- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The OP is totally wrong.
..."The right to bear arms SHALL not be abridged."
The reason given (militia) actually is irrelevant in terms of the "SHALL." The government often has preambles stating WHY it is passing a law. HOWEVER, all that matters is what the law says. "SHALL" in law is an absolute term - meaning no exception.
The OP is also wrong that firearms make MY family less safe nor makes me less safe. I would not be alive but for firearms. Nor my oldest daughter. In a totally literal sense. Our firearms are more secured than jewelry stores lock up their gems at night. My wife is even more extensively trained than I am in terms of usage - when and when not.
However, it might be more dangerous for YOU to have a firearm. I don't know about you.
that's a good post, those in fear of firearms should never be forced to own them and indeed, i advise such people to not obtain them. That is how it should be-we who are well trained and familiar with such devices should own many of them and use them regularly while the timid should seek comfort in knowing that the scumbags of the criminal world usually cannot tell who is packing and who is afraid to