- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,177
- Reaction score
- 7,551
- Location
- Ft. Campbell, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Owning rockets, grenades, mortars, cannons, etc.. one would have to look at the circumstances, and I really don't see how its relevant to what we are discussing.
Do you really not see a difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment, they are NOT the same? Obviously the Freedom of speech and expression should be extended into new communication technologies as they arrive. Increasing the capacity of an individual to speak and exchange ideas with others causes no harm. However the problem is that with the 2nd amendment the technology has increased the capacity to kill of a single person.
You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people? What if causing the deaths of thousands of people was as simple as walking into a store, buying the proper equipment, because there is no regulation on arms, and using it? Sure it might be expensive but a terrorist with international backing wouldn't have a problem with it.
What security is there in that? How are our freedoms protected when a single individuals can unleash the kind of destruction that modern weapons can. One only has to look at the LA bank robbery where those two men with fully automatic RPKs fought off a hundred police for 4 hours. Living in constant fear is NOT freedom.
What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned. And again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment entirely, I'm a gun owner myself. Please don't lump me into whatever neat little lines and stereotypes you've built into your head.
Do you really not see a difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment, they are NOT the same? Obviously the Freedom of speech and expression should be extended into new communication technologies as they arrive. Increasing the capacity of an individual to speak and exchange ideas with others causes no harm. However the problem is that with the 2nd amendment the technology has increased the capacity to kill of a single person.
You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people? What if causing the deaths of thousands of people was as simple as walking into a store, buying the proper equipment, because there is no regulation on arms, and using it? Sure it might be expensive but a terrorist with international backing wouldn't have a problem with it.
What security is there in that? How are our freedoms protected when a single individuals can unleash the kind of destruction that modern weapons can. One only has to look at the LA bank robbery where those two men with fully automatic RPKs fought off a hundred police for 4 hours. Living in constant fear is NOT freedom.
What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned. And again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment entirely, I'm a gun owner myself. Please don't lump me into whatever neat little lines and stereotypes you've built into your head.