Yelling fire in a theater, by comparison, is apples and oranges. In terms of the right to arms, it is equivelant to firing a gun into the air while inside a city.
Pfft. All the rights can be taken to extreme. By upholding my rights, I am not appeasing any of these people. When I fight for my right to keep and bear arms I do so because it is MY right and I can exercise it and the government needs to learn its place. You can't take people's rights away because the exercise of them has some negative results. Of course there's negative results, there will always be someone somewhere abusing the power of the their rights, infringing upon the rights of others. That's mostly why the government exists. Once that happens, the government may act and arrest that individual, and put him on trial, and by his peers be condemned or exonerated. Will people abuse guns? Of course they will. But that doesn't give you or anyone else license to infringe upon my rights. It's a consequence of freedom, take it or leave it; but the alternative ain't so great. Free is not safe, free was never safe, free will never be safe. It is an innately dangerous system, it comes with all sorts of perils and pitfalls. I will gladly bear them all because there is nothing greater than being free. All the consequences, all the responsibilities of freedom; I want them and I want them in full!
BTW, you know why we're tried by our peers? It's supposed to be (though corrupted away from this) an ultimate check on the government. Your peers are to decide on if you had done something wrong or not. Now they decide of you broke a law, but that's not the purpose of a jury of your peers. They were supposed to gauge if you did something wrong. Thus if an unjust law came up, something the People didn't agree with and you were arrested for it. Your peers would find you innocent because they didn't think you did anything wrong. It's the ultimate check on the legislative authority of the government and the force used by the judicial system to suppress the exercise of our rights. How's that for dangerous? I wish people understood this and took it more seriously.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" -Samuel Adams
On American Independence by Samuel Adams. America: I. (1761-1837). Vol. VIII. Bryan, William Jennings, ed. 1906. The World's Famous Orations
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
It really is all of the above to be perfectly honest. Assault rifles simply have a few differences like select fire switches, shorter barrels for clearing, tactical changes, etc. But assault rifles fire the same rounds as typical hunting rifles, sub-machine guns? pistol rounds....they just do this at an increased rate of fire.Why do you want to own an assault rifle? Is it in case you need to fight your government? Fend off an intruder? Do you plan to go hunting with one? Or is it "just because"?
The original intent was to allow citizens the same rights to ownership that the government could exercise, merchant ships at the time of the constitutions writing had large cannons much like the federal troops, and I believe the original Howizters were legal for civilian ownership. That doesn't mean the pro 2nd side means people should have M-180 grenade attachments or artillery cannons without an explosives license, and no one should have nukes, but I digress, wanted to give you a sample of the thinking behind our side.I don't really understand the need to have an assault rifle. Also, can someone explain to me if the constitution mentions unlimited access to any firearm, or if it's just to "firearms" as a rule? If the latter, then the government can technically restrict your firearms all they want, as long as you have access to some, no?
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
The trouble is, the federal government has no way absolute way of knowing if Joe the Assault Weapon Owner is a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal...Imagine the data that would have to be gathered, and the resistance....
A man must remember that NO rights are absolute, nor can they be...
Yearly firearm murders by country:
Australia: 65 per year
United Kingdom: 68
United States: 11,127.
My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns. What's your explanation?