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

To: HamiltonJay
Your problem is that these military weapons aren't available to the public. We may have a problem here.

If, and historical debates bear this out, the main object of the 2nd amendment is to insure citizens a means of resisting tyranny from their own government;

and, if that govcernment has weapons far in advance of those available to the citizens;

and, if over a period of years chilled innovation puts the citizens in the position of having arms compared to government arms as muskets to AR-15s,

Then we would be in truly deep doo-doo vis a vis the original purpose of an armed citizentry, don't you think?

79 posted on 04/19/2003 7:05:06 AM PDT by William Terrell (People can exist without government but government can't exist without people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: William Terrell
Yes. We'd be in deep kimchee.
80 posted on 04/19/2003 7:08:32 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: William Terrell
Again, your argument holds no water, any law abiding citizen can get fully automatic military weapons today.

If your concern is that you wish to have equal firepower as the military, and that an "assault" weapon as defined by this law is going to give it to you, you are truly foolish. All those cheap AK's didn't give the Iraqis a fighting chance against the US military, your semi auto, mean looking mac 10 or TEC 9 isn't either.

The assault weapons ban is a joke, everyone who actually looks at it knows its a joke. They banned certain types of weapons, all of which have been reconfigured and are being sold. Its a cosmetic feel good piece of legislation that has had no impact on the ability for citizens to purchase or bear arms with all the functional features of the banned weapons. And the few features you cannot get (ie can't attach a bayonet) can easily be achieved by after market products.

The ban is an ineffective impotent feel good piece of legislation, it does nothing at all to improve or lessen the safety of the populace, or restrict the ability of the populace to buy and own weapons. Because of this, there is no politician who is going to open the hornets nest to get rid of it, because it would simply give the anti gun crowds ammo... its a fight that doesn't need to be fought, and even if it was lifted would not change anything of significance. Why give your oponents the ability to attack and besmerch you over something that really won't change anything even if you win? Its political no mans land.
95 posted on 04/19/2003 7:38:56 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | 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