If that isn't in there then we can't go by intent.
You can't have it both ways. Follow what it says but it it isn't in there...then believe something else.
I'm not good with things that fire so many bullets that doesn't require any training or aim to kill (that's not well regulated ;) )
From your link, Gloria:
Guess what? I call Sandy hook "mass destruction".Quote:
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction.
And you know what? Our "Arms" cannot by any rational measure be called ones which can effectively "resist government tyranny". So you have already constitutionally given up your rights, and you did it way back up during WWII when our government came up with the nuclear bomb. We lost, then. So now what? Cling to our guns so that we can murder one another? Its madness!
It was not mass destruction by anyone's definition but yours so that point is invalid beyond repair.
Anyone who believes passing a law will take these guns out of the hands of the criminals who want them are more than welcome to believe that, but the rest of us are alternating between laughing at you and being pissed because you are allowed to vote. There should be a common sense test.
I chose to work in the private sector (I didn't have to work with "bums") and generally had a lot of respect for both my fellow employees and my employers. I guess maybe that's why I'm not bitter about the private sector. Or Americans in general. I had to really earn what I got, as did my colleagues. It created a mutual respect, both for us and our shareholders. It's a shame that you laugh or are pissed at the people who pay your salary, Lillie.