To those opposed to the 2nd ammendment
 

As it being interperated as "personal ownership".

You know people always like to bring up, "it was meant for militias & to keep the british out". Horse shit! Where does it say "England" in the 2nd?

Well there never were any militias, when the time came all the farm boys/bar tenders & bankers with guns got together to form militias.

And therefor it is inherently important that personal gun ownership be covered under the 2nd, should the need for a militia to arise again.

The 2nd doesn't say ARMY, it says Militia...for a reason. The army is controlled by the government, not the people.

End Game cry babys.

guns are here to stay. if the time comes i ever need to use one ill be happy to say i had one. if not ill have fun shooting them regardless. so many say crime rates would drop and all this bs.. the fact is criminals will always have them so why not make the odds a little better.

well said.

seems to me the only people with pistols in london are muggers & dealers

am i right?

Sometimes not even then.. I believe there were 80 gun-shot related deaths in the U.K last year. If that.. =/

It also says you have a right to bear ARMS not GUNS. Show me where it says GUNS. Now a RPG is ARMS a TANK is ARMS hell a NUKE is ARMS. Do you have a right to own those? No. Why not? The Constitution says you can. They are ARMS and you have the right to own them. So that can only mean that there has been a precedent that one can own ARMS, but at the same time the government has the right to dictate WHICH arms you are allowed to have, since they are clearly doing that now by preventing me from owning a nuke.

it doesn't say "militia" - it says "well organized militia" and furthermore, militia is defined as well in federal law which only recognizes two forms of militia - so there is nothing about personal ownership of guns in the constitution.

:2 cents: