Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.
Are you implying that gun-owning civilians should be funded because they own military-grade assault weapons for absolutely no good reason?
The whole "we need to keep a standing militia" argument is utter nonsense. It sounds like those doomsday-preppers. "if we don't own military-grade assault weapons the federal government that the people elect are going to put us into a tyrannical dictatorship!". But hey those preppers are the crazy ones.
The 2nd amendment was proposed in 1789 when we had no standing army and the government was highly unstable and had little organization.
There have been a multitude of amendments made ever SINCE then, as a result of this country progressing forward. But hey, we need to keep the 2nd amendment set in stone and completely untouched, right? Even though 2 centuries have passed? Even though there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons nor assault rifles?
There are PERFECTLY legitimate reasons for owning pistols. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for owning rifles and semi-automatics. But why would anyone EVER need an automatic weapon, especially military grade automatic weapons and assault rifles? To keep a standing militia where none is needed WHATSOEVER?
Your reasons are archaic and sad. The militia you speak of is no longer necessary. The government has been democratic for 2 and a half centuries. Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun laws yet still remain perfectly democratic. Hoarding these kinds of weapons is not useful in any sense to responsible gun owners and great for those who want to kill large groups of people in very short amounts of time.
Pistols and rifles should be about the only category of weapons people should be allowed to own. Banning assault rifles may stop these people from getting them, and while it won't stop these massacres completely, but it sure as hell is going to help.
|
I lurk here far more than I post but I jumped to the end of this thread and read this and had to reply. I might be beating a dead horse, but, anyway...
If you really live in California, this makes complete sense to me and the Liberal media has done a fine job telling you what to think. Don't take that as a personal jab at you, or anything...plenty of Americans have been brainwashed by the TV, radio and newspapers, including several of my dearest friends and family members.
Let's first address what a "military-grade assault weapon" is. That would be a firarm with a selector switch that is able to fire fully-automatic (press the trigger and the gun will fire continuously, until you take your finger off the trigger or until it runs out of ammunition, with the exception of the M-16A2 and some A4 variants, which fire a three-round burst).
Oh, yes, you can buy full-auto guns in America, as long as you pay the $200 tax and can afford a $5000 (minimum) gun that was made before 1986. Most guns cost more around the $10,000+ mark, since they're now considered collector's arms and antiques.
Of course, you're not talking about those
real assault rifles because you're calling an AR-15 a "military-style" "assault weapon". That's the mainstream media presstitute's codeword for
Scary-Black Gun-That's-Evil; an emotional catchword intended to send fear into the mindset of the typical low-information voter.
Time and time again, people who are for gun-control prove they don't know anything about guns. Another case that proves my point is that you think there's value in Americans owning handguns but not rifles (you later mention rifles and semi-automatics, but an AR-15 is exactly just that--a semi-automatic rifle). I don't understand your logic because the majority of violent crimes that occur in the US involves small-caliber handguns, not AR-15's or the real assault rifles, in inner-city Liberal Gun-Control Utopias. That does not mean I support banning handguns, by the way. I'm only pointing out that you are misguided in thinking that an "assault weapons" ban will stop criminals and gang members from giving political ammunition to our anti-gun politicians and their lapdog media. Fact is, Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" did nothing to stop gun violence and even after Bush allowed it to expire, violent crimes in America decreased, at the bewilderment of several anti-gun Congressmen, who claimed that more guns would turn the streets in America crimson, with the blood of innocents. Funny thing you won't learn from CNN or MSNBC, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals actually drives down crime.
To think that our government could never become so corrupt as to devolve into Tyranny is a pathetic excuse to disarm American law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment was primarily designed to create fear in our politicians, who would likely abandon the Constitution and create rules against the people's will. The precursor to all Tyrannical rule was to disarm the people.
Or, to scale it down to a more local arena, why do the police need AR-15's but I don't? Or, what kind of fire-extinguisher is too big and powerful for me to be allowed to own? I don't
need a Ferrari, that can do more than double the speed-limit, but I should be banned from owning a certain semi-automatic rifle to defend my family's life with?
Have you ever heard of the
Battle of Athens? If you haven't the time to read it, a corrupt Democrat Sheriff in McMinn County, TN was committing voter fraud for a decade. The people, including several veterans of WWII, responded after the Sheriff sent 200 sworn "Deputies" to suppress voters and eventually shot a black citizen for trying to vote. The People responded and several WWII veterans and townsfolk armed themselves and fought against the Tyrant. The deputies eventually surrendered and new laws against voter-fraud were enacted. That is the Second Amendment, in action.
We all got to see Obama, the guy who would bring "Change" to America, pretend to cry on National TV, over the senseless act in Sandy Hook. Nothing more than a knee-jerk emotional response to do something anti-American, immediately after a tragedy that occurred in a state where gun-control is one of the nation's highest priorities.
To President Obama (and his Liberal Defenders), you say you want a "serious" talk about the killing of innocent children? You defend the abortion doctors who murderously suck 150 million children out of the womb, who never have the chance to ever hide under their desks or in the closet, with their protective teachers. And you are being serious?
You want a serious talk about the same guns that you allowed the Mexican Drug Cartel and Syrian terrorist to have, but you don't trust the law-abiding American citizen to own?
I'm thinking now, more than ever, we law-abiders should stock up on guns. The pro-Islamic Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Syria is more important to our "Leader's" diplomacy, abroad, than his Domestic policy to protect Americans against Tyranny, here.
Twitter: MrKangaRoop
Veteran of Desert Storm, MOS: 91-A, Combat Medical Specialist in the US Army, NRA member, proud husband and father of one girl and owner of guns...one of them is an Bushmaster XM-15 that's never killed ANYONE.