bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3004923
Based on some of your posts I don't believe you have owned enough guns to know the difference between automatic and semi automatic guns. That or you are intentionally making false assertions. What is the difference between Joe Schmo loading up an UZI or a Rugar Ranch Riffle except for the fact the Rugar is more powerful and not considered an Assault weapon under the Clinton ban?
There are a whole lot more Joe Schmos playing Mario Andretti in their cars with their beer drinking buddies than playing Rambo with guns.
Those dead guys who have been quoted are the ones who wrote the rules. You keep misstating their intent and Vici is providing you with the information showing what their intent really was. A whole lot of the people responsible for the Constitution and Bill of Rights feared what could happen if the central government was too powerful. The stated rational for allowing gun ownership is a check lest the Federal government slip into tyranny. They originally opposed the formation of a standing army for the same reason.
And as luck would have it you aren't the one who gets to decide what the proper type of firearm us citizens can own. And I didn't say the Mexican Cartels aren't in this country. I said they don't pull out so-called assault weapons and shoot it out with police here.
You seem to be stuck on this car analogy to justify your need to own guns that aren't designed to be used for home protection, hunting, or target practice for that matter (Uzi's not the most accurate weapon out there). LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE DRIVING CARS EVERYDAY THAN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SHOOT GUNS. How many times to I need to tell you this before it registers?
Those rules the dead guys wrote are also subject to modification. It's ridiculous to think a society has to resort to gun violence in order quell a powerful central government. That's why we have a Democracy. Instead of guns, we have the power of the vote. This country and its citizens have become too advanced, and have a better understanding of the government than you take them for. There is no one individual, or group of individuals, who work for The People in the Federal Government that are too powerful, and couldn't be removed from office without force. It's moronic to think anyone would have to go to the extremes of using guns to control a tyrannical government in this country. Don't try using examples of other countries that have resorted to violence to justify your means. You know as well as I do, many of these Middle Eastern, Slovik, and Far East countries that are at war with their governments are not ruled by a Democracy. So yes, there IS a difference. That's what I love about the gun fanatics like yourself. Use the wording of the 2nd Amendment whereby the citizens of this country MAY have to resort to gun violence to quell a powerful government to justify owning a personal weapon, when we all know something like that would NEVER happen in this day and age.
I'm not the one to decide? Sorry dude. I have the same voting power as you. Unite enough Americans that can defeat the powerful NRA gun lobbyists, and you can convince Congressmen to vote to modify gun ownership laws. Band enough people who've had enough with gun violence in this country, and have a decree to amend the 2nd. Of course it has to be ratified by 2/3rd's of the states, but gather enough state votes and the 2nd Amendment is changed. See how a Democracy works?
http:///forum/post/3004923
Based on some of your posts I don't believe you have owned enough guns to know the difference between automatic and semi automatic guns. That or you are intentionally making false assertions. What is the difference between Joe Schmo loading up an UZI or a Rugar Ranch Riffle except for the fact the Rugar is more powerful and not considered an Assault weapon under the Clinton ban?
There are a whole lot more Joe Schmos playing Mario Andretti in their cars with their beer drinking buddies than playing Rambo with guns.
Those dead guys who have been quoted are the ones who wrote the rules. You keep misstating their intent and Vici is providing you with the information showing what their intent really was. A whole lot of the people responsible for the Constitution and Bill of Rights feared what could happen if the central government was too powerful. The stated rational for allowing gun ownership is a check lest the Federal government slip into tyranny. They originally opposed the formation of a standing army for the same reason.
And as luck would have it you aren't the one who gets to decide what the proper type of firearm us citizens can own. And I didn't say the Mexican Cartels aren't in this country. I said they don't pull out so-called assault weapons and shoot it out with police here.
You seem to be stuck on this car analogy to justify your need to own guns that aren't designed to be used for home protection, hunting, or target practice for that matter (Uzi's not the most accurate weapon out there). LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE DRIVING CARS EVERYDAY THAN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SHOOT GUNS. How many times to I need to tell you this before it registers?
Those rules the dead guys wrote are also subject to modification. It's ridiculous to think a society has to resort to gun violence in order quell a powerful central government. That's why we have a Democracy. Instead of guns, we have the power of the vote. This country and its citizens have become too advanced, and have a better understanding of the government than you take them for. There is no one individual, or group of individuals, who work for The People in the Federal Government that are too powerful, and couldn't be removed from office without force. It's moronic to think anyone would have to go to the extremes of using guns to control a tyrannical government in this country. Don't try using examples of other countries that have resorted to violence to justify your means. You know as well as I do, many of these Middle Eastern, Slovik, and Far East countries that are at war with their governments are not ruled by a Democracy. So yes, there IS a difference. That's what I love about the gun fanatics like yourself. Use the wording of the 2nd Amendment whereby the citizens of this country MAY have to resort to gun violence to quell a powerful government to justify owning a personal weapon, when we all know something like that would NEVER happen in this day and age.
I'm not the one to decide? Sorry dude. I have the same voting power as you. Unite enough Americans that can defeat the powerful NRA gun lobbyists, and you can convince Congressmen to vote to modify gun ownership laws. Band enough people who've had enough with gun violence in this country, and have a decree to amend the 2nd. Of course it has to be ratified by 2/3rd's of the states, but gather enough state votes and the 2nd Amendment is changed. See how a Democracy works?
