Last edited by ThePlayDrive; 01-03-12 at 09:46 AM.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
There will always be those who wish to instill their will on others.
And those people can be either "gun-lovers" or "gun-haters".
I am neither.... The rights of either must be respected..
But, thinking ahead is better.. Far too many home-owners with weapons have this defense fail on them....
I favor working on conditions to prevent the "crack-head" in the first place.
And when man thinks of his fellow man as being a "bastard", then one must know that we have some serious problems in our society.
GUNS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!!!
I detest guns and what they stand for but they exist.
In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England.
"It is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
I take this to mean that we the people who give consent to the federal authorities to govern us will not give up our right to resist oppressive rule by them if they so chose, because we are simply defenseless. It speaks of the peoples rights to be allowed to deter undemocratic government, repel invasion, suppress insurrection, participate in law enforcement, facilitate a natural right to defense. And above all the freedom to choose who ultimately has supreme rule over us, which is ourselves and a governing body by consent, not any other minority group by force. We will never be able to secure our rights or liberties if we are not allowed to have equal defense.
I hope someone doesn't point out the absurd that we the people don't have nukes, bombs, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, blah blah blah. I don't have arms like Hulk Hogan either that's why I believe this should be the 2 1/2 Amendment...
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
One reason to limit the killing power allowed to anyone and everyone is all the people even on this forum who claim they have a right to kill politicians and government employees they believe are violating their rights.
Sort of changing the line from a movie, you probably don't need to fear someone with a machine gun. Instead, fear the person who desperately wants one.
It could be argued that any person who is too stupid to be able to make a machine gun or explosive device is just way too stupid to be allowed to have one.
I oppose stupid people and people ignorant about firearms and gun laws having firearms. If a person can not show they are proficient in firearms usage, knowledgable in gun laws and are unable to act somewhat normal at least for a few minutes while being tested, they should not have one. I also oppose old people inflicted with dementia having firearms.
People are required to have almost an endless list of licenses - personal or professional - depending what they want to do. I see no reason gun ownership would be any exception nor would that be a violation of the constitution as has been ruled already. The government already can ban certain people from firearms ownership (minors, felons, insane, convicted of certain crimes, dishonorably discharged, under a court protective order restraint for domestic violence etc.)
The government also could ban ownership to people who do not demonstration they are not STUPID or ignorant about firearms and gun laws. I'm against an INCOMPETENT IDIOT owning an AR with 100 round canisters.
Last edited by joko104; 01-03-12 at 11:25 AM.