- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 69,251
- Reaction score
- 144
I believe you're talking about DC v Heller which I think is unusual because the Second Amendment said that guns are needed for a "free state" and since Washington D.C. is NOT a state nor is under a state, the district could ban guns.
If a person is serious about defense and protection, he should NOT complain about taking the training, having clean history, and swear to protect and defend the state.
"Bear arms" was always defined in a military context. Nothing at that time did "bear arms" mean hunting or driveby shooting.
that's true and yes I am referring to DC v Heller. But please do not include criminal-related shootings on same page as Amendment 2. They are nothing but thugs and the law strictly forbids the legal ownership of firearm to criminals. On federal level - I believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase firearm with no difficulty. It should be up to EACH state to dictate the term of conditions on purchasing a gun.

Here's a little message from John Wayne - 




