell me why anyone needs a weapon like this unless you're in the military? No one hunts with
stuff like this or kills varmints with one, if they do they need their head examined.

They must use sniper rifles foe snipe hunting.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

>>Can you tell me why anyone needs a weapon like this <<

There you go again. Listen, and listen good. YOU are in no position to tell ME what I need. I could have told you to chase those wolves away with clubs because you don't need guns. People have hobbies that often make no sense to other people. Some enjoy shooting the massive 50 cal Barrett. That is their hobby. They enjoy it and you have no business telling them they shouldn't.

Quote
Avenger
>>Can you tell me why anyone needs a weapon like this <<

There you go again. Listen, and listen good. YOU are in no position to tell ME what I need. I could have told you to chase those wolves away with clubs because you don't need guns. People have hobbies that often make no sense to other people. Some enjoy shooting the massive 50 cal Barrett. That is their hobby. They enjoy it and you have no business telling them they shouldn't.

Listen and you listen good, here's you some more Troll fodder. No where did I say that I'm going to
try and stop people from buying whatever type gun they want, I only said they don't need them and
stand by that statement. There's a difference between wanting and needing maybe you should look
it up you obviously don't know the difference. The reasons you gave are wants not needs.
I have to wonder if you know @#$%& about anything or just trolling.

BTW: I never mentioned anything about a wolf now go back and reread Trollboy.

I've been involved with this gun debate since the 70's. Back then a friend, later business partner and lawyer was the protagonist and on the forefront of defense of gun owner rights.

We argued for hours on end, frequently at the Cask & Flagon, a bar he had an interest in located across the street from Fenway Park. We eventually parted ways as I was outward bound and he would never be. Our business relationship continued for a number of years until the day I received a piece of bounced mail.

He was not ever a risk taker. I later found he was shot to death in an apparent robbery attempt. He was always armed to the teeth. Seems that didn't help him in whatever circumstance he found himself.

Today I have so little respect for those who defend the manufacture and distribution of firearms I flatly refuse to acknowledge that they have an argument worth debating.

This is the world they produced, let them live with it.

Quote
Grateful11

Quote
Avenger
>>Can you tell me why anyone needs a weapon like this <<

There you go again. Listen, and listen good. YOU are in no position to tell ME what I need. I could have told you to chase those wolves away with clubs because you don't need guns. People have hobbies that often make no sense to other people. Some enjoy shooting the massive 50 cal Barrett. That is their hobby. They enjoy it and you have no business telling them they shouldn't.

Listen and you listen good, here's you some more Troll fodder. No where did I say that I'm going to
try and stop people from buying whatever type gun they want, I only said they don't need them and
stand by that statement. There's a difference between wanting and needing maybe you should look
it up you obviously don't know the difference. The reasons you gave are wants not needs.
I have to wonder if you know @#$%& about anything or just trolling.

BTW: I never mentioned anything about a wolf now go back and reread Trollboy.

So what is your point when you say I don't need such and such? The follow up, which you are too chicken to admit, is to take it away form me. I am not going to let you get away with innuendo like your pals here. I will call you out. Oh, one more thing. Chase those "varmints" away on foot with a stick. You don't NEED anything else.

Quote
Avenger

Quote
Grateful11

Quote
Avenger
>>Can you tell me why anyone needs a weapon like this <<

There you go again. Listen, and listen good. YOU are in no position to tell ME what I need. I could have told you to chase those wolves away with clubs because you don't need guns. People have hobbies that often make no sense to other people. Some enjoy shooting the massive 50 cal Barrett. That is their hobby. They enjoy it and you have no business telling them they shouldn't.

Listen and you listen good, here's you some more Troll fodder. No where did I say that I'm going to
try and stop people from buying whatever type gun they want, I only said they don't need them and
stand by that statement. There's a difference between wanting and needing maybe you should look
it up you obviously don't know the difference. The reasons you gave are wants not needs.
I have to wonder if you know @#$%& about anything or just trolling.

BTW: I never mentioned anything about a wolf now go back and reread Trollboy.

So what is your point when you say I don't need such and such? The follow up, which you are too chicken to admit, is to take it away form me. I am not going to let you get away with innuendo like your pals here. I will call you out. Oh, one more thing. Chase those "varmints" away on foot with a stick. You don't NEED anything else.

All big and bad behind that keyboard aren't you? I seriously doubt you've ever even held a real gun,
just another slimy Troll. I'm tired of reading your BS, it's back on Ignore like before. I'm not feeding
Dakota/Avenger the Troll anymore, you can get your caloric intake of Troll fodder from someone else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2012 03:42PM by Grateful11.

Quote

I'm tired of reading your BS, it's back on Ignore like before.

Good choice !

Quote
davester
That the NRA paints all gun control groups with this kind of brush IS a paranoid fantasy. In fact, today's NRA is 100% paranoid fantasy.

Based on the tenor of this group regarding firearms, that paranoia is not "fantasy."

Quote
Grateful11

Actually, I think that's a pretty NICE weapon!

Known as the AS50, it is the United Kingdom's answer to the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. Designed for US SOCOM, the AS50 intended use is for snipers, with a range of up to a mile away. The weapon is available for sale to the civilian market - depending on configuration, the price will be between $10,000 to $15,000.

And back to the question of why anyone NEEDS an AS50 - it's the same as any piece of merchandise in America: because the individual wants one. That's really the only "reason" any of us need to "justify" our purchases - otherwise we'd all be using PCs instead of Macs...

Quote
RgrF
Today I have so little respect for those who defend the manufacture and distribution of firearms I flatly refuse to acknowledge that they have an argument worth debating.

Then you are just wasting your own time with participating in any sort of discussion.

Quote
Mac-A-Matic

Quote
Grateful11

Actually, I think that's a pretty NICE weapon!

Known as the AS50, it is the United Kingdom's answer to the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. Designed for US SOCOM, the AS50 intended use is for snipers, with a range of up to a mile away. The weapon is available for sale to the civilian market - depending on configuration, the price will be between $10,000 to $15,000.

And back to the question of why anyone NEEDS an AS50 - it's the same as any piece of merchandise in America: because the individual wants one. That's really the only "reason" any of us need to "justify" our purchases - otherwise we'd all be using PCs instead of Macs...

Zillions of examples of things that are not legal to own in America because the potential threat to public safety outweighs the potential benefit. I'm curious- can you make sense when you really put your mind to it?

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Grateful11
I'm tired of reading your BS, it's back on Ignore like before. I'm not feeding
Dakota/Avenger the Troll anymore, you can get your caloric intake of Troll fodder from someone else.

Hooray!

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Black
Zillions of examples of things that are not legal to own in America because the potential threat to public safety outweighs the potential benefit. I'm curious- can you make sense when you really put your mind to it?

"Zillions"? Really? I expected better of you...

And the only people that "make sense" to you are the ones who agree with you.