Replies

“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If the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete because of time, what else is?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?

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that the people of today - the country today - is way different from that of the 1700’s. Not that the Constitution is obsolete.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.