DaVinci

Perfect, sane, and makes total sense.

Don't be afraid of the battery issue. I'd bet that the battery lasts longer than you will need it. And flip up sights are a must just in case the optic dies. All of my optic AR's have flip up rear sights that co-witness with the red dots.

One of the reasons, yes. There is also the ability for citizens to defend the Constitution against other citizens and foreign attackers. There are also other reasons such as self defense, sport and hunting. That is not true... Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Vietnam. Fact is that an insurgency is very difficult to beat. And we are ignoring that not all of the 'official' military will just blindly follow orders to attack the insurgents. I'd say yes. The simple fact is that I have nothing to fear from an honest person having any type of weapon under the sun. And we have seen time after time that criminals don't follow laws (hence being a 'criminal') I had an extreme anti-gun person once tell me that no one should be allowed to own a gun. I asked them point blank if they would trust a guy like me with a handgun and they said yes, that they trusted me. I then asked how do you know that you can't trust that guy over there? His only answer was that he didn't know them. After a while he realized that he has nothing to fear from honest citizens, only criminals and that criminals are not going to follow a law banning something anyway. This person still thinks they should be registered and regulated since he didn't buy into the 'defend the Constitution' angle.... But he is starting to understand that criminals are not going to follow a law saying they were not allowed to own something.... But it is a start. But to answer your question... I think honest citizens should be allowed to own pretty much anything they can afford and can reasonably control and protect.

False "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426) "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith). "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." — Tench Coxe, 1788. It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) So the Founding Fathers disagree with you.... But what would they know about the intent of the Constitution right? And I know you said LEGAL.... So how about. Maybe something from the SC? The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. How about some others? "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] Plus you might want to read the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia Maybe you might want to read the Militia Act of 1792 "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act." To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789) So there is plenty to back up my position...... I ask again (what the 10th time) Find me ONE quote from a founding father against the individual having the right to bear arms.

And I am appalled that you were more upset at the ATF trying to make you pass the SAME requirements to own a TOY that is not protected in the Bill of Rights, than you are about protecting the actual Bill of Rights.

Nonsense.... I have, don't blame me that you can not find it. Like I said before... Show where I said it. All I said is you have a double standard when it comes to the ATF and toy motors and guns. ATF background check for guns = Good ATF backgound check for rocket motors = Bad. I have made no comment about the ATF and the rocket motors, only your reaction to the same act from the ATF on different items.

I asked you to please prove your claim.... Are you able or are you not able? Please provide proof, or admit you made that up. You cried that the ATF wanted the SAME restrictions to buy explosives as a gun.

As you said in THIS THREAD.... THIS THREAD is about the school shooting. And even then you are crying about less than a .01% failure rate and ignoring all the laws that were broken before the shootings. Your 'solutions' would have done nothing to prevent this shooting, yet you are still claiming they would.

I have discussed this several times... DO A SEARCH. Show where I said anything of the sort. All I did was point out your double standard of being pissed about toy rocket motors and not about firearms. Personally, I don't see how you can claim that the ATF asking for a background check for a single gun is great, but not OK for the ATF to ask for a background check for explosives.

I asked you to please prove your claim.... Are you able or are you not able? Please provide proof, or admit you made that up. I never said they did... All I did was show that them overstepping their authority on one item was unacceptable for you but the other was desirable.

Show where I said that... go on PROVE your crap. What I don't want is you being able to limit my rights based on your own fears and putting regulations in place that have already been shown not to work. Funny thing is you cried a river when the Govt tried to take your toy rocket motors and make them as regulated as guns. Just like you trying to claim you don't want NEW laws.... then your own words show that is a lie.

5 FEDERAL JUDGES said that it is an individual right. Apparently you have a problem with that 8 FEDERAL JUDGES said The Second Amendment protects the ownership of military-type weapons. Apparently you have a problem with that PROVE I said anything like that...... All I have said is you have a double standard. And yet you were upset because the ATF wanted to limit toy rocket motors from felons, terrorists and the mentally disturbed. See the irony and hypocrisy yet?

Kelp said to just remove ONE of the 9's.... that still makes you trying to remove innocent peoples rights over a 99.9999% success rate.

The kid in this story didn't go to one of those 33 other States and buy a gun..... So your own 'solutions' would have done NOTHING to prevent THIS crime.

Nice how you think the Bill of Rights is boring... says a lot about you,

Please show a single quote from the Founders that were against private gun ownership.

Yes, but the militia is *any individual* willing to fight for the Constitution. So a full auto M16 is more protected than a duck shotgun according to the 2nd Amendment. But to say it is JUST the militia is ignoring Blackstone and his writings which the Founding Fathers read and agreed with. See, Blackstone wrote that self defense is a given and back during the revolution it was just flat out understood that a person had the right to hunt for food, or defend himself or his family. Back then, there was no reason to mention hunting and self defense..... They were understood. BUT, they just had to overthrow a govt. They knew that an armed populace could defend the liberty they were fighting for.... the 2nd is about being able to fight and designed to prevent the Govt from removing that ability. Anti gunners would have a much more logical position if they tried to claim the 2nd does not protect duck hunting.

Yet you support registration, ID's, background checks and fees to own a gun. Funny how your indignation only fits to some rights, huh?

They ask for specific forms of ID to buy a gun.... Why is that OK, but not a specific form of ID to vote?

Like say.... Oh, a Bill of Rights?

More people die skydiving and base jumping than from cannon.... Maybe we should ban those and save more lives?

Oh the irony of that comment from you.....

Does not matter.... Even at 99.9% he would claim I was incorrect and would still not show his work.

When you want to claim my numbers are wrong then it is on YOU to prove it, not just make a claim. Nonsense... Please show me where I said the police should not have intervened here... Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU.

Oh look a personal attack.... Out of logical fact filled responses already? FACT: This thread is about a child shooting others. Your "Solutions" would not have prevented it. FACT: you only seem to care about child deaths when it involves guns. The facts are clear.... you have an illogical emotional reaction when it comes to guns.