Ace$nyper

I can't sleep so I might as well chime in.

I think the 2nd is pretty simple, it's no if ands or buts. I know some people like to argue well advancements in power have changed that, but back then it was musket to musket. If the gov pulled something that caused a revolt it was a fair match.

Now, pretend tomorrow something that bad goes down, you got your Rem 700 from wal mart vs a F22? Yea, not a fair fight.

I think the founding fathers saw how great ideas even their own were not perfect and if they were wrong with the idea of a democratic republic, the people can fix that if it gets that nasty.

I know things have changed so much by then and I think a ICBM is still a bit much to compete against and the cost kinda keeps it out of the hands of well anyone.

I think it was a way to keep the government in check and through changes in technology culture etc that right has been whittled away.

I think instead of the government spending so much time and effort trying to keep themselves safe from us, how about run well you'd have nothing to feel if so many of us didn't feel trampled on.

I think we all know or can find out about the CA 50 cal ban. They admit it's not been used in a crime ever but still a no no. So what good does that too? Where do you want to draw that line? Why even draw a line? Should we out law the common cold, it's killed a lot of people this year.

I'm trying to expand on the short sightedness of gun bans as you've seen in countries that have had them. Let's pretend, you ban all guns and magically they are gone not even crooks can get them. Now Joe thief comes with a ninja sword, out law them, then he's there with a base ball bat....

Please forgive me if this is a ramble but It's 0320 and I can't sleep lol.