Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: holymoly

"Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.

Should these automatic weapons be legal?

NO. No, no, no. "

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

'Single shot' guns were the 'weapon of the day' and were perfectly legal to own (cannons too).

Since that time, 'automatic weapons' and 'semi-automatic' weapons have become the 'weapon of the day'.


Liberals are always talking about the 'evolving' Constitution. But when it comes the Second Amendment, they just seem to want to leave that in the 'past'.


15 posted on 09/30/2005 10:59:12 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Bigh4u2

What would George Washington have given for a platoon with M-16's and a double basic ammo load? Sheesh!


47 posted on 09/30/2005 11:16:25 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Bigh4u2
Liberals are always talking about the 'evolving' Constitution. But when it comes the Second Amendment, they just seem to want to leave that in the 'past'.

Point well taken. I suppose the anti's would allow a flintlock, but outlaw the blunderbuss.

FMCDH(BITS)

62 posted on 09/30/2005 11:47:02 AM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Bigh4u2
Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose. Should these automatic weapons be legal?

Per this guy's argument, we could also then make a case for banning speech on the internet, and newspapers printed on a high-speed press. After all, the violence after the release and worldwide publication of more Abu Ghraib photos will kill quite a few more people than the sale of a Glock.
99 posted on 09/30/2005 2:51:18 PM PDT by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Bigh4u2
Automatic weapons are over rated unless you are talking about machine guns like the M-240. Rifles like the M-16 on full auto simply waste good ammunition if you are over 20 meters away. Full automatic has such few practical purposes with shoulder fired rifles.


7.62 x 51 M-240

Now sound suppressed rifles are something very practical. Too bad they are heavily regulated.

126 posted on 10/01/2005 6:46:45 PM PDT by 2nd_Amendment_Defender ("It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." -- Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson