Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
katy wrote:

Why not... good idea. Too bad Reagan didn't think so. Someone
clinically depressed certainly should be restricted from easy access
to guns. Hate to tell you, but the majority of Americans favor more
strick gun control...

Obviously, you don't have the facts...

Some polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...uns/index.html



If that were really so, then there would be legislation...after all, we
are goventment by the people for the people...if what you say was RALLY
true, then the people would rise up and do something about it...if a
person says they're against something, but does nothing to change it and
sits in apathy, then they are really not agaisnt it...they just like to
blat their mouths off with an opinion...I think the more valid statistic
would be that most Americans just don't give a crap...if they did,
they'd do something...


I know you're a very innocent person, but do you dispute the polls? Do
you think the NRA is just going to lie down and let Congress regulate
their business without a fight? They pour millions into their hands
everytime a piece of legislation that would restrict their business
shows up.


Why would the NRA oppose such regulation? Doesn't the Second Amendment
say: "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?" (Incidentally, the judge who stated that a "well-REGULATED
militia" is simply "the people" was full of BS. - That position has
never been upheld by the Supreme Court or any of the Courts of Appeal
for the Federal Circuits in the past 150 years.)

Also, where did anyone get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only
to rifles and handguns? If we are talking seriously about "the people"
safeguarding the security of a free State today (in 2007), they are
going to need howitzers, rocket launched grenades, tanks, antimissile
systems, aircraft, nukes, nuclear subs, laser weaponry, etc. - At least
that's what's needed according to the US armed services. - Do "the
people" have a Second Amendment right to use any of these they can pay
for? - "Patriots' citizens militias", perhaps? If the Second Amendment
protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but only with respect to
rifles and/or handguns or other easily carried weapons, what
precedents or case law are you relying on?

Anyone want to talk about "personal" vs "collective" rights? Have at
it! (Please don't throw me into that briar patch.)

Jim