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.
Not included in this discussion for the simple reason that no firearms owner with anything resembling a brain would even consider using a fully automatic firearm for home defense, nor would they conceivably be effectively carried for self defense. Not to mention the expense of learning how to effectively use a fully automatic firearm, just in the cost of rounds that you would have to fire through it to become proficient, would be astronomical.
The constitutionality of restricting fully automatic firearms to those that obtain the necessary licensing and pay the fees and taxes related to ownership has been upheld. Quite frankly, I place fully automatic firearms in the same category as rocket launchers and mortars. They're pretty cool, but not what is needed in order to defend one's home or person from an attacker. On the other hand, limiting magazine sizes and prohibiting firearms that belong to a false "category" would be ineffective at best. The sheer logistics of trying to enforce such legislation would be mind bending.
Someone or some group is always going to find a way to get "more" firepower. Would seem to me that defending yourself could be quite different if you were to be rushed by a large nasty mob?........or is it your thinking that at some point too many guns are overkill? An example would be say, these new auto/ semi auto shotguns, and those that have the explosive round built into the shell projectile?
...snipped...Funny how the left cries about law-abiding citizens protecting themselves, but are totally silent about the thousands of assault rifles being brought into this country by illegal immigrants and drug cartels. They want an open border, but want no guns for law abiding citizens. Well, much of the gun violence is happening along the border because we fail to secure it. I guess law abiding citizens are supposed to give up their rights while it is okay for drug cartels and illegal immigrants to carry assault rifles.
While I was reading this thread and this post in particular, I remembered the rancher in Arizona who was found shot to death on his land. Everybody with any sense knew it was done by illegals or their coyotes that crossed his land on a regular basis. They said this rancher even left out water for people. He just didn't want them crossing his land, killing his cattle and trashing his property but, he didn't want them to die either. What can anyone say about that and gun issues..? How would we have gotten the guns of the people coming across the border illegally ?
Our own government was supplying Mexicans with guns and they have not been punished for it. Why should law abiding citizens believe one of the 10 oldest lies...."I'm from the government, I'm here to help you....."
Our own embassy personal and 2 marines were left to die in a completely useless and preventable tragedy and there has only been lies and coverups about it. Yeah, right, we are supposed to believe that our government is going to protect us if we give up our guns...I have some beachfront in Nevada you might be interested in......
The downside to your argument is that most firearms owners are starting to feel like they are being backed into a corner by legislators like Feinstein and the supporters of firearms "regulations" that any person with common sense knows won't do a bit of good. All this talk of limiting capacity and restricting weapons is an attack on our Constitutionally protected rights, but those who are supporting this legislation want to tiptoe around that little fact and pretend that our rights won't be affected.
You summed up the problem right here in this post. And, I keep reading darstar saying things like this :
Quote:
All the right win gun advocates have one thing that overrides other rational thinking. Its that fear someone IS going to take away their GUNS, sooner or later. If this needs to be a political war, then thats what it will be......snipped..!
Our system of Government, a Republic, allows for minority opinion to sometimes rule the day, sometimes its the majority rule. The system was meant to be a check and balance , to give power to ALL the people, thats a Republic, sometimes its not just the majority.
Some here are saying,they are the Judge and the Jury. There is no contest, no comprise , no consideration for anything including the laws of the land, that there is only one law and that is one they have decided trumps all other laws. If you attempt to stop them , they will kill you. You , meaning any Governed official , or any citizen that violates this line of thinking by action. Am I correct here, or not? If so, and it's been stated here by more than one poster, my previous thoughts about working together , both political parties , has no relevance , that its not a political Issue, only a Second amendment right violation determined by their own and not the highest court in the land we have , the Supreme. Court.
Some here are saying,they are the Judge and the Jury. There is no contest, no comprise , no consideration for anything including the laws of the land, that there is only one law and that is one they have decided trumps all other laws. If you attempt to stop them , they will kill you. You , meaning any Governed official , or any citizen that violates this line of thinking by action. Am I correct here, or not? If so, and it's been stated here by more than one poster, my previous thoughts about working together , both political parties , has no relevance , that its not a political Issue, only a Second amendment right violation determined by their own and not the highest court in the land we have , the Supreme. Court.
The Supreme Court has already decided this issue repeatedly and have repeatedly come down on the side of the citizens to maintain their firearms. They have interpreted the 2nd ammendment as the peoples right.... There have been a number of attempts to redefine and even to repeal the 2nd ammendment.. In each and every case, the Supreme court has come down on the side of the citizen.
The Supreme Court has already decided this issue repeatedly and have repeatedly come down on the side of the citizens to maintain their firearms. They have interpreted the 2nd ammendment as the peoples right.... There have been a number of attempts to redefine and even to repeal the 2nd ammendment.. In each and every case, the Supreme court has come down on the side of the citizen.
You did not get my point. I am aware of the visits the high court has had with the second amoundment That alone does not make it the final word or law as you may think. We are a Country of laws not a country of anarchecy . Try using that argument in NYC and see how far you will get.
You did not get my point. I am aware of the visits the high court has had with the second amoundment That alone does not make it the final word or law as you may think. We are a Country of laws not a country of anarchecy . Try using that argument in NYC and see how far you will get.
DC had similar laws as NYC and when it was taken to court, the DC laws were overturned... There is a good chance if the right challenge is taken, NYC laws may one day follow suit..
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.
