|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:27 am
Assault weapons ban pursuedI think this is great, there is absolutely no need as a civilian to own a fully automatic, they are not hunting weapons and are designed only for killing. I think it is a very smart move on Obama's part to pursue this legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:02 am
Why Not?
2nd Amendment was made in case teh governments oversteps its boundaries.
I'd Rather have a automatic weapon against another automatic weapon.
Also the ban will not do anything.
If one really wanted to get one they could simply get one.
It would be like me saying just because Marijuana is illegal does not mean I can get it
When we all know I could go down the street and get some.
Though I do not do Marijuana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:33 am
I agree. You've hit on the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. most people think that the populace should not be as well armed as the police.....but that is actually the whole point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:01 am
mr_zoot I agree. You've hit on the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. most people think that the populace should not be as well armed as the police.....but that is actually the whole point. You're right, but I believe it goes even further than that. The 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. Arms encompasses more than just guns, it includes tanks, missiles, bombs, and fighter aircraft. The idea was that the people would have the same arsenel in their barn (or garage, to use the modern equivilant,) as the military had. The idea that the 2nd amendment is limited to guns, and not all guns, but just certain types of guns, was created by a government that feared a truly armed populace. If we ever get to the day where an A-1 Abrams rolls into Times Square, your registered handgun won't be enough to stop it. In any real confrontation, the people are going to be seriously outgunned. I know it sounds crazy, but I prefer to think of it as "thinking outside the box," the box being the notion that the 2nd amendment is limited only to guns. But since that is the reality, we should try to keep as many types of guns as possible available to us. Thats why I oppose this legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:55 pm
Priestess_Kelina mr_zoot I agree. You've hit on the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. most people think that the populace should not be as well armed as the police.....but that is actually the whole point. You're right, but I believe it goes even further than that. The 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. Arms encompasses more than just guns, it includes tanks, missiles, bombs, and fighter aircraft. The idea was that the people would have the same arsenel in their barn (or garage, to use the modern equivilant,) as the military had. The idea that the 2nd amendment is limited to guns, and not all guns, but just certain types of guns, was created by a government that feared a truly armed populace. If we ever get to the day where an A-1 Abrams rolls into Times Square, your registered handgun won't be enough to stop it. In any real confrontation, the people are going to be seriously outgunned. I know it sounds crazy, but I prefer to think of it as "thinking outside the box," the box being the notion that the 2nd amendment is limited only to guns. But since that is the reality, we should try to keep as many types of guns as possible available to us. Thats why I oppose this legislation. While I agree with you, One can not blame the goverment for fearing tyhe populace after the south though that the could take on the north and 600,000 dead people later learned their lesson showing slight draw backs to a fully armed populace. Americans should be armed but having the same as the millitary is a bit extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:50 pm
James628 Priestess_Kelina mr_zoot I agree. You've hit on the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. most people think that the populace should not be as well armed as the police.....but that is actually the whole point. You're right, but I believe it goes even further than that. The 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. Arms encompasses more than just guns, it includes tanks, missiles, bombs, and fighter aircraft. The idea was that the people would have the same arsenel in their barn (or garage, to use the modern equivilant,) as the military had. The idea that the 2nd amendment is limited to guns, and not all guns, but just certain types of guns, was created by a government that feared a truly armed populace. If we ever get to the day where an A-1 Abrams rolls into Times Square, your registered handgun won't be enough to stop it. In any real confrontation, the people are going to be seriously outgunned. I know it sounds crazy, but I prefer to think of it as "thinking outside the box," the box being the notion that the 2nd amendment is limited only to guns. But since that is the reality, we should try to keep as many types of guns as possible available to us. Thats why I oppose this legislation. While I agree with you, One can not blame the goverment for fearing tyhe populace after the south though that the could take on the north and 600,000 dead people later learned their lesson showing slight draw backs to a fully armed populace. Americans should be armed but having the same as the millitary is a bit extreme. Actually, that war was case in point. The South thought that the Federal Government was overstepping its authority, and decided to break ties with it. The war was mainly a conflict of between the Government and the people who lived in the Southern States. The end result, the government using military force to subjegate the people. If anything, it proves that when push comes to shove, the Government will use every weapon at its disposal to hang on to its power, and if we don't have the weapons to counteract them, there is no way to stop them from becoming an oppressive, authoritarian body. Oh, and on an unrelated note, the Civil war is commonly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" here in the South. Just thought you should know that for future reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:10 pm
Priestess_Kelina James628 Priestess_Kelina mr_zoot I agree. You've hit on the true purpose of the 2nd amendment. most people think that the populace should not be as well armed as the police.....but that is actually the whole point. You're right, but I believe it goes even further than that. The 2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. Arms encompasses more than just guns, it includes tanks, missiles, bombs, and fighter aircraft. The idea was that the people would have the same arsenel in their barn (or garage, to use the modern equivilant,) as the military had. The idea that the 2nd amendment is limited to guns, and not all guns, but just certain types of guns, was created by a government that feared a truly armed populace. If we ever get to the day where an A-1 Abrams rolls into Times Square, your registered handgun won't be enough to stop it. In any real confrontation, the people are going to be seriously outgunned. I know it sounds crazy, but I prefer to think of it as "thinking outside the box," the box being the notion that the 2nd amendment is limited only to guns. But since that is the reality, we should try to keep as many types of guns as possible available to us. Thats why I oppose this legislation. While I agree with you, One can not blame the goverment for fearing tyhe populace after the south though that the could take on the north and 600,000 dead people later learned their lesson showing slight draw backs to a fully armed populace. Americans should be armed but having the same as the millitary is a bit extreme. Actually, that war was case in point. The South thought that the Federal Government was overstepping its authority, and decided to break ties with it. The war was mainly a conflict of between the Government and the people who lived in the Southern States. The end result, the government using military force to subjegate the people. If anything, it proves that when push comes to shove, the Government will use every weapon at its disposal to hang on to its power, and if we don't have the weapons to counteract them, there is no way to stop them from becoming an oppressive, authoritarian body. Oh, and on an unrelated note, the Civil war is commonly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" here in the South. Just thought you should know that for future reference. I live in Texas I know what its called here, however its the federal goverment had every right to stop the south considering they were capaigning for liberty while keeping a third of their population in chains, and they fired on a federal fort. Im a yankee living in the south so I refer to it as the war of northern awesomeness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:09 am
James628 Priestess_Kelina James628 While I agree with you, One can not blame the goverment for fearing tyhe populace after the south though that the could take on the north and 600,000 dead people later learned their lesson showing slight draw backs to a fully armed populace. Americans should be armed but having the same as the millitary is a bit extreme. Actually, that war was case in point. The South thought that the Federal Government was overstepping its authority, and decided to break ties with it. The war was mainly a conflict of between the Government and the people who lived in the Southern States. The end result, the government using military force to subjegate the people. If anything, it proves that when push comes to shove, the Government will use every weapon at its disposal to hang on to its power, and if we don't have the weapons to counteract them, there is no way to stop them from becoming an oppressive, authoritarian body. Oh, and on an unrelated note, the Civil war is commonly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" here in the South. Just thought you should know that for future reference. I live in Texas I know what its called here, however its the federal goverment had every right to stop the south considering they were capaigning for liberty while keeping a third of their population in chains, and they fired on a federal fort. Im a yankee living in the south so I refer to it as the war of northern awesomeness. They were not campaighing for Liberty, they were campaighning for the power of State governments to decide things for themselves, which had been granted to them by the tenth amendment. And while they did fire on a federal fort, that fort was within territory that had broken ties with the United States, and thus was being held by a foreign nation, in their eyes. It was no different than George Washington and the Continental army attacking a British fort during the Revolution. All in all, the Federal Government started that war by overreaching its bounds, and used the military when the people tried to resist Federal Power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
