Originally Posted by
bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976088
I want to by a thermonuclear device. Why can't I buy that? I want to buy dynamite, grenades, nitro glycerine. I imagine I could obtain these devices if I provided the proper documentation. Same thing could happen with these assault weapons. Like I said towards the beginning of this thread. You want one of these so bad? Make it a requirement to shoot several bullets out of the gun before purchase. Put pictures of the fired bullets in a national database. If your gun is traced back to ANY crime by comparing the bullet at the crime scene, to your bullet in the database, you get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law based on the crime whether it was you or anyone else that used your weapon for that crime. You and your future generations can still buy these weapons, you just better make darn sure it doesn't leave your possession unless you want it to (selling it legally to someone else). But of course that means there's CONDITIONS to the purchase of these guns. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Exactly what right from the Constitution does that infringe?
You bet I believe in abortions and gay marriages. It's called EQUAL RIGHTS and A RIGHT TO DECIDE ON YOUR OWN. You want your guns, gays want to have legal rights and women want the right to choose what they can or can't do to their body, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, what's the difference?
Nice little armory you have there. Based on your selections, you appear to be a hunter and like to plink cans and other small targets in your backyard. 9mm for the house and the little woman to use. I would guess 97% of the gun owners in this country have pretty much the same types of guns as you. The other 3% are the ones who purchase the exotic and other non-standard weapons (i.e Assault Weapons). Out of the approximately 97% who buy the traditional guns, probably less than 10% of those would have any interest in purchasing said exotic and non-standard guns. So exactly how many people would actually be affected by this ban? Now I'm sure journey or the other statistitions on this forum will want exact and factual numbers. So Doc, I'm leaving that task up to you.
What does it matter how many are effected by the ban if it's unconstitutional?
Having private citizens be able to posess these things doesn't increase crime. Had there been squat for proof of that you wouldn't see pelosi and reid opposing Obama on it.
I am not arguing that a guy off the street should be allowed to walk in and buy a machine gun. I am arguing the constitution as written does not allow the government to ban them. Quite frankly it doesn't allow for BLM lands, national parks and forests or a whole lot of other crap the feds do. Again national parks and forests (for the most part) are good things but the feds had no right to confiscate state lands to create them.
Once you start letting the government ignore the Constitution for what seems like a pretty good reason you open Pandora's box. Suddenly you have the government allowing eminent domain being used to take people's land not for a needful municipal project but to turn over to a private developer for no other reason than a condo development would generate more tax revenue than a small farm.
