Gun Blog
Western Blog

The second amendment of the US Constitution gives the citizens of the US the right to bear arms, and is usually the thing quoted in any argument against gun control. However, this right was drafted in the context of raising and maintaining a civil militia. In modern terms, the US National Guard. So, the constitution allows the bearing of arms in the National Guard. In UK terms, this would be the Territorial Army. Why is this then used to argue the allowing of arms, and military arms, for general civilian use?

Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Second Amendment to the US Constitution:
“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”
OffRoadTaComa04:
Restrict the supply of guns and people can kill people with knives instead. Don’t know about you but I think I’d stand a better chance against a knife than a gun. Guns do kill people.

BossBackOCD:
The overall numbers for gun crime in the UK is still quite small compared to the US, where guns are freely available.

The BBC report states: “That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.”

That’s 9,855 firearms offences every year in England and Wales combined. Remember, in the UK just owning a firearm is an offence. The report is also from 2003, in 2006 there were 11,084 firearms offences (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6372717.stm).

Are there comparable figures for a similar sized area of the US with open gun control?
I’d like to quote someone’s answer when I asked this question somewhere else.

“The milita is composed of two parts, organized and unorganized. The organized component has over time become the state National Guard. The unorganized part is composed of those gun owners that heed a call to arms and possibly organize themselves into units during a time of crisis. After the crisis passes they disband.

Since the organized milita could be federalized and used by the national government to suppress other rights (see above), the unorganized milita has to have the right to keep and bear arms, even military types, to defend against tyranny born from within.”

By: Valarian

http://www.hobbytron.com/AirsoftSniperAssaultRifleGunSpringZXAK472086C.html

that gun for 17.99 is that worth it??

By: nascar24

§ 18.2-308.7. Possession or transportation of certain firearms by persons under the age of 18; penalty.

It shall be unlawful for any person under 18 years of age to knowingly and intentionally possess or transport a handgun or assault firearm anywhere in the Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section, “handgun” means any pistol or revolver or other firearm originally designed, made and intended to fire single or multiple projectiles by means of an explosion of a combustible material from one or more barrels when held in one hand and “assault firearm” means any (i) semi-automatic centerfire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (ii) shotgun with a magazine which will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered. A violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I want to buy a gun that is semi-auto and it doesnt have a threaded barrel, therefore cannot be equipped with a silencer, and has a magazine that holds 10 bullets. base on that context its considered just a rifle correct? which means any 18 year old person can buy it right? but if I purchase a magazine that holds more than 20 it becomes an assault rifle right? so legally if I don’t buy a magazine that holds more than 20 bullets before I’m 21, I can legally buy and own the gun as long as it doesnt hold more than 20 bullets?

By: it8eazy

also Rey Mysterio vs.Kurt Angle, who would win this grudge match (since rey first WWE fued was with Kurt Angle.
and how bout this John Cena vs. Jeff Jarrett
Cody Rhodes vs. Black Rain Dustin Rhodes to prove who the better son of Dusty Rhodes
Jay Lethal vs. Jamie Noble
The Murder City Machine Guns vs. Cryme Time
and finally AJ Styles vs. HBK Shawn Michaels.

i hope these dream match would come true (via WWE buyout of TNA or the stars listed defects to the opponets brand of the WWE or the company known as TNA.
my results would be HHH, Kurt Angle, Jeff Jarrett,Dustin Rhodes, Jay Lethal and his black Machismo gimmick, MCMG beats Cryme Time, and AJ vs. Shawn, that would be a draw because both HBK and AJ are great champions in this sports history.

tell me who would win in your opinions, plus keep the Joe is fat jokes out of this, and also don’t disrepect the other wrestlers (because we **** cena.) or say UFC rocks, i **** the UFC. it *****.
Rust RIp E, that’s great dream matches i didn’t think of.
my picks to your dream matchs are Taker (even as the minstry taker), AJ, HBK (because petey isn’t main event material the way he’s been used), Umaga (cause khali sucks), same with big show, Angle, Brock would kill batista, and Hardys over DX. but that last one was hard to pick because i like DX and Matt and Jeff.

also Cena fan, quit rooting for a man who has five moves.

By: Dawgma-Texan for Life. TX Pride.