POLL: Is it Time to Repeal and Replace the Second Amendment?

But, how do we, as a nation which has different state regulations for gun ownership, run a policy which would strictly limit an unstable person from owning a gun?

How can you assure that someone who is lucid and sane when they purchase their first gun, let's say at age 20, but somehow is beaten down through life and "loses it" later?

There is no solution to preventing an unstable person from owning a gun. I like my solution (#12) of allowing all Americans to "bear arms" as the Second Amendment clearly states, but making the ammo extremely expensive and placing a number on how many bullets one can purchase each year can be a more viable solution. As the Second Amendment says nothing about the right to purchase and own magazines and stockpiles of ammo.

The shooter was a schizophrenic, if it wasn't a gun, it would have been a homemade bomb. How about we just give people with mental problems the help they need, and make sure they can afford it.

Absolutely!!!!

Schizophrenia can show up in children as young as 4, but in most cases manifests during the ages of 15-25, and then there are adult schizophrenics which begin to show signs after mid-30s. There is no fail safe answer to stopping a schizophrenic from obtaining a gun because we simply cannot diagnose every American for the potential for this devastating mental disease.

That is why parts of Obamacare is intrumental to keep, because it affords that all Americans will have access to mental health care.

oh yes, lets use this tragedy to champion Obamacare.... Have you looked at the the crime statistics in England lately? They made the civilized decision to ban all handguns. The number on cause of death for person under 25 is stabbing. humans will find a way to kill each. Banning guns will only assure that no one can protect themselves.

oh yes, lets use this tragedy to champion Obamacare....

Well, that's just it. The shooter was nuts, everyone knew it, his school kicked him out for it, the police knew it, he insisted the world around him wasn't real... Nobody did anything about it.

I don't care if it's "Obamacare" or some other healthcare idea... Putting known paranoid delusional schizophrenics on the street is just asking for it.

The term "well regulated" is 18th century speak for "well trained" NOT "Government licensed".

Gulliver , well your state may say no , my states Constitution says that its an individual right for self defense as well as for use to defend the state with no mention of militia .

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).

[Self-defense right protected, State v. McAdams, 714 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Wyo. 1986).]

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.

• Reasoning: A militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

• Means of implementation: The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry but you can take the entire Militia part out and end up with the same thing, but it is a clear and valid reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

There has been a ton of loony right wingers giving the 2nd a bad name lately, that is for sure; and a majority (but not all) "militias" in the modern age are front groups for idiots... But an actual real volunteer militia could be very useful in disaster situations, and a few have been.

Any ideas or talk of "revolution" are completely stupid in this day and age in this country - and teabagger talk of "2nd Amendment remedies" if their favorite politico didn't win are blatantly treasonous and go against everything this Democratic Representative government stands for. If your guy legitimately didn't win, you try harder next time - you don't talk about overthrowing the government.

But this country is just one big disater from mass chaos.

Take a large EMP airburst:

No cars, no computers, no cell phones, no home phones, no electricity, no refrigeration, no radio, no way to contact the police, no alarms - I'm no survival nut, pessimist, or doom sayer, but there are things that can make this society temporarily tear itself apart at the seams in very short order. I would rather have the right to responsibly defend myself and my family.

---

In my humblest opinion, I think you are wrong. Very fresh on everyone's mind was Shay's Rebellion. The Second Amendment, in brilliant doublespeak, tells people that they will not have to worry about anymore uprisings of armed mobs (unregulated militias) while reassuring people that they will not have their guns taken away.

Does the second amendment clearly give one a right to possess a firearm if that person has no part in a well regulated militia? In my state, the answer seems to be, "No."

I welcome your take on the actual text of the 2nd Amendment. Post it in it's entirety and break the exact wording down. I'm just interested in your interpretation, you won't get any teabagger venom from me, I'm anything but.

That's not breaking the actual text of the second amendment down. That is bringing up vague issues of capitalization and your opinion - without taking a critical close look at the actual text.

"the people" and "The People" are the same. I'm really not sure how you can take a non-capitalized "people" and take it to mean exclusive ownership or control by state officials.

US Constitution: The phrase "the people"

The phrase has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people,^[48] as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect "the people" directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units.

Caps or no caps, "the people" of the United states are still the people of the United states. Not a select few in state leadership.

You like what you see at the end of the sentence. I like what I see at the beginning. I like the idea that a militia should be well regulated to the point that they need to "keep their arms" at the armory and "bear them" when the "security of our free state" is in jeopardy.

I'm glad you liked what you saw at the beginning, but you seem to not address what you saw at the end.

I think I fully addressed the entire wording, not just the end.

I said this elsewhere later in this thread that many paranoids sadly think "Security of the state" only means preventing invasion or stopping an imaginary tyrannical government. Helping others during a disaster is as important and contributes just as much to our security when our country is affected by natural disasters when and if police, fire departments, and hospitals are overburdened.

Thank you for hosting this thread in a polite manner and keeping things on track. Several others have gone to hell recently.

Even though I think you wrong (obviously, from my comments), I, too, must compliment you on your moderation here. And you are right, I think we've all done a pretty good job on this one! Thanks. I voted you up.

natalia, #3.1,

But, how do we, as a nation which has different state regulations for gun ownership, run a policy which would strictly limit an unstable person from owning a gun?

Most, if not all states already have laws covering this. It is simply a matter of said "unstable person" being proven so in a court of law. To wit, from Amendment V:

No person shall ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

"liberty" meaning any and all of those rights specifically reserved to the citizens, such as the keeping and bearing of arms.

There is no solution to preventing an unstable person from owning a gun. I like my solution (#12) of allowing all Americans to "bear arms" as the Second Amendment clearly states, but making the ammo extremely expensive and placing a number on how many bullets one can purchase each year can be a more viable solution. As the Second Amendment says nothing about the right to purchase and own magazines and stockpiles of ammo.

The shooting part is the "bearing" part, can't shoot with no ammo.

Does the second amendment clearly give one a right to possess a firearm if that person has no part in a well regulated militia? In my state, the answer seems to be, "No."

At the federal level (and in almost every state), you do not have to be a member of any militia to own a gun.

We are just a violent nation, who has citizens who like to use violence as a means to an end.

Just look at all of the gun, Second Amendment, target, and "take out" the enemy that was used by the righties during this last election. The fact is that voters need to not gravitate toward that kind of childish rhetoric. We must force our potential representatives to act like the moral and ethical statespersons they want to be.

I say Roe needs to be repealed. It will save more lives.

I say lets go all the way and repeal the 19th. the founding father knew that they were doing when they purposely left women our of the Constitution.

Don't be so narrow, Bubba.

If you're all that interested in saving lives, how about repealing any Constitutional or statutory authority a POTUS claims when taking us to war without a declaration from the congress?

How about outlawing health insurance company death panels?

So, Bubba....you wanna kill my sister?

Are you a Bubba or just a troll?

Are you a Bubba or just a troll?

Is there a difference?

"So, Bubba....you wanna kill my sister?"

Is your sister an unborn child? If so I want to save her life. I wonder how many potential congresspersons we abort every day.

Why is it any of your business, Bubba?

"Why is it any of your business, Bubba?"

The same reason it is anyone's business to repeal my right to bear arms. You wanna save lives by banning weapons? Why don't we ban abortion? It would save mover lives than banning weapons.

As a progressive, I do not have any problem if the righties want to repeal Roe v Wade.

Wait, hear me out ....... Then have every woman who would have chosen an abortion, who is now forced to carry the child to term will have the option of picking which church will be responsible to fully support and raise that child -- through four years college.

I feel that if the far right Christians want every child born, then they also want their taxes raised to such a point which guarantees that every child forced to be born is raised in an environment free from poverty. Force the right to be more than just pro-birth and punishing a woman for having sex.

There are solutions to problems, one just has to own up to the consequences of their rhetoric and ideology.

"Wait, hear me out ....... Then have every woman who would have chosen an abortion, who is now forced to carry the child to term will have the option of picking which church will be responsible to fully support and raise that child -- through four years college."

Now hear me out. Perhaps outlawing abortion would encourage smarter choices. Birth control, adoption or even thinking twice about having sex with with a man who is not father material. It may save more lives than banning weapons. On the other hand, I would rather pay my taxes to support the children than for insurance which would pay for abortions.

You backtrack like all the other right-wingers. Would you like to know that you came to be because of rape? You're idiot if you respond in the affirmative. This is why I have always stated that any man who opposes abortion should be gang-raped.

Screw off, okay? I'd love to see you talk an under-aged rape victim out of exercising her right to get an abortion.

Bubba, I have two ideas which are much better.

1) Follow your bible's advice and let teens marry.

2) Let the federal government license parenthood and implant birth control in everyone! When people think they are ready, they can apply for a license. That would make abortion obsolete!

Finally, you obviously don't give a @!$%# if my sister dies from the pregnancy because of her heart condition.

No wonder I await the demise of your cult.

Natalia, you are no progressive. You are of the far-right.

"any man who opposes abortion should be gang-raped."

I couldn't stop your sister from making her decisions if I wanted to. Violence is never the answer.

MG -- did you not see the sarcasm in what I wrote? The righties would never want to be taxed, nor their churches to be taxed, to support children born into poverty for their entire life, and that is exactly my progressive point!!!!!!!!

I almost broke out in a rash when you thought I was a far-rightie!!!!!

Bubba makes some great points .

Exactly, as the "arms" in the Second Amendment clearly refers to the sinlge pellit/bullet loading muskets during the 1770s and not the sophisticated weapons of today.

And, as I have already stated, the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but not the right to bear the ammo.

not the sophisticated weapons of today.

But I want a land to aircraft missile launcher, a flame thrower would be nice, I can dream of having my own nuclear arsenal and a tank!

Okay I really want to have my own Trebuchet.

http://www.trebuchet.com/

Flame thrower??? Ok, so you want your deer BBQ'd at the time you hunt it down!!!! LOL

Exactly, as the "arms" in the Second Amendment clearly refers to the sinlge pellit/bullet loading muskets during the 1770s and not the sophisticated weapons of today.

Sure, in the same way that our free speech refers to quill pens and 1700's era printing presses - right?

Okay I really want to have my own Trebuchet.

So build one, it isn't that hard.

Then make laws to relfect this, but leave the Amendment stand. Lest we start tweeking other Amendments that one feels are "antique."

Like the one giving all women the right to vote, the one guaranteeing US-born citizenry, the one freeing the slaves.

Let's implement it!

Why not ban cars too. How many people died due to autos last year.

Conservatives already do have guns, bmx mom.

There are plenty of democrats and independants that have guns, does that make them criminals too?

The sale of guns is already regulated in most states. Background checks are required in every state I have bought a gun in and one of the states required a three day wait period.

People have to demonstrate that they are able to drive safely and possess insurance in order to be able to have a car and the kinds of motor vehicles that people can own is controlled by regulations.

It's a shame they still kill 40,000 people every year.

And then of course there are the loop holes and off the books gun sales at flea markets or whatever.

... Ignorance hurts everyone.

Very well stated!!!!!

One must be forced to realize that there are consequences for actions taken. As a progressive, who was a Marine, I can see both sides of this divisive argument.

So, I say protect the Second Amendment and allow all Americans the "right to bear arms" but put in place strict laws which limit the ammo. Of course, one could make the exception during hunting season, but all unused ammo must be accounted for.

I don't want to sound like a condescending gun nut, But...

The reason most people fear or glorify guns is because they have usually:

1. Never handled them

2. Have not been properly schooled on arms safety protocol.

3. Are mentally or chemically imbalanced.

When I was a youngster, most rural community taught youngsters proper gun safety and to handle them with respect.

While I am against 2nd amendment infringement I would like to see these courses be mandatory to weapon owners.

Ignorance and carelessness kill far more often than malice.

And since I have always told the kids to treat driving a car with the same care they would treat handling a firearm, perhaps they should also have to go through similar sober instruction on proper firearms usage before owning one.

So the poor who couldn't afford bullets are left defenseless? In the city I live in it tends to be the poorer sections of town with the most home invasions and roberies.

There would also be a strict limit on how many bullets one could purchase and ans you used them and reported to the police how many you used then you could replace them.

Plus the fact, exactly how many home robberies do you have each night ---- more than the 10 limit I say one could purchase?

While the city I live in is the one with the highest level of crime in the state, I have yet become a victim of any crime -- in my home, car, or on while out in streets/stores.

I originally come from Chicago, which is a city which has been living in turmoil the past year. With one of the highest murder rates in the country. I can fully understand where you are coming from. But the bottom line is that we all live in this country. And bad things can happen to anyone at anytime.

It doesn't really matter where you live. I do not mean to minimize what you are going through, but one needs to try to come up with workable solutions to the real problems of violence we face.

While my heart goes out to those who feel they live in unsafe places, one needs to also look to protecting all Americans. Laws, that effect gun control, can never be good for all people in all situations, but one needs to at least try to enact laws that are fair to all Americans.

And therein lies the problem, gun owners want their rights protected above all other Americans rights who do not believe in the right to own assualt weapons and ammo.

Gulliver's

Where do I show any hatred? By the way you forgot to include my ending sentence.

"The arguments made be liberals/progressives on the second amendment are as irrational as my argument on the 14th amendment".

Amen brother. owning a gun would not be at the top of my list either even though I own several guns and love to hunt.

Gulliver's

So don't own a gun and don't take away my right, under the constitution to do so. You left out the right to vote. Strange isn't it?

There are other countries that have laws that ban guns, like N. Korea. But then you have an option they don't, you can leave this country if you want. So what you want me to do is change how I am to live by your fears. I'm not scared of guns or people that own guns. I'm scared that they will be taken away and I will have know way to protect myself. Pick up the phone and dial 911, how long does it take for the police to get to your house. It took less than 1 minute for that man to empty the gun clip. Have the police arived yet?

There are four times more guns in the United States than there are cars. There are more than 52 times more automobile accidents than gun incidents in the United States. These result in 41 times more injuries by car than by gun, and cars kill more than 150% more people than guns.

It happens all over the world; crazy people driving their cars through crowds.

That is why all Americans, right and left, need not "pick and choose" what parts of the Constitution they choose to follow.

For example, the right loves the idea of Jesus but rarely follows his actual teachings about helping the poor, giving all your wealth away, paying your taxes (rendering to Ceasar what is Ceasar's) AND yet they cling to the OT with its vitriol against sodomites (which includes those who give BJs) AND FAIL to adhere to the rest of the passage, which clearly states to stone an unruly child who answers their parents back, the eating of shellfish (all of those Christians at Red Lobster will burn in hell), and the wearing of mixed fibers (so goes the poly-cotton blends).

Then these same righties love and cling to the Second Amendment, while wanting to throw out the one guaranteeing citizen's rights because it is not what our forefathers wanted it to be. So can't we then use their same illogical logic against the Second Amendment and throw that one out as well?

We need to stop this partisan bickering of ideologies and find real solutions to the real problems, lest we have more of the same tragic consequences.

Just about every amendment has been tinkered with at state levels to reflect the changes over time. But the fundamentals have remained. We could in fact "tinker with" laws to reflect the facts that the "arms" of our forefathers used to protect themselves from the British are in fact not the same "arms" i.e. assualt weapons, hollow point ammo, etc. of today. It would not be unconstitutional to enact laws to ban non-traditional weapons and ammo.

Wow, afloatinasea -- you are really partisan!!!!! Down right (no pun intended) nasty!!!

I agree Coral, the government needs to come up with better solutions at controlling the ammo. But, GPS would be way too expensive and time-consuming and near impossible.

I like my idea of $1,000 a bullet!!!!!

We absolutely need to re-instate the ban on assault weapons, as there is no reason why a citizen needs an assault weapon!!!!! Or just ban the assault ammo!!!!

Yes, but I would only allow 10 per year to be purchased. And if you need to re-stock then you must state how and when you used each previous bullet. Every bullet would have a serial number on it to help track who it got sold to.

Sorry, even the Beckster could not make money in this venture!!!!!

Hey Natalie and gulliver and coral, the idea of gps is great but may be expensive. How about the gadget used for house arrest. the gun meant for protection is claimed to be for self/home protection. So the gadget will make sure it stays within the bounds monitored by local alert stations, the services paid for by gun owners of course.

Um, you can easily reload spent bullet casings with low cost equipment.

Also, you don't even know what an "assault weapon" is. There is no clear definition. Many "Assault weapons" under the Clinton era law are exactly the same as normal firearms but with black plastic grips instead of wood.

Also, I'm a "left wing nut" if I am required to pick one due to the insults being hurled about on newsvine. Just want to make it clear so I can be properly insulted.

A lot of states say you have that right .

Yes, but this is more about the responsibility side of it. We talk about rights here on the Vine (gun rights, civil rights, speech rights, etc), but there are responsibilities that go with those rights. We as a nation seem to be against taking responsibility for the actions of the rights we want.

belle,

You might find this interesting as it pertains to militia.

US CODE, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART 1, CHAPTER 13,§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I.html

For clarification on unorganized militia (from wikipedia):
The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)

So THAT'S what men register for when they sign up for "Selective Service"! I always wondered about that. Thanks bunches Sean!

No Belle , selective service registration is at 18 , not 17 , what selective service registration is for , is to notify the government when an individual reaches draft /conscription age IF they ever reimpliment the draft. it does also give them an Idea of how many individuals could be called into a state militia or a national guard , some states laws /statutes allow for more than one typoe of militia , there is the NG covering the organized militia that is subject to call to service for the nation as a reserve component of the military , and there is also what is called state guards fully funded and regulated by the state for only instate use if they are activated.

Not all states have statutes that allow for this second militia force , mine does though.

So then, you agree that all persons born in the US are full US born citizens? Regardless of where and how their parents got here.

If you pick and choose this amendment guaranteeing citizenery birth rights, then you open yourself up the picking and choosing of the Second Amendment as well.

The righties can't have it both ways either, because the picking and choosing of citizens birth rights makes you facists and racists.

You are correct Guliver:

The Constitution while dynamic was never intended to be regressive. The amendments that exist today have all granted freedoms not taken them away.

Once we amend the constitution so it denies rather than bestows freedom, we are setting a perilous precedent towards surrendering more rights.

Each right and article is inextricably intertwined with the next

It is a package deal and you do not get to choose willy nilly which portions you will respect and which you will reject.

Thus the 14th amendment is no less important than the 2nd.

We Veterans swore an oath to defend the entire constitution not 'our favorite parts'.

Nope, you got it.

The fact is that the Constitution is a living breathing document, which times must allow for change, but not for the infringement of the fundamentals of the Amendment.

So the righties that believe that the Second Amendment is etched in stone cannot have it both ways with other Amendments. Either you respect all the Amendments or you don't.

Like I said, I am a progressive and I believe that we have the right to "bear arms" but that di not mean the assualt weapons and hollow point bullets of today. So we can to ensure the safety of ALL AMERICANS enact laws "to secure these types of weapons" without violating the Second Amendment.

As for the 14th, the language is clear and there is no ambiguity to it --- BORN HERE EQUALS US CITIZEN!!!!! After all the righties want Roe v Wade overturned and all children to be born, so if child are born in the US then they are US citizens, period!!!!!!!!

Punishing children for what their parents did is soooooo Christian of them? Judge not, lest yee be judged yourself!!!!!

If you want to believe the original Constitution is set in stone, then I say people can own all the black powder rifles they want. And let's get rid of the new-fangled stuff about women voting and black people being equal to whites.

Otherwise, if you think that the Constitution is a living guide, it's fine to ban handguns unless there is a really good reason to own one.

Sean,

Appreciated that an oath has to be honored, so has the building code and like the building code having to change and improved on and with buildings becoming more complex and getting taller and taller the building code gets obsolete and require reworking almost all the time. So does the Constitution, sacrosant on the one hand but a living document on the other.

I wont disagree with your right to that opinion, but I will caution that if such an amendment were enacted against the 2nd amendment the very next time the pendulum swung to the right they would attempt to change the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments and cite the changing of the 2nd as their just precedent.

David, your logic is simply illogical.

First of all Mexico is not having the same "murder by guns violence" that the US is having. The reason for gov't officials getting murdered is because the drug cartel has more money than the gov't to support their "army." You have MX police earning approx. $15,000 USD a year, and you get a drug cartel threatening this man, his family, and then paying them off with a $50,000 bonus to look the other way, all the while with a gun against his/her head if the offer is not taken.

Second, who do you think is the biggest supplier of weapons into Mexico ---- the US and specifically the State of Texas.

Third, who are the largest consumers of Mexico's drugs --- the US.

Lastly, the owning of guns by US citizens does not keep our democracy in tact. It is the fact that we, as a country, respect the fact that our elections are not corrupt. And a good portion of us respect the laws of our country. The fact is that the US built up one of the strongest middle-class and that a good majority of Americans were allowed to succeed and get a piece of the American Dream. But with the growing divide between the haves/haves more and those in poverty, we will soon become a country that resembles Mexico.

You should read the book Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston and see that America is corporate socialist country that is rapidly letting its citizens down in favor of big corporations.

First of all Mexico is not having the same "murder by guns violence" that the US is having.

So there all being killed with Butter Knives?

Do you have any proof that is how those MX are being corrupted or thats just your theory? Even if thats the case who allowed the country to degenrate to that point to begin with if it was not a corrupt government, military, failing to do their job to begin with...

Second, who do you think is the biggest supplier of weapons into Mexico ---- the US and specifically the State of Texas.

Third, who are the largest consumers of Mexico's drugs --- the US.

Which would all be solved in large part by securing the Southern Border and ending the "Open Border" policy but who are the biggest proponents of "Open Border"? I'm not saying it would solve all of it, but it would put a huge dent in it, or would you deny that? And who is failing to secure the Southern Border? Would that not be Our Government?

It is the fact that we, as a country, respect the fact that our elections are not corrupt.

Oh so now there not corrupt but they were when Bush won Florida? Eithor they are or aren't, which one is it?

And a good portion of us respect the laws of our country.

If a good portion of us respect the laws of this country why do they need to be changed? Do you think that those that don't respect them are just magically going to respect them if the laws are changed?

If Guns are made illigal then the only people that will have guns are oulaws or do you think thats an illogical statement as well?.

You should read the book Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston and see that America is corporate socialist country that is rapidly letting its citizens down in favor of big corporations.

I don't believe that is the governments job to care for me, Provide me with a Living, etc..etc.. therefore the government is not letting me down. If I dont think I'm being paid what I'm worth and the value I have then I will go find an employer that will. I dont expect an employer to pay me for value I'm not earning.

In fact its just the oposite that the people are letting themsleves and teh country down not the other way around. By providing this "Entitlement" atmosphere, the belief that its the responsibilty of the rich and the governemtn to take care of the poor, "Redistribution of wealth", telling employers what they have to pay "Minimum wage", etc... it is the people that are letting each other down by allowing the Need attitude.

I have a reading suggestion for you, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Or how about 1984 by Goerge Orwell.

The killings in Mexico are primarily being committed with guns purchased in America...because America has extremely lax (or no) laws regarding gun purchase so Mexican criminals come to America to buy their weapons. Think of all the innocent people in Mexico that would still be alive if America put any kind of reasonable gun control in effect.

I agree , and a disproportionate amount of those guns were sold by the US Government themselves to the Mexican government for their police and military , so lets restrict the US government from selling arms and leave that to those that are regulated to do it.

The killings in Mexico are primarily being committed with guns purchased in America

...by the Mexican government. Yes, if the Mexican military didn't have any more guns, then the cartels would lose their best supplier.

Wrong...they are being purchased by Mexican criminals from gun dealers in southwestern American states who have little or no restrictions on the type of weapons they can sell. Here's an investigative article about it...

As an unprecedented number of American guns flows to the murderous drug cartels across the border, the identities of U.S. dealers that sell guns seized at Mexican crime scenes remain confidential under a law passed by Congress in 2003.

A year-long investigation by The Washington Post has cracked that secrecy and uncovered the names of the top 12 U.S. dealers of guns traced to Mexico in the past two years.

Eight of the top 12 dealers are in Texas, three are in Arizona, and one is in California. In Texas, two of the four Houston area Carter's Country stores are on the list, along with four gun retailers in the Rio Grande Valley at the southern tip of the state. There are 3,800 gun retailers in Texas, 300 in Houston alone.

...What is different now, authorities say, is the number of high-powered rifles heading south - AR-15s, AK-47s, armor-piercing .50-caliber weapons - and the savagery of the violence.

U.S. Guns Tied to Crime South of the Border

Wrong, they've found less than a fifth of their firearms come from there. Most of them come from Mexico itself or it's southern border.

As the investigation I linked to states...

One investigation showed that 23 traffickers had purchased more than 335 firearms, including 251 rifles, from 10 dealers. One of the suspects bought 14 AK-47s in one day from one dealer.

About one-third of the weapons were traced to incidents in Mexico involving 63 deaths, including those of 18 law enforcement officers. Some of the guns ended up being seized at the site of the "Acapulco Police Massacre," where drug gangsters disguised as soldiers invaded two offices of the state attorney general and killed three investigators, one prosecutor and two secretaries. One gun sold at Carter's Country was recovered 65 days later by police investigating the kidnapping and murder of a businessman.

There is no way that any of this is OK...we as human beings have a responsibility to stop selling deadly assault weapons to criminals.

A June 2009 Government Accountability Office report estimated that trace data was submitted to ATF on less than a quarter of the guns seized in Mexico. Further, most trace requests that are submitted to ATF from Mexico are considered "unsuccessful" because of missing or improperly entered gun data.^{5 Although ATF has provided Mexican law enforcement with training in firearms identification, we found the percentage of total trace requests that succeed has declined since the start of Project Gunrunner. Moreover, few of the traces that do succeed generate usable investigative leads because guns submitted for tracing often were seized by Mexican officials years before the trace requests were submitted.}

http ://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e1101. pdf

Numbers straight from the DOJ the ATFs bosses only 27% of the sucsessful traces , come from the USA? so 1 quarter of the 1 quarter of the mexican seized weapons com from the USA? and they dont differentiate between guns bought at a gun store , or those sold by the US Government....... they must be seizing alotta guns is all I can say.

Didn't Bush/Cheney take care of these with The Patriot Act in 2001?

You're a Beckster ---- I can see the paranoia in you last sentence. Pure Beck talking point!!!

Concerned Citizen: You can't repel an invasion with light arms.

Ban abortions , they didn't allow them in colonial days .

Fine, ban them also.

Hard to defend yourself against someone close with a rifle.

The Second Amendment has been completely misinterpreted.

We were just waiting for you, Iona Trailer, to finally provide the correct interpretation. To bad you didn't speak up earlier because the SCOTUS interprets it differently than you do (individual right). Drats! Next time speak up sooner.

This was written at a time when America had no standing ARMY (militia). Now we have a national army and there are few situations where people need handguns. (If people want to own black powder rifles, that's fine).

Except for the Continental Army. It started on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress and disbanded in 1783. The US Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787. The US Army was officially established on June 3, 1784 (before the US Constitution).

Thanks for being the one to determine what people need for every situation. What ever did we do before you showed up to tell us? BTW, the national Army does not patrol neighborhoods or stand guard outside your residence or provide any other security to citizens in the US. But, you know, since the US Army exists we don't need handguns. Whew! Also, thanks for telling us what is okay to own (black powder rifles). But why rifles and not muskets? Do we really need the better range and accuracy with rifles compared to muskets? Sorry for even questioning your dictate on this.

I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for every yahoo to have a personal arsenal of semi-automatic weapons with zillions of bullets. They weren't that dumb. Unlike many people now.

Because what you think concerning what the Founding Fathers intended is based on what? Maybe you were one in a former life and have been able to recall those previous memories. That must be it. Yeah, our Founding Fathers were the educated elite in a young country whose citizens were not as educated as the citizens we have today.

The NRA upset you ?

No, but purpose is not a noble one.

You hit the nail on the head, or rather the firing pin on the bullet! No citizen needs to own handguns or automatic/semi-automatic weapons except for law enforcement officers. Maybe some stipulation for rare old guns; Dueling pistols. The vision of the NRA watching their hunting videos armed to the hilt....priceless!