HR 45 "Watch Out!"

<blockquote> groggerbug wrote: <hr> There is nothing to be "proven" about the 2nd ammendment. It was written at a time and under circumstances so utterly different than those which we live in now, and in antiquated English so open to misinterpretation, as to render it almost meaningless. However, it is clear that the people who wrote it weren't thinking about paranoid citizens arming themselves with handguns to protect themselves from each other. They were thinking of invasion by foreign countries, namely England. Think your handgun will do you any good when some country attacks us with nuclear warheads? While the argument that "regulating firearms means that only criminals will have them" bears some merit, it only tells me that there need to be even more restrictive gun control laws in place. </blockquote>It does not really matter what the original intent of writers was back then or if it has been misinterpreted (which I disagree with anyway). Thefact is, we do have the right to own them and we already have to go through alot of paperwork to do so. Greg, I completely respect your right to not own firearms and not want them in your home. What I don't understand is why that means the I should not beallowed to own them? Responsible gun owners are not a threat. I am a gun owner, but I am not paranoid, I doubt I would be able to get to a gun in time todefend my home from criminals, I just like to own them. I target practice and hunt with them. Why does one man's right to not own them mean another'sright to own them has to go away? As far as need more restrictive gun laws to fix the problem goes, take a look at England which has very tight gun control. Who has guns there? The cops andthe criminals, pretty much everyone except for the law abiding citizens. PS. I am neither a bigot nor a racist <img src="http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/happy.gif" alt="image">