I think in the wake of shootings like the other day, the first reaction is always "take the guns away." Yet no one seems to care about the fact that 1600 people have been shot in Chicago this year. A city with one of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Of course they do and I don't. I know the statistics on gun control and gun laws. The only people in favor of stricter gun laws are criminals, oppressive governments, and the truly ignorant.

We're in agreement there.

Agreed. Take a look at the inside of a prison. One of the tightest controlled areas as far as weapons are concerned. And yet, folks are getting shanked all the time. It's the person, not the tool.

And a Bible verse answers this question how?

"Cain used a club" Please miss tell me the scripture and verse please, because my KJV Bible says in Genesis 4:8 "Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." It does not say anything about a club, or a rock, or pummeling him to death with his fists or strangling him to death or poisoning him. But at least I agree with your premise.

Sarcasm is difficult to detect over the internet.

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not so I'm not sure how to respond.

He's jealous of America and Americans so he habitually bashes them. He also posts flat out lies just to ruffle feathers. But he is occasionally amusing. BJ, all you have to do is click his avatar and it will take you to his profile page. He's too chicken to ask questions because he fears others will bash him the way he does others. But if you click on answers you will see who he is.

Assault rifles don't do anything on their own. They just sit there...

What defines an "assault rifle," though? I think it's a pretty loose. There are plenty of different ways to interpret the 2nd amendment, too.

I like the part that says, "...shall not be infringed." But I'm in agreement with Linda. My AR15's just sit there until I pick them up and pull the trigger. Maybe mine are just broke, but these particular ones I have now, haven't killed anyone.

Right, well, that language is pretty clear. "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." Prior to DC vs Heller, ten or so years ago, some of the more extreme folks said that the wording was such that the right to self-defense was extended to state militias, and not to private individuals. But, the Supreme Court ruled that argument to be incorrect. The amendment was, unarguably, influenced by the English Bill of Rights, which guarantees individual right to self-defense. Other documents make it perfectly clear that the founding fathers intended the second amendment to mean to guarantee self-defense rights of the individual against other individuals as well as foreign and domestic government threats. Bearing arms means to have operable weapons. But where is the line drawn for such weapons, the amendment itself isn't clear. Obviously, it is not currently interpreted to mean any weapon. One cannot legally purchase a thermonuclear explosive device. But what about flamethrowers, nerve gas, napalm, etc.? What about grenades, rockets, machine guns, etc.? What about axes, machetes, pointy sticks, or plastic forks? If a weapon is allowed, then disallowed, lawmakers are already messing with the 2nd amendment at its core. If they want to limit the capacity of a magazine or limit how many bullets people can buy or whatever, they are skirting around the semantics of the constitution, but still essentially limiting the private individual's potential to defend him/herself, which goes against the idea behind the bill of rights. But, there's another topic there, in how the government has, in past instances, infringed upon each and every one of the first ten amendments.

BJ, they have infringed upon each of the 10 Amendments. But for the topic of this question, I'm sticking with the 2nd. I can pretty much guarantee that 99.9% of people would agree that you should not be able to privately purchase a nuclear weapon, so we can at least agree on that part. Or napalm or cluster bombs or nerve gas. But where does one draw the line? Can you own an M-60? Absolutely you can. If you can afford it and pass the background check, then why not? I can buy one on-line for around $30,000. The same goes with destructive devices (hand grenades) and silencers. As long as you pass the check and pay the tax stamp, then go ahead and get one. No one is arguing against that. But when you have the leftists crying about no one should be having guns, that's a problem. It's a fundamental right, just like our right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by the government. That right is not given to us by the government, but "endowed by our creator." People forget that the Constitution and the Amendments restricts the government, not the people. I watched Bill DeBlasio on Hannity last night and Hannity was trying to get him to talk about gun rights. Hannity questioned him on whether or not the people of New York had a right to have a gun to defend themselves. After all, DeBlasio has guns protecting him, right? And all he would say was the people had a right to be safe. He wouldn't come out and say, "No, they don't have a right to a gun." Basically what he was saying was that I can have guns protecting me, but you can't have guns protecting you. "They have a right to be safe" is a very non-answer kind of answer. Disingenuous at best. But along those same lines, people forget the idea behind the 2nd Amendment. Not only the ability to defend one's self from their neighbor, but from government tyranny. We're the only country in the world that's like that. And with reason.