By now you've heard about the freak who murdered two police officers and three city officials in Kirkwood, MO. As background, apparently the shooter, Charles Thornton, owned a business and had been repeatedly cited for illegally parking commercial vehicles and had been arrested for disrupting previous city meetings. His lawsuit against the city following those arrests was dismissed.

There's an article in the St. Louis paper about reactions to the massacre. With the caveat that media promotes controversy to boost ratings/readership, it's still pretty clear that some people have very warped perceptions of right and wrong in the world. For example, this sick and twisted individual:

===
"To me, Charles Thornton is a hero," said Ben Gordon of Webster Groves. "He opened a business. He went to court, but the system failed him. … We are sorry, we grieve, but (Kirkwood officials) share in this responsibility."
===

Here's the entire article.

His mother, from another article:

===
In an interview with a local television station, Mr. Thornton’s mother said that Kirkwood officials had kept after her son, “giving him tickets for everything they could.”

She said she never suspected that her son would be violent but described the events as “an act of God, just like a storm or a tornado.”
===



Good God. I literally became sick to my stomach after reading that. This man shot five innocent and unarmed people in the head and would have killed more had responding officers not shot him dead. His family has also refused to condemn his actions. WTF are these people thinking?

As a St Louis local, I know a lot more about the circumstances around the shooting than the mainstream press is reporting. It was almost completely racially motivated. The shooting is devastating, as all the victims are wonderful people that were doing everything they could to serve their community. One of the police officers killed was an acquaintance of mine that I have done volunteer work with. My heart goes out to all of the victims' families.

This is really sad.

It's also disgusting the attitude of the lowlife's friends and family.

You could tell it was a racial thing from the articles. A black guy kills cops and city officials and his friend calls him a hero.

Welcome to the "diversity" that is modern America.

Is there anything to the claims that this guy was being unfairly persecuted? I'd be surprised because most who lash out because they're "oppressed victims" seem to just be people who don't want to follow the rules like everybody else has to.

My wife had a good point too...if, as the shooter's brother claimed, he "went to war" with the city, somebody might tell them that in war both sides know it's a fight. This wasn't war, it was a massacre.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are packing their bags and heading to Missouri.....you know they are.

:rolleyes:

he owned a commercial building business. Supposedly, he parked his mixing trucks etc on the street where he lived. I dunno about your neighborhood that's illegal where I live and most certainly would have been ticketed.

This guy sounds delusional and felt entitled to special treatment cause he was black.

Very sad ending indeed.

Very sad that anyone thinks their only recourse is to start shooting...disgraceful.

Here come the gun grabbers...

Sadly, St Louis is a city still has lots of racial divide issues. It is not very racially integrated at all, and there is still a "voluntary segregation" going on in the neighborhoods. Whites tend to live in the more affluent West and South parts of town, and blacks are in the poorer North and East parts of town (of course, including the infamous "East St Louis"). The "interface" areas tend to have a more progressive population, and are generally gentrification areas with lots of investment even though there is still significant property crime. However, there are many "pocket neighborhoods" that contain large amounts of non-common races (including many ethnic neighborhoods in South St Louis).

Kirkwood City is towards the Southwest section of the St Louis area, and is generally considered a fairly run-of-the-mill white area. However, this a neighborhood in Kirkwood called "Meacham Park" that is almost completely black, and has a long history (both good and bad, but primarily bad in the news). Some years ago, there was a notable killing of a police officer in Meacham Park, which turned into a rather nasty racially-divided issue. Then shortly after that, there was the murder of pizza delivery driver which prompted a local pizza chain to ban deliveries to Meacham Park. This prompted a lawsuit by Meacham Park residents ("we're being oppressed of our right to pizza"), that the pizza chain sadly lost resulting in them being forced to deliver their pizza (and cash through regular muggings) to the place.

Meacham Park was then in the news due to very vocal opposition to the City's use of eminent domain to transform some of their neighborhood into strip shopping centers while other local "white" neighborhoods were spared the bulldozer. This may or may not have been ethical, but I bet anything that the whole damn neighborhood get eminent domain'ed in the next year after this incident, and a nice developer gets some nice TIF'ed and newly-vacated land to build what they please.

The Kirkwood City area is just a microclimate of the race issues that occur all over St Louis. While this particular incident was total BS, I'll say that I'm fairly ashamed of the majority of St Louis' residents of ALL colors. I grew up in the "white" part of town (and still live there, although now in a more urban, developed part of town), and have been sickened by the racist attitudes of both blacks and whites. In fact, local politicians have even been successfully elected on a very-thinly-veiled platform of racial division.

I visit the stereotypically-racial South frequently, and often marvel at how little racial tension there is in Alabama as opposed to right here at home. Come on folks, the Civil War ended over 140 years ago. There are people around with different skin pigment than you, and you have to live with them. F*cking get over it.

I don't expect that to be an issue here at all. Missouri has recently gone through the CCW battle, and it has pretty much settled down. St Louis sued the state saying they didn't have to honor CCW, and they lost. CCW has validated responsible weapon owners, and most people have accepted it. Everyone knows that weapons are around, and that they are forbidden in most public places.

Besides that, we have one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, and around here it is generally assumed that if you have an altercation with someone there's a good chance that they're packing. Road rage around here can be extremely dangerous. There's enough illegal guns around here that they'll never get rid of them. Noone really seems to care about the legal gun owners in comparison.

I was talking about the federal assholes.

So, Missouri passed a CCW law but doesn't let their CCW holders pack in most public places? I have to be missing something here. Denver tried to do the same thing as Seattle, only it was on a bunch of issues (high cap mags, "assault" rifles, CCW, etc...) and they lost on everything except the "assault" rifles. So pointless.

I'm not sure of the exact legal wording, but basically any "place" has the right to post a "no weapons" sign and CCW holders have to respect it. For example, I work at a college and there is a sign at each entrance to the campus letting people know that no weapons are allowed on campus. You see the signs posted in almost all public places.

So....ummmm.....Chris Mc.....I guess a future career for you in the St. Louis Tourism and Visitors' Center is not in the cards?

Ah, gotcha. We got off kinda lucky in Colorado, only owners of property can put those signs up (there's a few guidelines of where you can't carry regardless of signage as well but there are very few of those). Even if you see the sign, the punishment is the owners have to ask you to leave and if you don't it's a trespassing charge.

Wouldn't City Hall be a federal building? CCW holders cannot carry here in AZ at least in Federal Buildings.

No....but it would probably be a municipal building.

I love the city, don't get me wrong... It has tons of things to offer (one of the best sports towns anywhere), and one of the best cost-of-living to income ratios in the country. Everyone here is just painfully aware of our bad spots, though some try to spin things different ways than others.

I had no idea that Assault weapons are banned in Denver! WTF! I found your ordinance.. what a load of horse shit! http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/denver_ordinance.txt

While searching, I also found this peach of a story by the Denver Post. I liked this nugget at the end "Frankly, we can't figure out the benefits of having assault weapons easily available. Law enforcement officers universally agree that people wanting self protection don't carry assault weapons. But criminals do."

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_7716133

Wow...reading about the racial situation in St. Louis, I thought Atlanta was bad. That was an eye-opener, kind of at odds with the wholesome image many hold of Midwesterners.

Turning to guns, I'm not against owning weapons, though I would agree that most normal people have no need or want for an assault weapon. I would also be interested to know - though it would be difficult if not impossible to calculate - how many guns kept for self-defense are ever needed and successfully used for that purpose. Very, very few would be my guess.

In this shooting, there were armed police officers there. Would an armed citizen have been able to stop the guy? Maybe, because obviously the guy knew the officers would be armed and acted accordingly. But this also sets up a situation where responding officers, not knowing the situation, could easily have shot a good samaritan by mistake. Cops get a little crazy when there are officers down.

Society's growing want for guns reminds me of my airline days, when obese people who smoke like chimneys and can't be bothered with wearing seatbelts would say, "I ain't gettin' on no airplane, that ain't safe!" :rolleyes:

If a thousand people die worldwide in commercial plane crashes, that's a bad year. About 1.3 million die annually worldwide from lung cancer; in the U.S., over 40,000 people die annually in car accidents and over 10,000 die in accidental falls. Where's the real danger?

Perception is everything, especially when it comes to risk. Usually people freak over things that really don't pose much of a threat while blowing off the real killers.

Many police officers go an entire career without ever firing their weapons. It may make people feel better to have a gun, but really, how likely is it that John Q. Public is ever really going to need one?

It doesn't matter, the second amendment says I can, period. As for the self defense weapons, those that are prepared are, on the whole, more careful and plan ahead. Which skews the numbers.

In light of the upcoming election, I will be picking up either a CZ75-P01 or Springfield Armory XD with hi-cap mags.

I'd like to swing an AR this year, but I doubt it's happening.

I did read an interesting article, wish I could find it, about the Democratic party giving up on the entire "gun" issue as statistics more and more are proving the anti-gun crowd wrong.

"Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

What I don't understand is how the SA can be construed as anything but an individual right? I mean if the whole purpose of it is to prevent a tyrannical government from gaining too much power, what good is the SA if a "collective" has to have some form of government approval whether at the state or federal level, to even bare arms?

Easy, the very vocal and irrational anti-gun crowd will try to skew anything to prove their "point"

Exactly, and not with just guns, the hard core liberals are pretty much for anything that goes against the constitution. I am tired of our sacred document being treated like a question mark.

Ray Moore and I wholeheartedly agree.

Err...nevermind.

Relax, I have no interest in taking anyone's guns away. I'm simply curious about the actual figures in terms of self-protection with guns.

I'm not speaking of you when I say this, but it is interesting that gun enthusiasts can be just as shrill and irrational as anti-gun activists can be.

Whether you like your arms bare is no business of mine.

Seriously, while your point about preventing the government from becoming too powerful may be valid, look at the amendment's exact wording:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems very clear to me that the intent was that the Federal government can not prevent individual states from keeping a militia. As you yourself pointed out, the concern was obviously that the Federal government could easily impose its will on the states if they had no means to resist. So the people whose right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" are those who belong to such a "well-regulated" state militia, not every John Q. Public in the country.

Why else would they make a point of saying "well-regulated", or mention a militia at all for that matter? If they were addressing individual rights, why wouldn't they have just written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Again, I'm not arguing the point of gun control, just the meaning and intent of the words that were written.

What's the chance of your home catching fire and burning to the ground? Do you own a fire extinguisher and fire alarms? You probably have auto, health, and life insurance just in case too?

Why not add the ability to at least try and defend yourself to that list? You'll spend much more on the various "in case shit happens" inurances in a year, than you'll ever spend on gun ownership, unless of course it becomes a hobby in addition to self defense.

It doesn't say the "right of the State to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does it? How can the people defend themselves from a tyrannical government if they have to have permission from the government to have weapons? Can a State government not be tyrannical? What if the Fed is oppressing the people and the state and local governments agree with the Fed? What do the people do then?

No the SA makes it clear that a state has the right to keep a well regulated militia and the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

I own several guns and am generally opposed to gun control. That said, how can I defend myself from the government even with my guns? They have, like, tanks and stuff. Not to mention planes, missile, bombs, artillery, etc. Not much me and my bolt action '06 or Marlin 30-30 can do against that kind of firepower. Just sayin...

Also, the second amendment should get fleshed out considerably this summer when Heller comes down. The court is quite conservative right now so that may make for a more pro-gun interpretation.

Your statements seem to indicate that to you it doesn't mean what it says, it means what you want it to mean. You have to read it in the context of the time in which it was written.

The whole point of a militia being "necessary to the security of a free State" was that back then, it could be days or maybe even weeks before a state even got the word to Washington that somebody was invading or otherwise making trouble, and days or weeks after that before the Feds could send the Army to help. That's why they needed a militia to begin with.

If you have a logical basis for what you're arguing, let's hear it.

So if the government does something so radical that YOU are up in arms about it, don't you think a lot of people will be? Who drives those tanks, loads those bombs, operates that artillery. If you find yourself alone rising up against a tyrannical government then something went wrong with your plan. If you are in the Military, are you going to drive a tank against your parents, brother, sister, cousins? If there was a movement large enough in this country the government would possibly be crippled for lack of personnel to operate all the machinery, and many would operate it on the other sides behalf. You could have generals and entire army brigades etc. "rising up" on the side of one belief or another. That is what a civil war/revolution is right?

How can it not mean what it says? Once again, I highly doubt that when forming the blueprint for our country the drafters of the Constitution only meant it to apply for a few years or so.

See Blue, you doing the same thing that you are accusing me of doing. If you believe the SA should be taken in context with the time it was written then the entire Constitution should too.

Read many portions of the Constitution and you could argue that the "People" haven't been given any specific rights based on interpretation, or that there was "reason at the time" for such things but they no longer apply today. Do we really want to start doing that?

I'm not accusing you of anything, just saying what it means to me when I read it. The truth is we'll never know what they really meant because it's worded in a way that's open to multiple interpretations.

True, but to add fuel to the fire, here is the original text submitted to Congress by James Maddison for the SA:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This is much clearer to me and shows that at least Maddison wanted to ensure the peoples right to bear arms in addition to state militias etc. Why it got re-worded, who knows.

Maybe it got reworked because they intended for it only to apply to "well-regulated militias" and not to individuals.

Same reason the First Amendment got re-worded. Politics.

Original wording of the First: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed."

"Quite conservative".

You have to be shitting with a comment like that.

Maybe the very liberal ABA would make that claim, but it is not true.

The court has 4 who could be considered conservative, 4 who could be considered on the left, and one who could go either way on almost any issue.

That is not, "quite conservative".

Don't believe the hype... as they say.

The Democrats haven't given up gun control.

They have only given up talking about it openly in campaigns.

Yes, because no uprising in the history of man has ever held its own using small arms and improvised weaponry against a larger, more organized army with superior firepower.

Except for (in the last hundred or so years):

--The Arab Revolt against the Ottomans in WWI
--The East Africa Campaign, WWI
--Numerous factions involved in the Russian Civil War
--Countless local guerrilla factions in WWII, both theaters
--Vietnamese National Army (against France)
--Viet Cong (against the US)
--Zapata's Army
--Afghani "Mujahedeen"
--Israeli Guerrilla Forces (against Britain)
--Nepalese Maoists
--Cuban Revolution
--Zimbabwean ZANU and ZAPU
--Algerian NLF
--Mozambican RENAMO

And I haven't even mentioned lots more in the Middle East, and scads of factions in South America. Wait...Indonesia, Angola, Eritrea, Chinese Communists, the IRA...

...do you see where I'm going with this?

In the incredibly odd chance we get some whack-job bullshit happen in government, and by some crazy chain of events the dumbasses in government put a hold on the Constitution or go for some power grab, and by another crazy turn of events, the military and police don't revolt, and we actually have to fight our own in the streets, I'd be perfectly happy to have Joe Sixpack and his Remington 30-06 backing me up.

Point taken, but I will point out that the US military has an overwhelming technology and firepower advantage relative to the militaries you mentioned. But like I said, point taken and I would agree there's an advantage to an armed population (to an extent.) I could contribute 4 rifles, 1 shotgun, 1 pistol and 1 muzzleloader - I can't aim worth a shit with the pistol, though.

Argue semantics all you want, but relative to the last 50 this is a conservative court.

Don't worry, pipe bombs are easy enough to make

Maybe you consider it semantics, but in the last 50 years the court has been too far to the left. This court is more balanced I guess you can say.

Compared to some of the decisions in the past 50 years, it's not very hard for any court to be considered conservative. Especially by modern legal circles like the ABA which tacks leftward.

We'll see exactly how "conservative" this court is with some of the cases on the docket this year. The Heller case should be interesting.

I find it interesting that the Bush administration is in favor of the DC handgun ban, yet in a rare case, Dick Cheney the VP filed a brief with some Senators taking the side of the circuit court in overturning the DC ban. Cheney is going against Bush and the administration (Justice Dept).

That was a good post Shahram. You made good points.

However in some of those conflicts you mentioned, the rebels had some help with armaments from foreign governments intervening in the conflicts. But the point is still valid nonetheless.

Government gun-grabbing brings up some interesting scenarios. If the federal government were to outlaw private gun ownership let's say... via Supreme Court mandate, there runs the possibility that some state governments could openly declare defiance. How the federal government would handle such a conflict with states is unclear. How states would react to whatever the federal government does is also unclear.

It's possible that depending on who sits in the White House, the Executive Branch could also defy such a Supreme Court decision.

That is why gun grabbing legislation comes a little piece at a time. You never know where the gun grabbing is going to come from.

I also suspect many in the US armed forces would never wage war against their own citizens over a 2nd Amendment rebellion and a total gun grab by the federal government. Some will, but most or many will not.

If the Supreme Court were to do that...I think you'd see one of the fastest enacted Amendments in History - one that would be much more clear then the current 2nd.

That's odd.

Our Republican Senator, John Warner, has taken the position that it should be left up to DC and home rule, not the federal government.

You would see such a movement begin.

But.... Since more than half of the states are controlled by Democrats, you probably wouldn't get such an amendment. It would require a lot of Democrat states to go along too and I wouldn't put much money on that happening. It's remotely possible, but most Democrats would cry "success" and welcome such a ruling.

Don't kid yourself. The party is very far to the left these days. Probably a lot farther than you are willing to admit or maybe even realize.

DC is a federal city.

John Warner is a political coward and a major asshole. He should have been gone many years ago.

There was a shooting tonight at Seton Hall University in NJ.

A non-student came on campus with a gun and shot himself. That's all that is known so far.

Seton Hall is a "no gun zone".

I disagree. I think you'd easily get the number of states needed. Granted, it would depend on the wording of the amendment.

So is the US Capitol, but someone brought one in a few years ago and took out a couple of Capitol Policemen.

Seton Hall is also a private school.

Some of you guys seem excessively paranoid, or lost in some fantasy of being the hero fighting to the death against the U.S. government gone crazy. I'll buy the argument of defending your home and family against criminals with guns; that's at least within the realm of reality. Any scenario where you and your heroic armed neighbors are holding off the Marines who are wrongly trying to conquer Anytown USA is off the scale. Not a little either...a lot.

Again, understand that I'm not anti-gun, I'm more anti-nut who would use a gun to settle some perceived wrong. I just don't know how you stop that. Oh yeah, more guns. :rolleyes:

WOLVERINES!

I don't think anyone is paranoid. I also don't think things like battles between the military and civilians would occur.

If guns were ever outlawed, who would be the ones to go around collecting them? It would be the local police departments.

Mayor "Chocolate City" Nagin did it to people in New Orleans a little over two years ago.

Quote:

Again, understand that I'm not anti-gun, I'm more anti-nut who would use a gun to settle some perceived wrong. I just don't know how you stop that. Oh yeah, more guns. :rolleyes:

You're not anti-gun. Who would have known.

I don't think anyone here has a "Hero" complex, but as the government slowly erodes our rights. Our rights to free speech (which by the way you defend vehemently), our rights to bear arms etc., many do get worried that the path to a "tyrannical" governement or police state is right around the corner. Maybe not in our life time, but maybe our childrens, or theirs? Shouldn't we make sure that doesn't happen? Is it truly far fetched to believe that it is not a possibility?

Good to hear, but you let politicians legislate ownership, and this year it might be hi-cap mags, then next year caliber type, then next year CCW laws etc.. We can't let that happen. Freedom of speech is easier to uphold when the public can arm themselves.

It is completely off the scale, but only because you believe that if something like that truly happened, the people of this country would be pitched against the entire might of the military. Like I said in a previous post. What makes up the military? Who operates the war machine? In most cases family will not fight family, but will fight alongside family. Is it a long shot? Sure it is, and I hate to use the analogy but we never thought someone would fly multiple passenger planes into our buildings either. Never say never, especially when history tells us differently.

While I agree that settling anything with violence is not the right answer, you seem to be lumping those of us that believe in upholding our SA rights with those that partake in criminal activity? We are lumped in with "nuts" because we believe in the ability to protect ourselves and families. If guns were outlawed from the get go, we'd probably be having this discussion about swords or knives. The Feudal Japanese outlawed swords when firearms didn't exist, look at history and see how well that worked out for the Japanese people during that time.

The "nuts" are a product of a much bigger social issue that is beyond the whole firearms debate anyway in my opinion. Taking means of protection away from the people will not alleviate that issue and history and the statistics prove it.

I'm a idealist/realist about this.

First of all, leave the 2nd Amendment out of the discussion because it can be interpreted either way, as granting gun ownership only to members of a state's "well-regulated militia" or to the general public. We can argue that till Doomsday and never resolve it.

Do I believe that a gun-free society - IF it could be achieved - would have less people killed as a result of crime? Well, obviously so because guns are far more efficient at killing people than other personal weapons. The nut at Virginia Tech for example would not have been able to kill near that many people without guns. That's the "idealist" part of my view - but notice I said if it could be achieved - which it can't, so on to the "realist".

Accepting that guns are going to be in society, the next step is to ensure as much as is reasonably possible that people who possess guns are stable, responsible individuals who have been trained to handle a weapon. I support CCW with the same caveat although in reality, at some point there will be tragic accidents. For example, responding officers will someday shoot a good samaritan who has drawn their licensed weapon. It's unavoidable.

The assault weapon question is a good example of where things get murky. There are many people who can responsibly handle such weapons and could blast the living s*** out of practice targets to their heart's desire for all I care. But many people wonder why John Q. Public needs a weapon designed and intended for military use against enemy combatants (i.e. human targets). And you know what? He doesn't need it, he wants it. So how do you balance that want vs. the potential for those intending harm to obtain such weapons? That's a legitimate question.

And here's one for you gun enthusiasts - what about items like so-called flechette shotgun rounds that fire darts? One website says they're to "take out snipers hiding in thick brush or trees" and another advertisement says they're designed for "maximum trauma effect". Snipers in the trees, now there's a scenario we can all expect to encounter.

IMO this is an example where even real gun lovers should draw the line. There's no question such rounds should be illegal. Make a case for them if you can, I'd be interested in contrasting views. (BTW, "contrasting view" does not mean calling those who disagree with you America-hating, Jane Fonda-hugging pinko hippie commie Al-Qaeda Bin Laden-lovers. It means making logical statements explaining why anyone would ever have a legitimate use for such ammunition.)

As a whole, it's a complex issue, but depending on the agenda they subscribe to, people see it in black-and-white, absolute terms. That's the big challenge. What's needed is reasonable discussion and reasonable compromise.

True, but since it's the only written document allowing us our freedom, it's very relevant.

That nut at Virginia Tech could just as easily have driven a car through the quad, or thrown a couple pipe bombs into class rooms. That's the realist in me. I'd rather get shot to be honest.

I agree about the training whether you carry or not and let's throw basic first aid and cpr in there as well. Responding cops are already shooting and tasing people without warrant and there are very little statistics to back up your statement about "good samaritans" being shot by police at the scenes of crime.

Define an assault weapon for me Blue? Is it the semi-auto .22 I own that has a 12 round mag? Or is it the semi-auto bernelli shotgun I own and hunt with? I can do a lot of damage with a semi-auto 12 gauge. It's for hunting though? Let's look at the DC Sniper Case. The guy used an "assault" rifle, but in each case, he only fired one shot! I can do that with my .0306 hunting rifle. Why does and AR-15 have to be banned, because it "looks" more bad ass than my .22 semi-auto? I can get 100 round drums for the .22?

Many forms of ammo are already banned. You can't own armor piercing ammo for instance. Flechette ammo was tried by various militarys etc. and found to be extremely in-efficient and nobody uses them. They are snake oil, and that is way they are probably legal to purchase. I'll take full metal jacketed, hollow points, and wad-cutters myself. Once again though, you let politicians start legislating it, and they will slowly erode your rights.

It's very easy. Don't ban firearms, you must have a special licence to own fully automatic or burst weapons, as they are the true assault weapons and you must go through training to own, operate, or CCW. Most states already have those laws though.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Samuel here.

You don't know what an assault weapon is... do you? You don't know anything about the current laws in existence do you?

No, nothing at all. :rolleyes:

Certainly not enough to meet your standards I'm sure.

Actually, we can resolve it. The 2nd Amendment is vital to gun ownership in this country. A central reasoning for it. It is very clear what a "well-regulated militia" is.

"The Constitution states that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves, and that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

A true assault weapon is a switchable semi, burst and full auto weapon. NOT a semi auto that happens to look like a military rifle. All these ignorant anti gunners out there that want to throw all semi's in the same pile as assault weapons is irresponsible.
It's all an excuse for total gun control and banning.
I have a Ruger Mini-14 SEMI AUTO CARBINE! Not an assault weapon.

This is true. As has been said many times, the assault weapons ban (that I think is currently defunct, but many want to bring back) amounts to nothing more than a ban on scary looking guns.