Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They never intended for there to be a standing army, either.
They never intended there to be any other law enforcement other than elected sheriffs and elected judges, with juries from the community.
They most certainly intended the people to have anything it took, to defend the nation and their own property. Bearing arms, does not just mean a gun. Only a very ignorant person would even think that, it only meant a firearm.
I don't think people need semiauto rifles and borderline military weapons to defend themselves from other citizens. A pistol would work fine. If you're hunting, fine, use a rifle. But who puts meat on the table with an AR-15?
For those of you who think the right to bear arms would help you in a fight against the government:
If the government really wants to kill you, they would. And you won't stop them. Your bullets would bounce off a tank. You wouldn't even know what happened, and then bam, a crater and you just got turned into dust. You cannot take down an Apache gunship with an AR-15. Pistol rounds can be stopped dead by modern body armor.
The AR is one of the most popular modern hunting rifles today. It comes in over 20 different calibers and you can hunt all N American game animals with it. I use mine for Deer and hogs.
I know where there is an old Sherman, for sale. It is pretty rusted up.
You missed my point. It's crazy to think you can allow civilians to just buy any and all weapons.
Not to mention one M1 Abrams can take out as many Shermans as it wants, as long as you give it ammo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
The AR is one of the most popular modern hunting rifles today. It comes in over 20 different calibers and you can hunt all N American game animals with it. I use mine for Deer and hogs.
Okay, I'm sorry. I was mistaken. But I still believe you don't need one of those just for self-defense.
No, I don't expect it to happen. But if it does, it is nice that I can have the proper tool to sort out the situation.
Please feel free to take the steps that you think are necessary for your own safety and protection. All I ask is that you afford me the same right.
Except that same right jeopardizes my rights, if you abuse it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute; freedom of the press isn't absolute; freedom to organize isn't absolute; why should gun control be different? Especially since there's more at stake here.
Weapons control in the US was simply limited by and individuals need and cost. Land mines existed, grenades existed, all sorts of firearms existed - shotguns, rifles, muskets, hand guns.
Private citizens owned all these, including cannon or at least swivel guns. Private citizens and/or private businesses actually owned ships of war (often sanctioned by the government to use as privateers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll
I think a sound rebuttal to the argument the founders never intended us to have semi-automatic weapons is the argument basically alleges the founders could not have foreseen the rise of modern weapons.
You're both exactly right. Though our forefathers couldn't have foreseen the progress of weapons, to think they were stupid enough to ignore that weapons would progress is ridiculous.
How simple minded must one be to believe we shouldn't own anything more advanced than a musket is beyond ridiculous. But then, these are also the people who believe that the basic human premise has somehow changed in 220 years, and the Constitution is a tired old document.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution will be as relevant and pertinent 1000 years from now as it was 200 years ago. The negative human conditions (violence, hate, greed, corruption, lust, envy... etc.) has never, and will never change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
They never intended for there to be a standing army, either.
They never intended there to be any other law enforcement other than elected sheriffs and elected judges, with juries from the community.
They most certainly intended the people to have anything it took, to defend the nation and their own property. Bearing arms, does not just mean a gun. Only a very ignorant person would even think that, it only meant a firearm.
I couldn't have said it better!
They also never intended there to be unelected czars with overreaching and unconstitutional powers... yet here we are!
Quote:
Originally Posted by quick enough
Do you even KNOW what an "assault rifle" is? By this posting, I doubt it.
Do you know what an assault rifle is? Do you believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle?
Except that same right jeopardizes my rights, if you abuse it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute; freedom of the press isn't absolute; freedom to organize isn't absolute; why should gun control be different? Especially since there's more at stake here.
<<heavy sigh>>
You are re-hashing very simple arguments that have been dealt with ad-nauseum.
It is until it's abused.
It is until it's abused.
It is until it's abused.
It should be the same. Don't infringe upon the right until it is abused, and then any infringement should be extremely small, and only should deal with the particular abuse in question.
Just because someone MAY scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater is no reason to limit free speech. Get it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
