Reply #10: Lets start with the obvious....

[MrBenchley]

CDC and FBI stats do sometimes show variations...

Here's highlights from the CRS report....

http://www.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2003520836.html

"How does letting a citizen buy a .50 caliber "sniper rifle" benefit terrorists"
Wow...you mean you really have to be TOLD that a gun designed to serve as a military anti-materiel weapon is a danger to public safety?

"This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals.
They did? I didnt know that the SCOTUS ruled that individuals do not have the right to own guns."
Don't know WHY you didn't know that. It's not like it hasn't been pointed out here over and over again.

By the way, did you really need to be told AshKKKroft and his GOP idiots fucked up the Lindh case?
"Remember the hullabaloo last week when the Justice Department changed course completely and came out in support of broader Second Amendment rights for private citizens? Well, Lindh's lawyers threw the feds' now-famous footnote back in their faces Wednesday by arguing that any prosecution of Lindh for carrying a weapon while legally acting as a Taliban soldier would violate his gun rights as recognized by federal officials. The idea is that the Second Amendment right the government now says it recognizes ought to trump the federal statute that generates a separate crime of carrying a weapon while committing a crime of violence. It should be fascinating to read what federal prosecutors write in response to the defense argument — and whether the government actually backs off a bit in declaring gun rights so paramount."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/news/opinion/courtwatch/printable509293.shtml