And why should the public have access to these again?

**R13** · November 2nd, 2008, 09:43 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timmyv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if they are not legal people will still get them. That has already been said and proven so banning them would have little to no impact at all. </div></div>

Not really. But like I said... no all wont be off the streets or out of everyones hands, but its a step in the right direction.

**imported_GC1** · November 2nd, 2008, 09:44 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GC1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because I see the 2nd amendment as somewhat outdated. At the time there werent any guns like the ones we have today and IMO I dont think the founding fathers anticipated the advances in weaponry- I've said this a million times. </div></div>

So just how much of the Constitution do you think is outdated? Let's just let you re-write it all. </div></div>

We are talking the 2nd. </div></div>

Why stop there, once you get rid of the 2nd it would be safe to surrender and change the rest. No one could oppose you then. Oh, wait. We can all run out with our pop guns and intimidate.

**R13** · November 2nd, 2008, 09:48 PM

Geez, I am not saying ban all guns. I just dont think the public should have access to some.

**timmy_v** · November 2nd, 2008, 09:51 PM

Fully automatic guns already require a permit to own but that still doesnt stop them from being owned.

**imported_ut1** · November 2nd, 2008, 09:58 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timmyv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fully automatic guns already require a permit to own but that still doesnt stop them from being owned. </div></div>
And that permit is not for the average Joe, as it is very expensive. The tragedy would have been avoided and this thread would never have happened had one Dad used a little common sense. An 8 year old is barely capable of handling a .22 or .410 shotgun, and has absolutely NO business with a full cranked Uzi. I'm surprised he didn't accidently take out a few people in the process.
In trained hands, there's nothing wrong with a full auto used in legal activities by law abiding citizens.

**timmy_v** · November 2nd, 2008, 10:00 PM

Well i didnt read down far enough on the article. Apparently any fully automatic weapons are not legally able to be owned by citizens if they were made after 1986.

**Monkeyhead** · November 2nd, 2008, 10:02 PM

There are a few people in this area who are able to purchase the fully auto guns if I am not mistaken.

**timmy_v** · November 2nd, 2008, 10:03 PM

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

According to that any guns made after they passed that act could not be legally owned by any citizens.

**sup-rbeast** · November 2nd, 2008, 11:13 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: timmyv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So i 22 shot wont kill u just as fast as an uzi if u get shot in the head? Wow u become more and more ignorant everyday. </div></div>I'd be willing to bet that if you were in the army at war and told to take a hill, you'd much rather have an automatic or semiautomatic weapon than you would a 22....why?, cuz you can kill more folks faster. That argument makes no sense.