Joined
·
4,339 Posts
Meth is illegal to make, own, and sell, yet it is still a problem.
I think part of the reason our Marines and special forces are so much better than the fighters in these other countries is because they cut their teeth on these guns.RB-HPA said:When those laws were written the gun of the civilians matched those of the military did they not?...now they don't and we are asking for too much?
My son is heckbent on heading into the military, he is 9, if I want him to be fantastic with a weapon similar to what he will use there to save his life and this country is that a bad thing? I am not a bad guy nor is he.
Finally someone understands it correctly! The second amendment was not written for hunters. The founders were over throwing the government and insisted on gun ownership as a necessary tool to keep the goverment in check and over throw them if needed.hemicuda said:I can't understand the amount of gun owners that don't understand the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. The founders wrote many papers that explained the Constitution and the things that were in the Constitution. Technology has nothing to do with the philosophy of the 2nd Amendment. Read the Federalist Papers. I'll explain it to you real quick. The founders did not want the Government to have more fire power than the people. That is it plan and simple. They understood if the people couldn't defend themselves that the government would become to oppressive. Even if we converted all our AR's to full auto we would have one heck of a fight against the technology that the government can bring to the battle field. "It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" Though out history powerfull governments have turned on their own people so don't say it can't happen here.
Absolutely we need to protect those who can’t protect themselves. That is precisely why we need to have good people that are equipped with guns equal in firepower to those carried by the evil people that walk among us. It simply is not any particular type or style of guns or magazine capacities that is the problem; it is very simply and directly the society we now live in. Taking the ability of the good people to be adequately armed to do that protecting of the innocent is certainly not the correct answer.Squeaks said:Personally, I see no reason for a person to own such a gun. You can say it's your right,but when those rights were written there were no such guns. Yes, it wasn't the guns fault, but isn't our job to protect those who cannot protect themselves?
Back in the day, Ben Franklin could print out, at best, a few dozen handbills per day on his hand operated printing press. They were then distributed hand-to-hand and, to outlying areas, by horseback and stage.Personally, I see no reason for a person to own such a gun. You can say it's your right,but when those rights were written there were no such guns. Yes, it wasn't the guns fault, but isn't our job to protect those who cannot protect themselves?
true.... id be happy hunting with a longbow or even just a camera if I had too.RB-HPA said:Crossbows may soon become more popular for hunting (forced) then more would like to think. OK I am done..I can't dive further into this.
Yep. This is craziness.Bluetick said:It has been reported that Dunhams removed guns for sale as well.
I keep hearing this rediculus argument. As intelligent and insightful as our founding fathers were, don't you think they kind of suspected there would be advances in technogy in the next 200 years, just as there had been in the previous 200 years? What they were refering to was the standard of the day. The day has changed, the standard has changed, but the intent has not.Squeaks said:Personally, I see no reason for a person to own such a gun. You can say it's your right,but when those rights were written there were no such guns. Yes, it wasn't the guns fault, but isn't our job to protect those who cannot protect themselves?