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.