Possession of an illegal firearm is also a felony. What is your point? The Connecticut shooter (I refuse to use his name) committed about 45 different felonies BEFORE he pulled the trigger at the school. I simply was pointing out that explosives, poisons, and incendiaries are a much more efficient way to kill large amounts of people (why do you think suicide bombers are so popular in the Middle East), and you start rambling on about federal regulations necessary to purchase legal explosives. I do not get your logic. What is required to legally do something has almost no bearing on the actions of someone who is already intending to violently break a different set of laws.

The chemicals in the C4 would probably alter the flavor of my coffee, and the heat of the brew would soften the C4 material making it unwieldy. To me, this would be a sin. Your lack of reverence for that oh so perfect an elixir, known as coffee, is endangering your soul.


You do realize that the countries you are referring to don't regulate gun ownership like everyone is talking about here, they ISSUE fully automatic rifles (which have required expensive federal license in the US since ~1934, and new weapons banned since ~1986), and ammunition to every adult. If it is your position that every adult male in the US should be issued a TRUE assault riffle, and attend annual mandatory training with it, I'll join you on your crusade. Until then I am still waiting for you to find an example of a country with high gun regulations (removing weapons from honest citizens) and low crime rates. Or even better, a country in which a previously armed citizenry was disarmed, and crime rates went down (hell, I'll cut you some slack and even allow "remained unchanged" ). I suggest you start looking in fantasy novels, or parallel dimensions, because it has not happened on this planet.


Look up what regulated (in regards to militia) meant in the 1800s. it isn't what you think. I am not trying to remove anything, it just isn't relevant in the face of the plain statement that the "..right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "the right of the militia".


I'm not necessarily against changing the 2nd amendment, though the degree that many (if not most) from the left would like to do so is abhorrent to me. I am just EXTREMELY against ignoring the Constitution (or with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge pretending that it allows something that it does not). The entire US Constitution is ~4600 words, isn't it ironic that many modern Supreme Court decisions (especially "controversial" ones) are 10 or 20 times as long. My desire is to do something that is right, and will actually work; not in doing something that will be popular among the base of a particular political party, or look good. MY issue is with turning the Constitution into a piece or meaningless origami. There is a process to alter the Constitution so that it addresses new issues, or change the way it handles existing ones. That process should be used instead of perverting the existing document with bullshit interpretations.