People are losing sight of the purpose of the changes that have been considered. And hey-- the last time they held one of these meetings, some guy was shooting at officers in Warminster, no?

i dont care who anyone is shooting at when shit hits the fan i want to be armed

Great group. Great meeting. Whether you choose to own a gun or not, these folks are standing up for OUR 2nd Amendment RIGHTS! It's about freedom vs. tyranny.

Yes, 2nd amendment rights that had been put together how many years ago? I don’t think they had extended clip muskets back then. Things change for a reason; rules need to be adjusted as life changes.

so if 7 bullets is all u need joe u must be a great shot to want to limit urself lets hope the law abiding criminal only has 7 a well when hes shooting at u

Do any of you realize how clownish it is to champion and defend the Second Amendment? The same people who wrote the Second Amendment, also believed that a black person was only 3/5 of a human. They sure aren't the type of people that I would want to use as an ideal model for my lifestyle and personal beliefs. Times change, people evolve. When a better idea comes along, embrace it and implement it. Holding on to outdated views is foolish and destructive.

People do evolve, but one thing will always remain. People will always be people. Times do change. We are all treated as equal. It's not the 1800's anymore. It's up to all of us to keep it that way now. Your ideology of a peachy society is the only thing that's foolish.

Before bringing in the race card BS why don't you try an do a bit of research such as who the NRA protected
Who they helped when they were founded
This is not a race issue anymore this is about the peoples freedom the people vs the government

When was the last time a criminal followed the law.

I personally dont own a gun nor plan to, but I support this organization 100%. The Bill of Rights says-
"That 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

We need arms to do this

If This Gun , Ammunition Ban is put in place the Criminal will still get Guns or anything else in his hands to Kill. The Right to arm yourself should stay in place and those that do not want to own a gun have that right as well. I asked one person how would he defend his Home if it was attacked and all he could show me was his I Pad. I agree that they are a great fly killer.

keep upthe good work

Some wonderful indiduals are writing eloquent and persuasive arguments in support of the second amendment. Please keep up the good work!

The idea that a private citizen should be allowed to possess weapons on par with or identical to those used in war is absurd. This is a position that was supported by the 2008 Supreme Court decision on the issue. In the majority position written by arguably the most conservative Justice on the court, Antonin Scalia, it states that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [This court's ruling] holds that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

By allowing the sale of assault weapons and unfathomable amounts of ammunition in our nation we are asking for increases in gun deaths. If you have more cars on the road you are going to have more car accidents. Likewise, if you put more guns into society there will be more instances of people firing guns and therefore more accidental (and intentional) shootings. However, the difference is cars are not engineered and manufactured to kill people. In an effort to reduce the number of fatalities that result from inevitable car accidents we allow our government to issue safety requirements that car manufacturers must follow by law. Why should guns, a tool designed to kill, not be subject to the same common sense regulations?