Guns are NOT toys!

[T.J.]

lol, I heard that song before. My parents are pretty big country buffs, so I was exposed to a lot of country music growing up. Only ones I was ever really drawn to were Garth Brooks and Johnny Cash.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehe, most of it is absolute crap, but there are a few gems.  In context, I'd prefer the minimum of gov interference on this issue because this issue is interwoven into my heritage, my own personal history, and my way of life. I've been defined, sometimes in small parts sometimes in large part, by the rifle in my hands. I've been called a hero for it, and I've been called a villain for it. Some of my earliest memories center around learning to shoot. Some of my best memories come from hunting trips. Some of my worst memories are nothing but the sound of immense amounts of rounds going down (and up) range. Rights of passage, the assumption of manhood, the extension of confidence from respected peers and superiors. The certainty of my spouse that the world would end before harm or hunger befell her children. A memory yet to be made with my own sons and daughters. A tool for teaching them how to handle fear, respect, responsibility...and even taboo.

Imagine seeing ignorant busybodies hundreds of miles away decide on the nature of all of that, because of what some shitty -other- person does....and knowing that whatever they decide, it will be enforced, ultimately.....with guns.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The government is (in theory) obliged to honor and protect your rights. It is not obliged to facilitate your free exercise of them.

[T.J.]

The government is (in theory) obliged to honor and protect your rights. It is not obliged to facilitate your free exercise of them.

Ah, so whether guns are covered by store costs or taxes is irrelevant, then. I understand now.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The costs should be, and are, borne by the gun owner.

[Minimalist]

$300 seems a bit much for a cellphone gun.

I can't wait for the first shit head to blow his brains out making a call.

[Gawdzilla]

Well, ok, I'll bite... Keep the government out of it.  A system where the government supplies the guns is a system where the government could someday NOT supply the guns.  That's the entire premise of the second amendment, to prevent tyranny.

No, it's not. The 2A was meant to allow people to assemble for militia training.

[account_inactive]

$300 seems a bit much for a cellphone gun.

I can't wait for the first shit head to blow his brains out making a call.

That's going to be difficult.

[Disciple]

People have put skulls on everything since I can remember. Skulls are all the time found on cars, motorcycles, tattoos, clothing, candles are even fashioned to look like them. I've even seen a knife with a skull as a handle. But, the moment somebody makes a lower receiver that looks like one the guy who owns it must be a killer, people loose their damned minds hahaha. In the words of Eric Holder, "they have brainwashed people to think about guns in a vastly different way" That's propaganda at work for you. And I don't understand what the obsession with penises is either. If somebody has a nice car, must have a small penis, if somebody has a nice house, must have a small penis, if somebody has a rifle, must have a small penis wtf?  Honestly, I'm not a fan of the skull receiver myself, but I don't think its wrong for somebody to have it either. I'm a huge fan of the AR platform. And the 2nd amendment says you have a right to possess a firearm if you so choose. But it doesn't provide you with one. And it is most certainly in place to combat a tyrannical government.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, ok, I'll bite... Keep the government out of it.  A system where the government supplies the guns is a system where the government could someday NOT supply the guns.  That's the entire premise of the second amendment, to prevent tyranny.

No, it's not. The 2A was meant to allow people to assemble for militia training.

Meh, they could already -assemble- (see the first), but a gaggle of people standing around bitching does not a militia make.  They needed arms.  To what end, you may ask?  Oh...just to fight the perceived tyranny of their oppressors. Now, if I wanted to take a cynical route and disagree, I wouldn't talk about assembly, I'd say that the purpose of the second was to provide those in power with the military force required to impose their own will....without having to go through the trouble of paying for professional soldiers out of pocket. Wiki has this to say

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;[59]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[60][61][62]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

b-mine
Yeah, I can see that one as being especially important to the people who wrote the document, what with being thoroughly outnumbered.