Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/10/2001 9:59:27 AM EDT
So I get so tired of everyone saying that the constitution preserves the right of citizens (a well equiped Militia or whatever) the right to own assault weapons. That's just plain BS. My interpretation of the intent of the ammendment is that we are supposed to have equivelent weapons to the country's military. So instead of just a couple of AK-47s or M-16s lying around the house, we should have anti-aircraft batteries, SAMs, tanks, flamethrowers, and maybe, just maybe, a couple of ICBMS. And I'm sick as hell of not having anything hanging off of the pylons of my B-52. I'd like to at least have a few ACMs. I mean gees, that's what it was supposed to be all about. With the way that we're supposed to be equipped, according to the government, all we have is pea-shooters. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED!!!
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:03:32 AM EDT
ok ok relax, cut down on the cappucino.... let's all stay rational here....
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:04:10 AM EDT
Well, the Founding Fathers could certainly own any military weapon or weapon system they could afford. "assault rifles", cannon, ships, you name it.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:09:23 AM EDT
I have always thought that we were supposed to have all small arms that the military has. M203, MK19's, RPG-7's, FN P-90's, M240 SAW's, etc. The idea of the 2nd Amendment is the same idea between the House of Reps and the Senate= to Balance the Power. This is why the Gov. wants to take away your "assault weapons" since these types of weapons pose the biggest threat to their power, even though these types of weapons are being used in less than 1% of gun related crimes. Clearly "assault weapons" are not a threat to public safety nor have they ever been, but the Government feels threatened so this is why they ban them. Perhaps if they weren't doing so many corrupt activities they would not need to feel so threatened but instead they use their SS Guard er' I mean ATF to make examples of those who resist. They want us to believe that if we resist they can wipe us out in horrible measures- this however is not true. If we resisted our shear numbers and knowledge coupled with our veterans' skills would more than prove to be an adversary far greater than our Governments ability.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:12:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/10/2001 10:12:22 AM EDT by 7]
Who wants to resist and possibly miss [b]MUST SEE TV![/b] [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:13:52 AM EDT
And the first Amendment doesn't REALLY mean you are free to speak against your gov't. [rolleyes] And the unorganized militia should quit whining that we only let them own flintlocks in the 21st Century.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:17:20 AM EDT
I'll second it all.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:29:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:38:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: And the first Amendment doesn't REALLY mean you are free to speak against your gov't. [rolleyes]
View Quote
Actually, the First Amendment does not allow you to criticize a federal judge. Everyone else in the government is fair game. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 10:54:02 AM EDT
what's the job market like for recent computer science graduates in Switzerland?
Originally Posted By DVDTracker: Too bad you weren't born in Switzerland. To quote The Seven Myths of Gun Control, pg. 72
In addition, the government sells antitank weapons, howitzers, antiaircraft guns, cannons and various types of machine guns to the public.
View Quote
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 11:00:26 AM EDT
The 2nd Amendment only refers to assault rifles/firearms, period. Being armed is the best and only way to ensure liberty. It is just another Check in our system of Checks and Balances. Hunting with a firearm was a real necessity back in the day but notice that there is no mention of putting food on the table anywhere in the 2nd or the bill of rights. Food won't mean very much when you are rotting away in a political/feudal concentration camp. The FF's weren't stupid, they knew that advances in firearms were coming. There were many examples of 18th century multi-barrel and roman candle type repeating firearms. They didn't work very well but they were signs of things to come. It's not necessarily the type of gun that's important, it's all semantics. They all fire bullets, some faster, some bigger some faster. It's what the guns are meant to do that counts. Prevent tyranny. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights is nothing but a paper tiger with no teeth.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 11:01:03 AM EDT
"I have always thought that we were supposed to have all small arms that the military has. M203, MK19's, RPG-7's, FN P-90's, M240 SAW's, etc. The idea of the 2nd Amendment is the same idea between the House of Reps and the Senate= to Balance the Power. This is why the Gov. wants to take away your "assault weapons" since these types of weapons pose the biggest threat to their power, even though these types of weapons are being used in less than 1% of gun related crimes. Clearly "assault weapons" are not a threat to public safety nor have they ever been, but the Government feels threatened so this is why they ban them. Perhaps if they weren't doing so many corrupt activities they would not need to feel so threatened but instead they use their SS Guard er' I mean ATF to make examples of those who resist. They want us to believe that if we resist they can wipe us out in horrible measures- this however is not true. If we resisted our shear numbers and knowledge coupled with our veterans' skills would more than prove to be an adversary far greater than our Governments ability." POSTED BY CREEPER The problem is all those mommies out there that have kids who got shot then later are watching TV and see these "evil" weapons and think that it was what was used on their baby. Ooooh, they're soooooo scary... And then some mommy on a campaign gets all these people feeling sorry and they say "okay" and then you lose your freedom. It's hard to stop a grieving mommy or wife. And don't say, "It's easy, you just don't lead them as much." Har har har. But seriously, I have heard so many liberal say, "When the 2nd ammendment was written, our founding fathers didn't know that assault weapons would exist." That is BS. They have every bit of forthought that advances in technology would occur. That's like saying, "Hey, they're idiots but lets consider them really intelligent for all the things that I agree with." These guys are idiots (the libs). When the ammendment was written, you could have anything that the military had and that's true today as well, at least that's what the intent was. Now I'm realistic and I don't necessarily think that I ought to have a nuclear (nucular in TX) but we sure as hell shouldn't have to give up assault weapons. Yikes!!! what a rip-off.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 11:40:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By creeper, then retrodog: "I have always thought that we were supposed to have all small arms that the military has.
View Quote
Humph. Popguns compared to what the average third-world military and air force have to resist that. Good luck trying to resist the US military if they ever decide to go against the Constitution.
The idea of the 2nd Amendment is the same idea between the House of Reps and the Senate= to Balance the Power.
View Quote
Yep. A mutual stand-off.
The problem is all those mommies out there that have kids who got shot then later are watching TV and see these "evil" weapons and think that it was what was used on their baby. Ooooh, they're soooooo scary...
View Quote
"Lies, lies, lies- keep telling the people nothing but lies, and pretty soon they'll start believing them" - --JOSEF GOEBBELS
And then some mommy on a campaign gets all these people feeling sorry and they say "okay" and then you lose your freedom. ...
View Quote
They have no problem giving up these freedoms, because they don't exercise these freedoms anyway. It's no skin off their noses and it makes them FEEL safer. They won't actually BE safer, but part of liberal socialism's appeal is the joy of altruistic self-denial, which is of course, a crock, because they are giving up nothing they care about....
(snip)Now I'm realistic and I don't necessarily think that I ought to have a nuclear (nucular in TX) but we sure as hell shouldn't have to give up assault weapons.
View Quote
You don't want non-military people to have nuclear weapons. On the surface that sounds reasonable. But examine it a bit more closely. People already do have nuclear weapons, or at least the materials and knowledge on how to build them. Plenty of terrorists and "rogue nations" or the average college kid, with the right materials, could make a dirty, inefficient (but good enough) bomb to wipe out and radiate a small city. The threat of imprisonment doesn't seem to faze them. I hope the US Govt stays responsible in its use of its weaponry and does not use them on its citizens, but there are no guarantees on it, are there? As long as that is the case, citizens should be armed accordingly. I am long past wanting to appear "realistic" , saying we can have assault rifles, but not big military weapons. We can't have this- we can't have that- soon enough, we will be allowed to have only a single shot hunting rifle with no sights and about ten rounds of ammo, once we have undergone a background check and previous domestic partners have okayed it. Sound crazy? Just wait. The latter half of the last sentence has already become part of Canadian govt'l. firearms licencing, and the former is advocated by Prof. Amitai Etzioni, of the Communitarian movement. How soon before this stuff becomes law here? And someday- we won't even have hunting guns, let alone defensive weapons that could cause mass destruction. But- the govt. will. Once we acknowledge that governments should dictate to their citizens what sort of property they should own, and that only the government ought have exclusive rights to lethal weapons of various types, and not the people, then the game is up. Government is here to do our bidding- and not the other way around.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 11:50:12 AM EDT
An assault rifle: A weapon capable of a selective rate of fire, i.e. off, semi-auto and full auto. Now if the newspapers only understood this definition.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 12:05:17 PM EDT
I dont understand why the goverment has to be more powerfull then the people it represents. If a country is treating its people right it has nothing to worry about.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 1:51:21 PM EDT
What`s an "assault" weapon?..........[smoke]
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 2:03:42 PM EDT
Assault rifles are 'technically' based on the Sturmgewer 44. Storm Rifle or Assault Rifle. The first time that term was coined. Magazine fed, medium sized rifle caliber, light weight, high capacity, select fire.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 2:05:02 PM EDT
An Assault Rifle is a rifle used to commit assault. I don't have one of those... I do however have an assault hammer, and an assault rock. Heck, I even have assault fists. They don't even have to be reloaded.
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 3:22:18 PM EDT
Let’s put it this way: If the Chinese students had the right to meet force with equal force, and used arms (small, medium, heavy) to fight off tanks, they would not have been run over. The right to arm yourself against tyrants is equal to their ability to subjugate. Yes, the founding fathers understood this and your right to defend yourself against tyrants extends to any weapon. With the proper permits, you can have most any weapon in the government arsenal.
Originally Posted By retrodog: So I get so tired of everyone saying that the constitution preserves the right of citizens (a well equiped Militia or whatever) the right to own assault weapons. That's just plain BS. My interpretation of the intent of the ammendment is that we are supposed to have equivelent weapons to the country's military. So instead of just a couple of AK-47s or M-16s lying around the house, we should have anti-aircraft batteries, SAMs, tanks, flamethrowers, and maybe, just maybe, a couple of ICBMS. And I'm sick as hell of not having anything hanging off of the pylons of my B-52. I'd like to at least have a few ACMs. I mean gees, that's what it was supposed to be all about. With the way that we're supposed to be equipped, according to the government, all we have is pea-shooters. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED!!!
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/10/2001 5:20:46 PM EDT
Fuck it
Link Posted: 9/11/2001 6:35:01 AM EDT
there's an interesting article in the Sept.10 issue of SHotgun news that (sorta') discusses this.
Link Posted: 9/11/2001 8:16:59 AM EDT
The Kentucky or Pensylvania rifle are an accurate one shot, one deer hunting rifle. The Brown Bess is a quicker to reload, volley muskett....an assault rifle. Now personal armor is an option, I would like a Ferret.
Link Posted: 9/11/2001 8:49:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 95thFoot: You don't want non-military people to have nuclear weapons.
View Quote
Hell, I don't want governments to have them either. . . .
On the surface that sounds reasonable. But examine it a bit more closely. People already do have nuclear weapons, or at least the materials and knowledge on how to build them.
View Quote
But not the capability. Plutonium is toxic as can be, and uranium is pretty nasty too. "Rogue nation", maybe; college kid or terrorist group, no way, not in the near future.
Top Top