I don't understand how I contradicted myself,...there has got to be a reasonable cutoff on the type and scope of arms allowed to the everyday citizen, and I acknowledged because of the limitation, it isn't a goal or sole reason to be on par with military weaponry (it isn't for me...), but I included a side positive aspect of this right is the DETERRENT against improbable governmental tyranny or social chaos...The hope is the deterrent of 10 million+ firearm owners will be an issue against this unlikely breakdown...as simple as that.
My biggest concern with automatic assault riffles is how it affects policemen. I understand that they back this rule because often times they find themselves out-manned and out-powered by criminals during shoot-outs with better weapons. Though this law has not stopped criminals from owning or possesing "illegal weapons". I still believe many peole including the NRA missunderstand the 2nd ammendment. I see this from the perspective of the reasons that prompted the "founding fathers" to adopted the gun/rifle right. It was included in the constitution in major part because constant conflicts the "inhabitant of America" in the hands of indians and the slaves. The insurrections of led by southern slaves especially Nat Turner's led insurrection changed the south forever. Lessons learned from those events strengthened the resolve of many southerners to insist on the gun rights for defense (muskets for that matter. My take here is that if the founding fatherscould see as far as today, they would have supported this ban by at least 60% votes.
My contention is against automatic weapons, unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the whole picture and this issue is blurred when talk arises about the ban...(which does not address automatic weapons) If you read my prior post (on page 2), you would see how I highlighted trivial nuisances that are banned, which do not address lethality...19 firearms of foreign manufacture were banned due to idiotic notions... and yes, you can hunt with a semi-automatic AK47 with a limited 5 round magazine...An AR15 is mainly a sporting firearm best applied to small varmints... The Springfield Armory M1A in .308 with a 22 inch barrel and legal flash suppressor is existing now, because it doesn't have a silly so called 3rd "evil" feature such as a pistol grip or bayonet lug...but guess what? It doesn't "look" as "evil" as your Bushmaster XM15 in .223, but it packs a much meaner punch, and one is able to obtain 20 round high quality pre-ban magazines without a problem...The .308 in FMJ, or in the military called 7.62 X 51mm is effective to 800 meters and can smash through 2 cinder blocks lined together ( Itried this, btw),...the AR15, more abhorred cannot do this...The selction of semi automatic firearms chosen for banishment is based on rationale that don't make sense, and is therefore inapplicable where all semi-automatic firearms are ignorantly judged...
Exactly. Like I said earlier, the Dems picked them out of a catalog based on their appearance. I know a lot of libs would say...so? But the retort to that is when you don't even bother to research the topic and just at the last minute scramble through catalogs to find guns that "look" deadly, it shows that it was nothing more than cheap political ploy. Eventually liberals seek to ban all weapons and this was just the start for them. Just look at their attitude toward the 2nd Amendment! I have both of those weapons you mentioned and you're right, the 7.62 is a nasty, nasty round with a ton of hitting power, while the euphemism with the 5.56 is "wound ballistics."
So in other words, the 2nd Amendment is based on every liberal's favorite smear.....racism! Give me a break.
.....so instead of getting to minutiae about pistol grips and bayonet mounts, let's just ban semi-automatic weapons altogether. Then we can say whether or not it makes us safer.
Can anyone here tell me countries that use gun control or have some kind of modified gun control and compare their stats on crimes to ours? I know England had it, but I think they have gone to a modified gun control system.
HeeHaw, why dont ya drop the straw-man arguments and actually address the debate the grown-ups are having here I, nor anyone I've seen here has even whispered that they want to ban all weapons, so your continued parading of that view is stupid and a waste of time What do you consider a reasonable restriction? or is your postion that the 2nd amendment gives you unlimited rights?
Ridiculous. Why is that necessary when it only disarm law-abiding citizens? Lemme guess, it makes people "safer." Yeah, right. If you choose not to defend yourself, that's fine. Don't infringe upon my right to self-defense. As for Chump's ridiculous assertion that the ultimate goal of the looney left is to ban guns, try on for size some of these quotes from prominent liberals: You were saying, Chump? It just starts at a semi-auto ban. There will be some other school shooting and the bleeding hearts will say "We must get rid of all the guns. Do it for the children!" And that is how it will happen. Then only criminals and govt will have guns. And how do you liberals intend to keep guns out of the hands of criminals then? By their very nature, they definitely won't and aren't following the gun laws we have on the books. What makes you think every predator will turn in their weapons? When you disarm the public as you loons intend to do, you create a victim-rich environment. And frankly, I'd much rather take personal responsibilty for my own defense than pray some cop can answer my 9/11 call in less than 30 minutes. I don't have a problem with background checks or banning missiles and machine guns. But semi-auto weapons? Gimme a break.
If you look at the experiences at Waco and the MOVE compound in Philadelphia you would need a lot more than semi-automatic rifles and pistols to provide a reasonable deterrent against the Fed or even or local gov.. Also see my example regarding Iraq where prior to the invasion almost every Iraqi was armed with not just semi-autos but fully automatic Kalishnikovs but were still unable to use those to overthrow what all of us will agree was a tyrannical gov..
The 2nd Ammendment predates the Nat Turner insurrection and the right to bear arms was wanted by Northern non-slave states also at the time of the writing of the Constitution. From Federalist Paper 29 the right to bear arms is pretty clearly described as allowing states to form their own militias instead of having their own standing armies or police forces. These militias would both protect the state from internal and external threats that could include a tyrannical Fed. Gov.. As I side note I've often wondered why arms for personal self-defense or hunting wasn't mentioned in the Federalist papers or the language of the 2nd Ammendment and the best I can guess is that at the time that was taken for granted that people would use arms for those purposes.
what about this guy who just got captured today who was responsible for the Ohio highway shootings? He used a semi-automatic gun on his victims.
Bammaslammer; Its a good quote FYI Thomas Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and had no official say in the drafting of the 2nd Ammendment.
I was interested to see where the 2nd Ammendment state v individual rights discussion would go. Apparently, nowhere. Too bad.
You're not being disarmed. You and your shotguns and hunting rifles and your .44 magnum are safe and sound. What's the matter, do you really need a freaking submachine gun or assault rifle to defend your home? Tell me bama, when you are defending your home nightly from various intruders, do you have to stoop to using a 3 or 5 round burst, spraying lead in the air like rambo? I would think that an ex military individual such as yourself would be competent enough to disable any intruders with one or two shots, and not have to lay down covering fire with your Mac-10 while Mrs. Slammer outflanks the intruders with a tactical shotgun.
There's no such thing as semi-auto shotguns & hunting rifles? News to me. How much difference is there in a semi-auto & revolving cylinder handgun? Shouldn't we ban those too?
