Adam Smith wrote:

I just read the entire text of this post, and I personally find the
proposed law a little too restrictive for some areas of the country, but
otherwise quite reasonable and a step in the right direction at least.
The 2nd amendment is intended to allow citizens to protect themselves
and their family in the event of a hostile attack on their person or B&E
of their home. It's a law to allow a family home or a person at risk of
attack to have a conventional non-combat firearm, primarily for self
defense. At the time, people also hunted for food, which can also be
accomplished with civilian weaponry.

I do not believe the writers of the second amendment ever dreamed of men
gunning down deer with AK-47s for sport, 12 year olds peppering each
other in city streets with Mac-10s or men wishing to defend their home
with semi-auto shotguns loaded with flechette rounds or incendiaries, or
whatever other perverse **** is out there.

I personally feel that a serious assement of some sort is needed,
because the right to bear arms is being grossly abused.

-Adam


I agree. But first we need to look at the 1st amendment. I'm really tired
of people
driving down the street pumping out filth from their sound systems. I'm
tired of
films like F911, I'm tired of Gunners post to this newsgroup, I'm tired of
the
Dixie Chicks and Rush. It's clear to me that the right of free speech is
being grossly abused.

Ray Spinhirne
[rest cut]