But there is nearly as much demand for construction workers.

But that isn't the point. If we spent anymore on healthcare we'd have to raise taxes even more.

Because we put tea where it belongs, in the harbor!

While the government doesn't seem to be trying to oppress us, we never know when it could start. Just look at college campuses where a lot of the colleges are somewhat funded by the government and you have to go to free speech zones instead of just saying your opinion wherever you are in the moment.

Funsubstanceuser, thank you for respectfully pointing out my typo instead of using it against me. But I would like to say that Jihadists are just going to find ways to get semi-automic hand guns even if you ban them (and I would like to remind people that fully automatic guns are restricted to very few people with licenses). And if you say we need background checks for buying guns, we already do. And if you say that because he once was under investigation by the FBI, then I will say you can't take away someone's rights without due process.

Darkanhell, I'm going to point out to you what I have already pointed out to many people in this comment section. This isn't a vigilante or gun problem, it's a mental health and radical Islam problem.

Move to the city of Chicago then. It has the most gun control in the country! I'm sure you'll love it.

In your argument against the second amendment you said that there were guns that could shoot massive amounts of people in a relatively short amount of time. Let me point you the Belton Flintlock Rifle which was capable of shooting 16 or 20 balls in 16, 10 or 5 seconds which the Founding Fathers knew about and commissioned but the deal ended up not going through because the guns were too expensive. Therefore if the Founding Fathers didn't want you to be able to buy those guns they would have specifically outlined it in the Second Amendment. And please tell me then how the First Amendment applies to the Internet.

But she still gets shot and possibly dies instead of her maybe having a gun in her purse that she can use as an equalizer.

No, but what if a mugger pulls an old lady into an ally, how is she going to protect herself?

But that still isn't an excuse for taking the right to keep and bare arms away from citizens.

You said that if they saw anyone with a gun that they would shoot them first. Check.

But under your very own logic he would have shot security first.

But if you have a loaded gun holstered then you just have to turn of the safety and less people get shot.

We did in 1776 and you say that wanting to live if someone attacks me isn't a good enough reason.

But I ask again, is the basic human right to self preservation considered a good enough reason and if the government controls what a good reason is then it will be a lot harder to get the guns needed to over throw them if they become tyrannical.

My point exactly.

Well is self preservation considered a good enough reason?

And he isn't saying that you can't have your opinion, he is just asking why you care if it doesn't affect you one tiny bit.

Pokethebear rebutt everything you said you. Can you read?