Unlike the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment there is no direct constitutional right to own drugs. Like abortion's legality based on an implied right to privacy, I suppose you could constuct one based on the explicit "right to the pursuit of happiness" guaranteed to us. However, since this has never been challanged then the law states the mere ownership of certain chemicals is illegal. Its not unlike the law stating the mere ownership of the feather of an endangered species is illegal and punishable by huge fines. The basis for this is a presumption of guilt that you killed the eagle the feather came from. Now, to me that is as unconstitutional as you can get.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Which brings us back around to the question of how far do we need to go in order to defend ourselves

As far as we can with the resources available

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Technological advancement of firearms is the primary source the anti-gun people as evidence to combat the 2nd amendment.

It pains me that no case ever brought before the supreme court has asked for a decision to confirm that *Any and ALL types of weaponry in existance at the time the constitution was ratified shall never be subject of a ban, fees, taxation or any legislation passed onto it*........

A supreme court that would say that would end 99% of all anti-gun legislation. They continue to push for taking the firearms that are exactly what the 2nd amendment protects. They are not passing legislation on taking someones ICBM!

Some logic....

There were no semi-auto pistolas, or even revolvers when the constitution was adopted.

Certainly, there were no assult rifles either

The problem with this Tile is that the anti gunners would argue there were only smooth bore muzzleloaders in existance at the time the constitution was ratified. I have five guns that wouldn't fit that description. If we are going to say that can we also say the 1st amendment only protects speech bellowed in public or the written word composed on a rudimentary printing press or hand lettered with a quill pen? No internet, no emails, no radio, no television

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

A little more logic...

In order to deter our gov't from taking up arms against us, or any foreign foe, it would stand to reason that we should be allowed to have any weapon the troops have.

That was the intention then, as it should be now. How else are we as free and sovereign citizens expected to carry out the mandate of;

whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-Declaration of Independence

IOts not logical about stating the obvious. Rate of Fire doesnt mean jack shit. You can kill somebody with one shot. People are violent inhuman motherfuckers. America moreso then any other 1st world nation. You bastards will kil with anything. NO gun ever hopped of a table and killed anybody.

GO AFTER THE POEPLE NOT THE TOOL

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

It was a great point that weaponry at the time was only single shot bores. Also remember a 4 chambered rifle with 4 barrels and 4 triggers had been created although never used do to it's enormous weight.

Which raises new questions such as:
Was an unlimited amount of a wepon can fire be allowed?
Does accuracy of a weapon play into this?

Or, possibly the most important argument----- Citizens were guaranteed by 2nd amendment to own equal or even MORE safisticated weaponry than the military used?

Like I said before, nobody is trying to ban you and me from owning an ICBM.... they are however trying to ban guns (pistols in many cities) that actually are as old as that era (18th century)...

Where to draw the line is scary as hell based on the idiots whom are in power now. I would never want to allow these washington morons to amend my roll of toilet paper, let alone the constitution!

YOu could al have knives and still be a bunch of murderers. The problem is the people not the guns.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related