Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Don't forget the use of the term "well regulated." That has to be given some meaning as well. The construction of the provision clearly links the right to bear arms to the necessity of a "well regulated" militia. Shouldn't that phrase have some meaning in the context of regulating firearms?
Regards,
D-Ray
|
I think so.
I don't argue against regulation entirely, but I see no harm in responsible people owning and using weapons such as rifles suitable for hunting deer, fowl, and so on. I have no problem at all with folks owning handguns for personal/home protection. So long as reasonable measures are in place to screen individuals for violent criminal behavior, and/or mental illness. To me, these things are just common sense.
However, weapons such as AK47s, UZIs, MAC10s and 50 caliber sniper rifles are a bit over the top. The stuff of paranoid hate groups, criminals, jackasses and the tinfoil hat crowd. In my opinion, if it was designed strictly for the military, then that's where it belongs, and nowhere else.
I know I'm about to be lambasted for the above statement, and I really couldn't care less. Go ahead fellas, get it off your chests.
Dave