but it is “subject to reasonable regulation.” Who says what "reasonable" means? The left wants “an honest, open national conversation about firearms.” That would seem to leave all pols out of the discussion. I asked many Democratic leaders about the party’s position on firearms at the convention, but almost all claimed not to have read that section of the platform Now, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Like maybe passing a bill so as to read it and find out what's in it? . Jesse Jackson “Semi-automatic weapons — military-style weapons — are beyond the zone of reasonableness.” The civil-rights leader asserted, “These mass killings in Aurora and Milwaukee … we must end easy access and ban these assault weapons.” He added, “Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.” Nonsense. With one or two exceptions (LA comes to mind) the cops are much more heavily armed than the perps. How can they not defend themselves with full auto M16 or equal vs. handguns, shotguns, and semi auto rifles? Jesse the mouth needs to look up the word "assault." It is a verb or noun, not adjective, then he can teach the rest of his ilk some English, instead of city center patois.
My idea of reasonable is. Everyone should have the right to own as many guns as they can reasonable store, feed and use. Plus, if you want to buy a howitzer, so be it. I myself would like a Dillon mini gun and a Sherman parked in the barn for when the commies come a knocking.
Guns weren't made to be hid. They are tools to be used (hunting, target destruction, self defense). They are investments. The are (can be) works of art (seen the titanium AR??). The are enjoyable. They are sporting. The can put food on the table. Hide guns????? GB