Assault Weapons Ban?

[wierdscience]

The framers didn't say that we should forever be stuck with flintlocks either.It is a right and it is as simple as that.It was done so armed disobedience WOULD be possible in the event the government should begin to infringe on our rights.

In reality the assualt weapons ban was much to do about noting and was an example of mass media driven hysterics.

Some intresting reading-
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

[HTRN]

Evan on the contrary, they did envision "assault weapons" I forget where it is(I think it's title 10 USC, if I'm wrong somebody please correct) Congress defined the militia as every free male between the ages of 16 and 65 and further mandated that said individual would supply his own Military rifle or have one supplied for him. Basically it says that I have to own an M-16! Your telling me that the men who came up with one of the most brilliant pieces of political document couldn't forsee advancement of longarm technology? Oh, and for those who argue that deterrent factor was a thing of the eighteenth century, it actually was a deterrent to the Japanese High command against an invasion of the west coast after Pearl harbor. They didn't want a guerilla war with half the population as one general put it.

HTRN

[Evan]

Huh, the 10/22 isn't banned in Canada. The AR15 is, the Ruger Mini 14 is.

[wierdscience]

Before anyone starts the tired old "malitia"argument,please remember a malitia is not same as a uniformed government sponsered army.It is a privately funded army made up of the locals who suppiled their own weaponry including swords and field artillery.

Interesting too gun violence is most previlent in inner city areas of the country which also happen to be the places where guns are banned.You very rarely ever see any in the suburbs,maybe its not the guns,maybe its the people.

[This message has been edited by wierdscience (edited 09-12-2004).]

[Evan]

HTRN,

No, they did not forsee the advancement of technology beyond the flintlock. Their concept of a military rifle was a flintlock, plain and simple. The right to bear arms was primarily for defense against "savages" and to hunt. Would you like to predict what weapons we will have 100 years from now?

[HTRN]

It doesn't matter anyway whether we argue about the matter. The Ban is dead, there's no way they can get through both houses by midnight tommorrow even if they could get the votes. I do feel sorry for all those schlubs that paid four figures for preban guns - now they're nothing special. I have the feeling that by the end of the year you'll see AR's at the shows for $500USD, used..

HTRN

[gvasale]

The whole assault weapons fiasco originated from what I've read in "LaLa" land where many local government and state bodies run amock with firearms ownership, much as New York and Massachusetts, supposedly the "birthplace" of the Amierican Revolution, where the right of the people were to be held in a totaly new form when compared to the rest of the world. Look into what is in your own state and local laws, what kind of laws each nation has enacted to "enslave" its citizens, or subjects as it is. I didn't say it first, but there are three really good quotes, to which I cannot offer an attribution without a lengthy search

"Better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have one."

"Trust no government that doesn't trust you."

"There is nothing in the Second Amendment about Duck Hunting." (In other words, defining any type of firearms owenership by the "sporting purposes" qualification is a violation of the Second Amendment to the US constitution. But when government acts mostly to expand its grip on the people and swell its ranks of bureaucrats, what do you think the chances of the individual are?)

And a bonus quote regarding the Acts of Congress:" The illegal we do right away; The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger
[This message has been edited by gvasale (edited 09-12-2004).]

[This message has been edited by gvasale (edited 09-13-2004).]

[Guero]

The 2nd Amendment was not written for hunters, nor was it intended strictly for home or self defense. It was written so that the citizens could revolt against a government which had become tyrannical, just as our Founding Fathers rose up against King George. For that reason I believe that I, as a law-abiding United States citizen, should be entitled to own any weapon used by our military - that includes tanks, fighter jets, missiles, etc. Read the Federalist Papers if you want to see some of the arguments concerning the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers knew that it is the very nature of governments to become tyrannical - some would say our government has already reached that point, especially in respects to income tax, EPA, Civil Rights, "Hate Crimes", Affirmative Action, etc. ad infinitum. It is not by accident that certain groups have been trying to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms and it has nothing to do with crime or "keeping the children safe"; it has to do with preventing the citizens from ever being able to rise up in righteous rebellion against tyranny. An armed populace is a free populace and this goes back to antiquity.

[wierdscience]

The founding fathers were not stupid,they had witnessed the progression of fire arms in Europe over the three previous centuries,you can't possibly be saying that they didn't expect the technology would improve,it did in the past and it did in thier tim, why wouldn't it in the future.

It is a RIGHT meant to keep the government in check,till this day we do not have a king and are not the subject of another king across the ocean.

[wierdscience]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Guero:
An armed populace is a free populace and this goes back to antiquity.</font>

Excellent point,historical fact,the first thing the Romans did after conquering a country was to ban swords.

On a futher note,as an example of how illogical some people can get on this subject,remember after 9/11 there was talk of arming pilots?We still haven't done it,why,becasue of people like Nancy Peloesi who said "are we sure that we can trust the pilot with that kind of resposibility"? Does anyone else realise just how stupid a statement that is?