Posted on 04/13/2009 10:12:45 AM PDT by presidio9
Ya gotta roll that proverbial ball. The topic of this article is as dead a cliche as the article itself.
I think this fellow needs to stop smoking crack.
Then, you really need to see the movie “Crazy People”, where Dudley Moore and asylum inmates come up with some very funny ad campaigns.
Particularly, and advertisement for Jaguar that really resounds with men.
You beat me to it - I was about to say something similar, such as:
The Second Amendment guarantees our individual right to keep and bear (carry) arms. It does not address at all the issue of arms which are designed to bear (carry) us... /g
(He forgot a word.)
This author’s lament is a direct result of the sneaky and underhanded anti-gun agenda. Maybe gun owners would acquiesce to a few “reasonable” restrictions....if they didn’t know for a fact that the endgame of those pushing this agenda is an outright ban. Would a cow take a few “reasonable” steps toward the slaughterhouse?
Where to begin? I would almost have to address every sentence. Most are fundamentally flawed in logic.
Here is a snippet, “logic of freelance survivalists in government or the gun lobby is made ridiculous by the blood sacrifice all around us.” When responding to the anti-human rights arguments, we often must respond to statements that are so obviously wrong, nearly opposite from reality and sense, that we are concerned that any response we make will not be understood in fear that the person making the statement does not understand even basic concepts or logic. The blood sacrifice is being made by victims of criminals and insane people. Such sacrifices are made more likely by the defenseless nature of the victims. It is so obvious that even low forms of life have defense mechanisms and must use them to the best of their abilities, that it is stunning to read someone claim that individuals who choose to defend themselves in an effective manner, are a threat. It makes no sense.
In the article, the writer makes an analogy between fighter jets and assault weapons and implies that no regular person should have either AND claims this is not about self-defense. That is a rather bizarre argument given the writer mentions the insanity killings in which handguns (the basic tool of self-defense) were used. Those killings didn’t have anything to do with “assault weapons”.
Crouch also claims the Constitution does not state what a lot of people think it states. Gun owners know what the Constitution states—gun owners know the Constitution—they know it doesn’t imply what S. Crouch is trying to imply.
The writer ends by hoping that some mega-rich bad guys step up to crush the self-defense freedom regular folks. S. Crouch is solidly in the pen with evil.
By the way, how are those tens of thousands of gun laws working? You really don’t care, do you S. Crouch? This is all about creating a myth so the population will clamor to have their rights removed, isn’t it S. Crouch? Are you honest enough to admit it?
You have to register to reply there, so I’ll have to reply here instead. I hope Mr. Crouch lurks here.
You are apparently assuming that taking my guns away will make you or someone else safer. Well, it will make the criminals who choose to target me safer, and Obama’s civilian security force safer. But how will it make you safer?
What will it do to disarm criminal individuals or gangs? Nothing. They never have obeyed the law.
Should I be forced out of the law-abiding-citizen category by declining to give up my second amendment rights, will you or other law abiding citizens be in any danger? Or do you intend to be one of the ones at risk, Obama’s new version of the SA?
The second amendment is specifically targeted at out of control government, that is why statists such as yourself are uncomfortable with it.
If a citizen wants and can afford a fully armed military aircraft, it is none of my business; I will not be the one trampling his rights to the point where he feels the necessity to use it.
I think Travolta DOES have a fighter plane..actually.
Then of course there was the Cessna T37 "Tweety Bird" 
With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.
Don't bring a c note to a gun fight...
Actually not. There are planes that are not allowed for domestic consumption. Even if you have the money ($240,000,000) you are not allowed to buy a sukhoi su 25, 27, 34, etc. and the Russians won't sell you one. Even some of the outdated US stuff such as the OV-10D is forbidden to us citizens. You can buy an unarmed YAK from russia, but I understand that they've stopped producing those due to lack of demand.
I am done with arguing the point. Come and try to take them.
[click click]
John Travolta owns a MiG-29.
Buying a GE MiniGun and mounting it thereon would not be a problem, given a couple forms and a $200 tax.
What high school newspaper did this editorial appear in?
Well, if anyone is familiar with flawed logic, it’s this guy.
Notice the author’s reference to “reasonable” restrictions being met with slippery slope arguments and people getting their backs up out of a paranoia that all gun rights will be removed if we give them an inch.
I wonder where this person stands on partial birth abortion, born alive infant protection, parental notification, etc...
I’m betting they oppose all of those as if they each were a foot in the door to ban abortion.
The point was whether US law would/could prohibit such a purchase, given a manufacturer (such items ARE made domestically) and enough money. As I just noted above, Travolta _does_ own a MiG, and buying & mounting suitable armament is mostly just a matter, again, of money & seller availability.
The challenge was purchase of items in a general category, not specific models thereof which suffer contractual, not legal, restrictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.