Replies

I was trying to make the point that the people of today - the country today - is way different from that of the 1700’s. Not that the Constitution is obsolete. I own firearms, and plan to purchase more. I would not want my right to “Keep and Bear Arms” to be taken away. However, I also do not see where a weapon of this caliber (not just the size, but the scope of the weapon as well) is needed by the civilian populace. Where does any civilian need a weapon which has the range of this one? To defend one’s self from the Government? Not much use is this weapon when a tank is brought in to take someone out, is it? No, we need to be able to keep control over military weapondry through civilian oversight of our military - you know, how things have been in this country since our first elected body of representatives.

Just in case you desire to flame me once again. Take note that I have not said I want a law banning this weapon. You may assume what you will from my comments, but I never stated I wanted the Feds to pass a law regarding gun ownership. I only stated I, personally, would not have a problem with this weapon not being in the hands of civilians. Now, interpret that as you will.

In your first post, you said:

“I would be in support of this weapon not being available for civilian purchase.”

Then you said that you didn’t want a law banning them. Just how would you keep them from being available without a law? And just how would no law be any more effective than any law that does purport to ban guns or people from getting those guns?

Then you really revealed your ignorance of history when you said:

“To defend one’s self from the Government? Not much use is this weapon when a tank is brought in to take someone out, is it?”

Ever hear of the Liberty Pistol? The Warsaw Ghetto?

I would suggest that you do some serious research. You are entitled to your opinion. Your are not entitled to ignore or make up your own facts.

Take note that I have not said I want a law banning this weapon. You may assume what you will from my comments, but I never stated I wanted the Feds to pass a law regarding gun ownership. I only stated I, personally, would not have a problem with this weapon not being in the hands of civilians. Now, interpret that as you will.

My impression of your attitude is that you have no problem with rights being restricted, as long as they are not rights that you personally feel inclined to exercise

How would you respond to a statement to the effect of "I never stated I wanted you assaulted, but would not have a problem with somebody doing so"?

I personally do not hunt. However, I will help defend the rights of those who do. I personally do not feel like burning the American flag, however I will defend the right of those who do (as long as it's their personally-purchased flag, and not mine, that is!). In exchange, I desire that those whose rights I help defend, shall help defend mine

"but I never stated I wanted the Feds to pass a law regarding gun ownership. I only stated I, personally, would not have a problem with this weapon not being in the hands of civilians. Now, interpret that as you will."

Six of one - half dozen of the other.