Lawrence,

For one, your post is unclear. If you're stating that equating guns to explosives when attempting to define what the Founders meant by "..arms.." in the Second Amendment is in error, please explain why this is so.

I merely asked if items that are more clearly weapons of warfare such as anti-personell mines, since they also fall in the category of armaments, should also be sold in stores along side your cherished AK-47's.

If you think they shouldn't (regardless of current regulation)explain why.

For two, if you are going to take the postiion that you know more than others, I recommend you assert yourself with proper spelling.

I agree with Odocoileus, find a country where everyone is carrying an AK47...and you'll find a place where social order has collapsed. No democracy, no freedom.

But according to today's NRA: buy! Buy! BUY!!! Everyone should own 10 assault rifles and pack them around everywhere they go. That's Mogadishu.

Clearly I did, and I apologize. I just didn't appreciate your know-it-all tone.

You are correct, regulations exist that define the difference between types of firearms and prohibit the purchase, say, of land mines at Costco. And yes, I believe the BATF, among other agencies, is tasked to enforce those laws and regulations..

I'm asking if you agree with this. Do you agree that RPG's and mines shouldn't be as available as a bolt action rifle?

And if so, why? I'm not asking if there's a law preventing it...clearly there is.

Main point: who's to say one militarized weapon (an AK47 with a 100 round clip for instance) is more like your granddads Model 700 than a handgrenade.

I see the AK47 as being closer to a handgrenade, capable of killing dozens of people in seconds. Because of that, I want them regulated even more (regulated being a term in the Second Amendment). You seem to think an AK 47 is closer to a bolt-action .22.

Fact is, niether of us is necessarily right.

"Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

~(www.aclu.org)

Seriously 30,000+ deaths a year from firearms is a problem and by making it easier to reload/fire a weapon will only make the problem worse. Alaska's death rate from firearms is pretty much the highest in America and we have thee most liberal gun laws in the US.

We're saying 30,000 deaths a year is a problem, you're all basically implying that if it's going to happen, it will happen and just deal with it. That is messed up.. It seems like the next shooter is trying to out-do the previous shooter and the NRA is fighting to make it easier for them to do so.. and there lame excuse is that hopefully, a person who is conceal carrying is at the right place at the right time. Yes, if people want to kill, they will kill but let's not make it easier because you think we're going invade your home and demand you hand back every single gun you own.

source=FBI

BTW they are thinking of adding prez obama to mt rushmore

let the insane replys begin

Using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, your number is a little bit high. In fact, out of the last 5 years, no 2 of the years would combine to make 30,000 total murder victims. And no 3 of those 5 years would equal victims murdered with firearms, although it does get close. Their records so far end at 2011, but I seriously doubt that 2012 showed a 200% increase. Especially as those 5 years showed a consistant decline.

Another consistancy is that 70%+ of the the firearm homocides per year, used a handgun.

Don't take my word for this. Check it out for yourself.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-...

You may want to correct your numbers.

and your good with that? "little high"? how many dead are needed?

listen, there is a problem. 30,000 people a year die from guns violent or otherwise.

how many more have to die before we find common ground?

In other words, suicides shouldn't count in the national gun death rate? Out of curiosity, why would someone choose a gun over something like overdosing on painkillers? Maybe becuase with a gun, it's easy, fast and instant? And this is an argument to make more guns readily available to the public?

I've had mulitple friends who have commited or attempted to commit suicide. One, a very dear friend of mine, tried to overdose on painkillers. Luckily, we were able to see that there was a problem, got her to the hospital and thankfully, the doctors saved her life. Another friend, a very close friend, went out to the jordan creek trail and shot himself. No chance of saving him because once the trigger is pulled, thats it.

Only if you are going to equate a crime against others, with a crime against yourself. Chances are the victims did not want to die, you did.

My condolences on your loss. There're very few who haven't lost someone close to suicide.

My point is that one life lost is tragic. Yes, someone has to make the choice to pull that trigger but once it's pulled, it has a high chance of fatality.

On the same say as the Sandy Hook shooting, a man in China went on a stabbing spree and stabbed 20+ kids but there was zero fatalities. While both instances were tragic, there is a huge difference in the outcome. Even if the homicide rate is only 10,000+, that's still a lot and something needs to change. I seriously doubt that offering more counceling wont cause a bigger dent in this number than eliminating high capacity weapons.

There was a high suicide rate by pesticides and when the government of Sri Lanka eliminated most of the chemicals that caused fatalities from their shelves, they still saw suicide by the numbers dropped by almost half.

"It's you... that are being selective."

In what way? Please be specific.

You've got a late of hate there guy. We're you picked on a lot as a kid and don't know how to play nice?

Don you think that if more guns are mass produced, the more of a chnce you'll need to defend yourself? Lets say everyone conceal carries, don't you think you'd have to be constantly aware of who's good and who's bad? If everyone has an assualt rifle, would you seriously feel safe?? Why don't you open your eyes and use common sense?

But I own about 12 and would like a few more before you all try to take them away!