So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700’s with today? Wow. No small stretch for use of logic there. Yeah, there’s no difference today compared to during the 1700’s. Our nation is just the same today as it was back then. We have no problems with border security or illegal immigrants today. We have no enemies which, coming here legally, would then want to be able to purchase weapons that could be used against civilian populations simply for the sake of creating terror. You can justify your position all you want using anedotes from the 1700’s, but that doesn’t mean you have a valid argument in today’s world. You perhaps might also have made a comment that in the late 1700’s the only people allowed to vote were property owners. But, you left that part out. You could also have reported the fact that today almost anyone can find a way to purchase a firearm, but in the 1700’s the only people that had the money to buy the types of weapons you speak of were either property owners or those with the skills to make their own. Not much of a comparison between then and now, now that you take a closer look.
Cool...the 1st ammendment only protects quill pens and printing presses from that era. Nice logic.
Illegals got you down?
Immigrants who are still loyal to enemy causes too?
Read my tagline!
So... common sense has an experation date, eh?
Ecclesiastes 1:9-14
Wow... How’d you make it this long without outting yourself as a DUmmy?
I've seen 'conservatives' like you before and wonder what it is that you think you're actually trying to conserve.
"Oh no, we must ban rifles because some Mexicans might come across the border, buy them, and then shoot us!"
Some great patriot you are. I guess you're one of those country club Republicans that's only in it for the money though you don't really care whose face is on your bills or the reasons why.
You know, there's other political sites on the net where you'd be lots more comfortable with your squishy modernist-moderatism. Go give USA Today or CNN's message boards a try. We're committed to rolling back liberalism here on FR.
Is it lost on you that this is a 100% gun rights forum? We have no use for people who would outlaw semi-automatic rifles here. Please leave.
Ah, the "Living Constitution" argument.
How about you come and play poker at my house then. We can have "living rules" and I get to "interpret" them. Bring lots of cash.
I’ll leave the light on for you...
So should we ban certain weapons because criminals/terrorists might get their hands on them? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather engage somebody at 800-1000 yards, where an AK-47 would be out of range. I could also stop their truck’s engine at half a mile with 2 or 3 regular lead loads.
Why don’t we ban .22caliber pistols because they’re the most widely used by criminals? It’s for the children, you know.
“So, you wish to try and compare the late 1700’s with today?”
Oooh, I have to take a swing at that one.
The entire Bill of Rights dates back to the late 1700s.
If the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete because of time, what else is?
Do you feel that freedom of speech and the press are obsolete? After all, words have incited far more carnage through the ages than firearms.
How about the ban against laws prohibiting the free exercise religion? After all, if it wasn’t for those Islamic wackos, we would not be at war right now. Religion has caused more death and wars than any amount of firearms.
Is the need for an indictment by a grand jury as a prequisite for a criminal charge being filed obsolete? After all, that is merely a late 17th-century concept that makes it harder to put criminals behind bars.
Ditto the right against self-incrimination. The *only* people that benefits are the guilty.
Trial by jury is so expensive. What justification can we use to continue that, given modern realities? Think how its abolition would streamline judiciary procedings.
I could go on, but my point remains — if age alone makes one right obsolete, why doesn’t age put them all at risk?
Sorry pal... A .50BMG rifle isn't going to be used by terrorists to "terrorize" the population. They're too big, heavy, and clumsy. A much smaller rifle in .223 used by a sniper HAS been used for just that purpose. Remember the Washington, DC snipers? If anything, a .50BMG sniper rifle is more of an anti-terrorist weapon than anything else. No, a rifle like this isn't something that we need to be worried about when it comes to terrorists... They tend to plan on a much larger scale.
Mark
That's an argument against ALL guns, not just .50's. Hell, it's an argument against private pilot's lessons. You against those, too?
Right now the binding law, absent a constitutional amdment, is as I have described.
You have provided an argument in support of an amendment to the constitution to limit the scope of the second amendment.
Try to figure out how our form of government is supposed to work.
You sound like a Democrat gun-grabber who believes the Constitution is an expandable living document that’s supposed to “change with the times.”
The Founding Fathers were quite explicit in what they wrote and meant exactly what they said. I don’t care if it’s 1793, 1993, 0r 2093.
If I want to have a 105mm Howitzer in my front yard, a Sherman tank in my driveway, and a couple of 40mm flak guns on my roof that’s MY business, not yours or the governments.
Capisce?
BTW, pass on this citizen’s thanks to your son. He’s heroically defending your Constitutional right to make an ass of yourself with your putrid views on a sacred God-given right.
Moreover, you could apply your ideas to all of the amendments and to the constitution. You believe it is a “living document”. I have to admit I’m not sure why you are a FReeper.