I'll chime in here since I own a fair number of assault weapons, my oldest is from 1875, and if you don't think it is a assault weapon, there were a large number of Indians who would disagree with you.
The 2nd is not about hunting, nor sport shooting, it was always about having the means of defending ones self from criminals and tyrants. The revolutionary war was fought with the same weapons the civilians had at their disposal, including cannon. There are those who say that the 2nd only applies to the arms that were in use at the time the Constitution was written, yet when you try to apply that same logic to the 1st, they scream that the 1st is a living part of the Constitution and covers all forms of speech and press. so, in the minds of the left, we should only have muzzle loading rifles, yet they can have the internet, TV, Radio, Telephone, and all other forms of speech, I wonder what will happen when the govt tries to limit those forms of speech......... In the Bill of Rights, the phrase, THE PEOPLE, refers to a individual right, yet the left wants you to believe that in the 2nd, it refers to a collective right. To the left, the Well Regulated Militia refers to the national guard, which did not exist for almost 100yrs AFTER the Constitution was written, The Militia was EVERY man 18yrs and older and Regulated was the requirement that every man have at his disposal, a rifle and bayonet, and given amount of powder, ball, flints, and rations.
I believe in the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers and believe that ANY weapon the foot soldier has access to, should be in the hands of EVERYONE, but, with that responsibility, come great temptation to do wrong, and when that occurs, justice needs to be swift and strong.
There are over 20,000 guns laws that are a contradiction to the Constitution's SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED clause, There is not one gun law that is not all ready covered by some other law. The democrats saying it is time for "sensible" and "reasonable" gun laws, well my question is what is reasonable and sensible and don't we all ready have those. In first 160 year of the country, there were no gun laws, then in the 20s, since they could not outlaw machine guns, they taxed them at a rate so high, the average person could not legally own one, after JFK was assassinated, you could no longer order a gun by mail, but had to go and fill out a form, after all, it was " reasonable", after Reagan was shot, there was a push for more "reasonable" restrictions, since the last "reasonable" restrictions did not work, so, we ended up with a background check, along with a form, and for a while, magazine restrictions and gun bans. When the magazine restrictions and bans expired the left was screaming that streets would run red with blood, which did not happen. Now we are facing more "reasonable" restrictions because of the actions of several mental cases. In my oppinion, these "resaonable" restrictions are no different than someone coming up to you and saying, "I am going to cut your arm off at the shoulder" and you negotiate it to where he cuts it off at the wrist, later, he comes back and again says, " I am going to cut your arm off at the shoulder" you again compromise and he cuts your arm off at the elbow, again he comes back and says " I am going to cut your arm off at the shoulder ".... When do you finally say NO. The left wants "reasonable" and wants to "Compromise", What do they have to lose ? NOTHING, What do they have to offer in the form of a compromise, NOTHING, other than they will "ALLOW" us to keep a part of our arm. They are taking our rights, and what do were have to lose ? EVERYTHING, because we have all ready given up a hand and lower arm.
_________________ Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!! We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ? Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook
|