I stand behind my assessment of the 2nd amendment and will continually state that the whole amendment should be regarded not just one bit... I don't see the effectiveness of using words out of context to fit a point. I look at the entirety. Your arguments are ridiculous, and completely irrelevant so I won't even comment on those but I will comment on your last paragraph... I never stated removing all fire arms just the ones designed for battlefields. Also another nugget of information for you to chew on... in the 1990's we had an assault rifle ban. There occurred a school shooting at a high school called Columbine... Go read the journals of the two men who carried out the mass murder there... Tell me what weapons they were so desperately trying to get their hands on but they were banned at the time... so they had to settle for what they could get their hands on... and shotgun, and a small caliber hand gun... They killed 13 people imagine how many they could have killed with a modified AR-15 with a muzzle velocity rated at 3,000 ft per sec which has the capacity to fire 4-6 rounds per sec... A lot more than 13 people would have died if indeed they were able to access the weapon of their choice. You see criminals don't commit mass murder... only unassuming, lonely, disenfranchised individuals do that so their are zero detection devices to find the threats. Also it's not about removing personal liberties but having common sense and limiting the capacity to kill.... and I rest my case.
More information about formatting options