If they can afford them, and pay the transfer fee, they can buy one NOW.
I actually dont see a problem with letting children carry firearms IF they are mature enough. It wasn't that long ago that children did carry guns to school. They did when I was in school and I'm not that old.
Not only do I support it but so does the law. If a man has not been convicted of a crime, you do not assume he is a criminal simply because some of his friends MIGHT be.

In case you've missed it, the Crips and Bloods don't seem to have any trouble getting hold of weapons as it is now. Pretending an additional law would somehow stop them from doing so is insane.
Yep. If you have a problem with that, you have two choices: Work to change the Constitution (good luck) or leave the country.
No it doesn't.
What seems foolish is your position.

Why does it bother you that others may choose to be armed? Why do you have a need to control people?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Have you done any reading on firearm statistics?

Murder statistics?

Do you know that assault weapons have been available for years, yet they are RARELY used in the commission of a crime?

Did you know that almost any adult, who is not a felon, can buy a fully automatic machine gun, needing only a permit?

When was the last time a fully automatic machine gun was used to murder people?

In the cities that banned handguns, what happened to their murder rates?

GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET

CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."

Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)25. And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."26

States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%;29 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.30

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the "Safest State Award."31

GOA Fact Sheet-- 2004 Gun Control Facts

There is much more at the link.

I am baffled at how easily many people want to twist the meaning of the constitution. The founding fathers included the word "militia" in the 2nd amendment, mostly because a standing army was unconstitutional.

Here is a Senate report which shows that the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Taking On Gun Control - U.S. Senate Report on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

Common sense, the one thing money can't buy.

The rights of felons, minors, and the insane are restricted through due process of the law already.

Restricting their right to access firearms is part of that process.

But, you weren't trying to make a serious argument were you? It's sad to see a person flail about for some kind of position to stand on when they are so obviously wrong.

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

IMO, yes, they should be legally able to do so. Felons who have been released from prison have served their legal debt to society, so why should they be treated any different from regular people? Toddlers should be allowed to own guns if they want to. I doubt your average toddler would have the funding to obtain the guns, but if they can, so be it. Insanity is, for the most part, a subjective label, so their rights should only be taken away when they violate a law and end up in prison, just like a "sane" criminal.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Analysis of the 2nd amendment.

Taking On Gun Control - 2nd Amendment Page

Literary Analysis

Literary Analysis

Reading the Second Amendment
By Sheldon Richman

Reading the Second Amendment| The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

/////////////

Now, let's take a look at a recent article about the SC decision............

TheDay.com - Ruling On 2nd Amendment Leaves Some With Sense Of Regret

Interpreting the Second Amendment should start with the obvious observation that its language must be considered in the “Constitutional” context. That is, in looking at the language of the amendment, it is appropriate to have at the front of the mind an awareness that the framers of the Constitution and its initial amendments were undertaking to deal with the relationship between the new federal government and (1) the states that had emerged from British rule and (2) the people of the new nation.

Looking at the Second Amendment within that basic framework, its language addresses a limit on the power of the central government to “infringe” on the subject matter addressed in the amendment. The Scalia analysis fundamentally mischaracterizes that subject matter. If the framers had wanted simply to assure that there would be no central government infringement on the individual right to keep and bear arms, they would have plainly so stated in an amendment that included only the final part of the language beginning with “the right of the people”. They did not do that. They began instead by referencing the importance of a well regulated militia to the security of a free state.

As any informed citizen, and certainly any legally trained mind, would know, in determining the intent of the amendment's authors, it is necessary to consider and give effect to all the language of the amendment. The Scalia opinion itself acknowledges this principle, but fails to apply it straightforwardly. When all of the Second Amendment's language is examined, the totality of the words chosen seem plainly aimed at a concern of basic Constitutional dimensions: The framers were seeking to preclude the central government from limiting a state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia by federal government infringement on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

This reading of the amendment's intended scope is well supported by contemporaneous discussion in the Federalist papers and the relevant drafting documents. They show that the framers were focused on the militia-related issues and that the Second Amendment language arose out of that concern. These documents are addressed by the Scalia opinion, but only in a context obviously aimed at explaining them away.

Consider the implications of this reading of the Second Amendment's intended scope, contrasted with the more sweeping interpretation propounded by Justice Scalia's opinion. Perhaps most fundamentally, it is essential to understand that it was not the function of the Second Amendment to create an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This person is a flipping moron.

The militia was made up of ALL ADULT MALES CITIZENS. How could it not protect the right of individuals, when the militia was made up of all individuals?

I just don't understand why so many people can't get there head around something which SHOULD be SIMPLE to understand.

I will only post a few SIMPLE QUOTES to support my point...........................

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"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.

"...the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

-Trench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

-Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

-Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850.

Who determines if the child is mature enough? Parents are notorious for thinking their children can do no wrong. Are you saying that no parent has ever been mistaken as to his child's maturity level?

The law now supports that anyone can buy anything WITHOUT a permit, or check, or any kind of control whatsoever? because that is what the 2nd Amendment says.

The Crips and Bloods can get FN90's, Abrams Tanks and atom bombs now, without any kind of permit or control?

"no it doesn't" is not an argument, its simple contradiction
Please explain what part of "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged" you don't understand. An atom bomb is certainly an arm, and it was developed with public money, so belongs to the public, so how can you Constitutionally abridge the public's right to bear one?

My foolish position IS your position, not mine. I'm simply carrying your own idea to its logical conclusion.

And I don't want other people to kill me. So I'm naturally concerned when they spend considerable money and trouble equipping themselves to do so in the easiest possible way and from a great distance

We have a right to free speech, yet common sense is needed.

For instance, you can't scream fire in a movie theater.

You can't go to a presidential speech and yell "I am going to kill all of you."

You can't mention bombs in airports.

"Bearing arms" refers to carrying rifles, or firearms if you prefer.

If hand held, laser rifles ever become common, then the right to bear arms will need to include laser rifles.

"Common sense" dictates that nuclear weapons and tanks should not be considered arms that a person can "bear", or carry, if you will.

If you can't carry it, you can't "bear" it.

Of course, a person can carry a suitcase nuke, so once again, common sense comes into play. You can't allow a weapon that can destroy a city into the hands of the masses.

There are "limits" on all of our rights that are allegedly protected under the Bill of Rights.

Our 4th amendment rights have been violated in the name of the "war on drugs" as well as the Patriot Act.

We have the freedom of assembly, yet we have to file for permits to do so.

We have the freedom to petition, yet the FEDGOV will not even show the law which requires individuals to pay income taxes.

The 10th amendment has been totally trampled, with states rights almost non-existent.

The Bill of Rights has taken many hits, it is time to stop the dissection.

* Edit: Inaccurate post.

Of course they have, but most do not, and we should not punish the innocent and responsible for the acts of the criminal and irresponsible.

Regardless, children can and DO possess and use firearms.
I wish it did, but I said nothing of the sort. Why do you think there should be some control on what people could buy? Why do you feel a need to control others?
FN90's? Sure. They can probably get them easier than I can since they dont care about the tax stamp. Then there's that whole thing about the fact that I cannot purchase a full auto weapon made after 1986. Leaving aside the specific models, yes, they can get automatic weapons. Your original statement indicated only those who had not been convicted of a crime and they could certainly obtain them legally.

Abrams tanks? As far as I know, nobody can buy one simply because the company that makes them builds them all to order for the government. Now, if you could pony up the cash I'm sure they would make you one minus the classified stuff. Again, not being model specific, private citizens can and do own tanks and motorized artillery - and yes, it is functional.

Nuke? Similar to the Abrams really. You can't purchase the fissionable material since nobody will sell it to you. Regardless, considering the cost, thats rather self-limiting. Not too many people could afford one, and those who can, could get one anyway.
In that particular case, yes it is. You made a false statement, I corrected you.
The word is "infringed" and I seem to understand it far more than you do.
Again, the word is "infringe" not "abridge". One could not "bear" a nuke simply because of sheer weight and size. Purchasing one is self-prohibiting due to COST.

The government is not obligated to make them available for free, and frankly this particular point is silly.
No you're not - you're carrying it to an irrational conclusion based upon your misunderstanding of the law and facts.
I would submit to you if your concern about others being armed is because you don't want them to kill you, then YOU are the one with a problem. Its called "paranoia". Seek help. There may be one or two people on this planet who may wish to do you harm, but there isn't a single one who is going to spend any money or time to do what you fear. You're simply not important enough.

Even if you WERE, that doesn't justify controlling others who have done you no harm.

You want to control others based upon what you imagine they might do to you. I want to let others make their own choices and accept the responsibility which follows.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I think the overall success of the Bradey Bill outweighed the negatives. I think gun laws are much like drug laws; they don't prevent people from doing what is in their nature to do anyway. I don't think it's a stretch to say that in American culture, life isn't valued quite as much as in many other free nations, which is why gun crime stats are so lopsided in America.

Canada has one tenth of the population of America, and just as many guns per household, yet, if you multiply the murder rates from guns by 10 in Canada, you still get a number that is one tenth the rate of America's.

It's really going to take a shift in values to stop the violence that Americans commit on Americans more than just laws.

Then you're about the only person on the planet who believes that. The Brady Bill was an utter failure which achieved none of its stated goals.

The Brady Bill DID do one thing though which was NEVER expected: it encouraged the development of a wide variety of extremely well made SMALL handguns in serious calibers. After all, since everyone was effectively capped at 10 rounds, the goal became making the package as small and as accurate as possible, rather than focusing on ever higher capacities.
Thats fair.
That is not only false, but frankly quite offensive and ignorant. You are foolishly equating guns with death. You're also ignoring many other factors such as drugs. Most murders by firearm in the US are one worthless criminal killing another - usually over drugs.
Now THAT i can agree with.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Could you provide a link to the source from which you derive the bolded statement?

First of all, it is important to know that almost half of all gun related deaths are suicides. The fact that these numbers are included in gun deaths is just another example of how the "establishment" slants data. Suicides should not be counted as gun deaths, but because many bleeding heart liberals want to demonize firearms, they are counted.

Half of gun deaths are suicides

news.yahoo.com — The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves. Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005...

....gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/...deaths_suicide

Of the rest of the gun deaths, a large portion are drug related. It is difficult to find national numbers, but here are a few tidbits......

Firearm deaths remain among the leading causes of mortality in the United States. Changing law enforcement activities, incarceration, drug use, and socioeconomic conditions may have played roles in the declining rates of firearm deaths during the 1990s. Using records from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, we analyzed the role of drugs in firearm deaths in New York City between 1990 and 1998. Positive drug toxicology was present in over half of all firearm death victims during this time. Cocaine, cannabis, opiates, and alcohol accounted for almost all of these deaths with drug-positive toxicology. There were decreases in cocaine- and alcohol-positive toxicology for firearm deaths in New York City starting in the early 1990s; there was a more gradual decrease in heroin-positive toxicology for firearm deaths. Cannabis-positive toxicology for firearm deaths increased in the early part of the 1990s and then decreased starting in the mid-1990s. Although the disparities between minority and white firearm death rates narrowed during this time, minorities remained about three times more likely to be victims of fatal firearm violence than whites in 1998. The highest firearm death rates were among African American and Latino male decedents, with a larger proportion of Latinos testing cocaine or opiate positive, while a larger proportion of African Americans tested cannabis positive. These results suggest a complex role of drugs in firearm-related deaths.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Drugs and firearm deaths in Massachusetts, 2000-2005

Drugs and firearm deaths in Massachusetts, 2000-2005

Overall, 1096 of 1157 firearm death cases (94.7%) were reviewed; 92.0% of cases were male. The overall firearm death rate during the study period was 2.82 deaths per 100,000 person-years among Massachusetts residents. Decedents were: Caucasian 58.6%, African-American 26.2%, Hispanic 12.9%, and other races 2.3%. Most firearm deaths occurred at the victim's residence (45.5%). Toxicology results were positive in 474 (47.8%) of firearm deaths (1.23/100,000 person-years); among them were 252 homicides (53.2%) and 215 suicides (45.4%). Alcohol (36.6%) was the most common agent identified, followed by cocaine (11.8%), and opioids (6.4%).

////////

Suicides should not be counted as gun deaths. These people could have found many other ways to kill themselves.

For teen girls, hanging has surpassed firearms for committing suicide. For boys, firearms are still the number one choice for ending one's life.

The study also documented a change in suicide method. In 1990, guns accounted for more than half of all suicides among young females. By 2004, though, death by hanging and suffocation became the most common suicide method. It accounted for about 71 percent of all suicides in girls aged 10-14; about half of those aged 15-19; and 34 percent between 20-24.

Teen Suicide Rate: Highest Increase In 15 Years

AFTER YOU FACTOR OUT SUICIDES, IT IS CLEAR, DRUGS ARE INVOLVED IN A LARGE NUMBER OF HOMICIDES.

I do not believe the CDC keeps statistics for drug related firearms deaths, so national numbers don't exist, as far as I can tell.

One can only look at local studies and the extrapolate.