Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

RaginCajunn writes:

Uhhh... No. This argument was lame when it was new. Now it is lame, old and the author sounds like this is the first attempt at an editorial for a High School newspaper. The 2A was created to defend oppression from the Government. So, unless the military goes back to Flintlocks as a weapon for the modern battlefield, then it stands to reason that armed citizens would have the right to possess a weapon comparable to that of the weapons that the 2nd Amendment is specifically intended to to protect you against.

"...shall not be infringed."

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features