The Obama effect

[MotoXcowboy]

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

[MotoXcowboy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

I pretty sure the personal land-owning "militia members" owned cannons.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??

[MotoXcowboy]

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??
the rules are set. Some are defined as un-changeable (as in unalienable or inalienable, which ever the case may be). We post them in the Bill of Rights. Some can be changed, but only by a lengthy and cumbersome process; a good idea when it comes to the rules of the game of Liberty.

When some try to trivialize Liberty, the Second Amendment or the Citizen role in the American Militia, take notice of this. Take it as a warning too. What do they fear? They may just want to secure their hold on power and control of the civilian masses by disabling the Citizen ability to speak with force to correct tyranny. I guess you would call that Second Amendment First Amendment Rights, free speech and a petition to redress grievances backed by force.

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

Which militia? The kooks in Michigan?
Move there.

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy

so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R

You pretty much proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Have you even held a gun?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. I apologize if my answer was not valid nor good. So I will try again. I, personally, do not like guns. I am very uncomfortable in the presence of someone holding a gun. So my answer will be as a devil's advocate, not with great conviction.

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.

Timmothy McVeigh was executed for letting his interpretation of these same words influence his actions to the point where he was killing Americans to defend their freedom from Government.

It's a slipperly slope you're on.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Timmothy McVeigh was executed for letting his interpretation of these same words influence his actions to the point where he was killing Americans to defend their freedom from Government.

It's a slipperly slope you're on.

-spence

I'm not on that slope. I don't own a gun. I'm just, as I say, playing devil's advocate to give a point of view, frightening as that view may be to you, and to me as well. I am sure that the vast majority of those who hold that point of view, despise Timmothy McVeigh. He did not start a revolution, he just killed a lot of innocent people.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution.

I completely understand your position. However, to be completely blunt, the Constitution is law - the Declaration of Independence is not.

[MotoXcowboy]

http://geekpolitics.com/assault_weapons_ban_is_baloney/
These Rules Don’t MEAN Anything.

During the period the AWB was active no one stopped selling ‘Assault Weapons’ instead these guns were altered slightly so that they no longer offended legislators delicate sensibilities and life went on without a hitch. Firearm manufacturers stopped putting threaded barrels on their guns and stopped selling magazines that held more than the requisite 10 rounds. They renamed these new versions of their firearms and kept selling them; The AR15 became the XR15 and the firearm industry didn’t even notice this bill.
In fact the legislative director of the “Violence Policy Center” even pointed out the legislation did nothing saying,

“The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.”

The most laughable thing, however, is that it is specifically SEMI-automatic firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban had no bearing on fully automatic weapons. These weapons remain under the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Not to mention the belief that these ‘Assault Weapons’ are somehow more dangerous than any number of other semi automatic weapons that existed at the same time and fired the same ammunition simply because they had a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.