FAQ  •  My feedback  •  Feedback
UKLockpickers.co.uk Lockpicking supplies such as Lockpicks, tools, and more! COMMANDOLOCK.COM Military grade padlock systems lockpickshop.com A source for lockpicking supplies such as lockpicks, locksmith tools, and more!

An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

<<

elbowmacaroni

User avatar

Site Owner

Posts: 1353

Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:28 pm

Location: Florida

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:25 pm

An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

I received this via email today... food for thought peeps! Some may like it some may not... regardless of how you feel on the matter, think about this for a minute... once the government has completely eradicated the 2nd Amendment and proven that they can eliminate those pesky rights laid out by the forefathers of this country that are always getting in the way of things they want to do, they will move on to eliminating others, until the entire Bill of Rights has been torn asunder and thrown to the four winds. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

-Elbow :akimbo:


NAGR_email.gif


This is an all-out EMERGENCY.

And unless you act today, I'm afraid we'll be staring at a gun control nightmare.

Yesterday, anti-gun California Senator Dianne Feinstein strode to the microphone demanding her colleagues pass a gun control bill -- immediately -- specifically her beloved “assault weapons ban.” Powerful House Democrat Steny Hoyer urged his colleagues to “renew” the push in the House and Senate for gun control legislation. Hordes of gun control lobbyists have spread out on Capitol Hill today looking for new Republican and Democrat support for gun control legislation.

But facts don’t matter to the gun-grabbers . . .

Whenever a tragedy -- a revolting grave crime -- is committed, gun-grabbers ALWAYS rush to "cash in."

Always.

New media now report that the shooter was armed with a shotgun, not an “AR-15” that Feinstein wants banned and turned in by the millions of Americans who own them for self-defense. Of course you and I both know that no specific type of gun commits a crime. Criminals and thugs do. Others in Washington, DC, and in state capitols across the country are banging the drums for more “Gun Free Zones,” ignoring the fact that yesterday’s shootings occurred in a secure government facility in a city where guns are banned.

“Gun Free Zone” signs do not protect anyone from violent madmen.

All these signs do is guarantee killers never face anyone who can defend his or herself.

And despite the fact that the shooter had a secret government security clearance, the gun-grabbers are demanding a renewed push in the U.S. Senate for expanded federal background checks on all Americans (national gun registry). So with anti-gun fervor raging in the national media and anti-gunners demanding gun control right now, gun-grabbers are determined to strike while the iron is hot.

You and I both know what’s at stake here . . .

Expanded or Universal “background checks” (NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION) remains at the top of the gun-grabbers’ priority list. After all, the ability to CONFISCATE firearms from the American people -- the gun-grabbers’ ultimate goal -- rests on knowing who owns which guns. That’s the real purpose of these “background checks.” Without a database of gun owners, this scheme would be largely unenforceable.

There would simply be no way for our federal government to know if any citizen had broken the law.

These “background checks” were a key part of the so-called Toomey-Manchin “compromise” and is central to the newly-drafted U.N. “Small Arms Treaty,” which could come before the Senate as early as this fall. But there’s another threat out there that I’m afraid is growing by the day. That’s so-called “Mental Health Restrictions,”

which is really code for handing federal bureaucrats the ability to STRIP law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights on a whim without trial or due process.

And the gun-grabbers believe the groundwork has already been laid to classify as many Americans as possible as mentally unstable, including:

  • News reports that nearly 30% of the nearly 900,000 Iraq and Afghanistan War vets treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs have been diagnosed with PTSD! This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of vets who have already been “rewarded” for serving their country with the loss of their gun rights;
  • New estimates by the World Health Organization that roughly one in five American youngsters will have some sort of mental health problems every year;
  • Estimates by U.S. Surgeon General Steven Galson that 46.4% of Americans experience some sort of mental illness during their lives!

To the gun-grabbers, disarming
up to 50% of the American population within a year or two’s time by declaring them “crazy” without ever going through a trial sounds like a dream come true!


The good news is, you and I can fight back.

But we must mobilize quickly. If you want to ensure your Second Amendment rights are protected into the future, I'm counting on you to act IMMEDIATELY. Being involved in the fight has never been more important. First, I need your signed Second Amendment Protection Petition to help drown out the anti-gun spin machine with today.

In the coming weeks I'll flood Congress with tens of thousands of pro-gun petitions proving you and I are serious about protecting our rights and we're not backing down!

Obama, Biden, McCain and Schumer vow to enact gun control
obamasamaonguns.jpg



We must ensure every politician in Washington, D.C. understands America does not need new gun control laws . . . It's more freedom. It's more good guys armed with the power and the ability to stand up to deranged bloodthirsty loons and STOP them.

You know how we'll make the politicians understand that? By ensuring every single one of them knows they'll pay the price with their political careers for voting for gun control schemes. But to do that I'm going to have to mobilize Second Amendment supporters from all over the country. I've already authorized my staff to begin broadcasting our message across the web on sites frequented by politically-active pro-gun voters.

And we're expanding from there:

Mail, email, web videos, and even hard-hitting radio, newspaper and TV ads if I can raise the resources.

I want to mobilize up to 14 million Americans. Not next month. Not next week. But NOW. You see, there's no time to waste. Of course, such an ambitious program won't be cheap. But it's our one shot at winning.

So please sign your Second Amendment Protection Petition TODAY.

obamasamaonguns.jpg


Thanks in advance for answering the call in this tough time.

For Freedom,
DWBsigBlue.jpg

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

P.S. The gun-grabbers just announced they're on the warpath -- and they're not taking any prisoners -- this is an all-out EMERGENCY.

With anti-gun politicians already calling for gun control, it's never been more important to fight back.

I've already begun a campaign to mobilize up to 14 million pro-gun Americans to prove to the politicians we still stand for the Second Amendment and we're not backing down!

But such an ambitious program isn't cheap.

So after you sign your Second Amendment Protection Petition please chip in $10 or $20.

Together you and I will weather this storm and continue to stand for freedom.
obamasamaonguns.jpg


The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O. Box 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.

To help the National Association for Gun Rights grow, please forward this to a friend.

To view this email as a web page, please click this link: view online.

Help fight gun control. Donate to the National Association for Gun Rights!

donate_button_default.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Cave ab homine unius libri" - Beware of anyone who has just one book

(2014.02.09 - 23:26:03) huxleypig: i freaking love cream
(2014.02.09 - 23:27:11) huxleypig: hey, come on, cream is nice
(2014.02.09 - 23:27:37) huxleypig: aww, i suddenly feel very sick

(23:37:46) LocksmithArmy: you should see my school girl outfit
(23:37:50) LocksmithArmy: wait... what

(13:19:50) xeo: that chick will never be satisfied by a real dick
(13:19:54) NNFAK: I would man...

(22:59:49) PhoneMan: how do you let a forum die if users keep using it? kill the servers?

May those who love us, love us; and those who don't love us, may God turn their hearts; and if He doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles so we'll know them by their limping

If someone had prince albert in a can, does that mean they'd have a killer codpiece?

(00:52:02) WolfSpring: elbow could sell a sandbox to an egyptian
<<

echoplot

Familiar Face

Posts: 31

Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:37 pm

Location: Virginia

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:58 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

Yeah, they can have mine....after I give 'em each and every bullet first...in the face. After that I'll probably take what they had....I can always use the hardware upgrade and fresh reload.
<<

PhoneMan

User avatar

I've gone and said something stupid, haven't I?
I've gone and said something stupid, haven't I?

Posts: 371

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:05 pm

Location: Missouri

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

echoplot wrote:Yeah, they can have mine....after I give 'em each and every bullet first...in the face. After that I'll probably take what they had....I can always use the hardware upgrade and fresh reload.


I agree! plus I take alot of this hype with a grain of salt. I don't see them taking guns away without there being another revolution or something similar. (let's hope not)
<<

MBI

User avatar

Site Owner

Posts: 1533

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:25 am

Location: Utah, USA

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:24 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

PhoneMan wrote:...I take alot of this hype with a grain of salt. I don't see them taking guns away without there being another revolution or something similar. (let's hope not)

If it was attempted in one great leap, there probably would be a revolution. That's why it'll be incremental. The process has already begun. The gun control act of 1968 set the foundation, but it didn't begin in earnest until the Clintons got into office.

What I think we're going to see this time around is a lot of extreme bills proposed in congress, so when a lesser bill is then proposed it will seem more "moderate" or "reasonable" and have a much better chance of making it through. Yet another incremental step. I bet it'll be another 20 years before all this incremental legislation gets us close enough to where they can go for wholesale confiscation without any significant degree of resistance. That's why we have to fight the passage of these bills every step of the way, before it's too late.

They're already slowly expanding which mental conditions can exclude you from owning a firearm. That's one area I'm betting you'll see continuing to be expanded, by executive order if not by legislation.

If you get a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, you're banned from owning a firearm for the rest of your life. In some jurisdictions, just getting into a loud argument with your girlfriend/boyfriend can be enough to get such a conviction, if you did anything that could even be interpreted as a threat of violence, such as a hand raised in the air or hitting your hand on a table top.

If you get a divorce and the opposing attorney files a restraining order (some file one automatically), whether or not you have done ANYTHING to warrant it, then you magically get added to the list of people prohibited from owning firearms unless you are able to convince a judge to remove the protective order.

Most people don't realize how far we've already fallen. Our thousands of pages of gun control laws are so convoluted, and sometimes vague, that they are open to very broad interpretation. Depending on which president is in office, sometimes the BATF is encouraged to interpret laws as strictly as possible.

Some specific firearms have already been reclassified and the owners ordered to register them under the NFA, be fingerprinted, photgraphed, file BATF tax paperwork and pay $200 tax per firearm just for the "right" to keep what they already owned. In other cases, some categories have already been banned on either the state or federal level, with owners ordered to turn in hundreds or thousands of dollars of personal property (with NO compensation) or face prosecution as a felon. This has been done at the bureacratic level with the swipe of a pen by an appointed government employee, completely bypassing due process, legislation, or any kind of checks and balances. Since most of these so far have been less common firearms, they haven't raised a general alarm amongst the general population of firearm owners, but it is already happening.
<<

PhoneMan

User avatar

I've gone and said something stupid, haven't I?
I've gone and said something stupid, haven't I?

Posts: 371

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:05 pm

Location: Missouri

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

That's just scary to contemplate. I signed the petition, don't know what else I can do except urge others to do the same.
<<

xeo

User avatar

Catministrator
Catministrator

Posts: 2124

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:30 am

Location: East Coast, USA

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:56 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

Sorry guys, I lost my guns out on a boating trip. They're at the bottom of the ocean. Feel free to go get scuba diving gear and retrieve them at your leisure. When you find them, you can keep them. You can have my receipts though.
Image
The code is hidden in the tumblers. One position opens the lock, another position opens one of these doors...
http://www.youtube.com/xeotech1

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

░░░░░░░░░░░░░Image
<<

GringoLocksmith

Familiar Face

Posts: 249

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:12 pm

Location: Gringolandia

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

I view it a little differently. I like firearms, appreciate that I have the right to own them, and wouldn't want to lose that right. I also think that someone with documented mental health problems really shouldn't be allowed to walk into a gun show and buy an AR-15 without someone asking a couple of questions. I think there must be a middle ground between the complete dissolution of our 2nd Amendment rights and what we have now.

For those of you who fear the slippery slope, are there any new regulations that you'd accept if you knew for certain -- and this is clearly an unrealistic hypothetical, but please imagine you could know for certain -- that no further regulations or restrictions would follow? From what I'm reading here, it seems like it's not the proposed regulations that you dislike, but the wave of regulations that you're certain are to follow them. Am I right about that?
<<

GWiens2001

User avatar

Lock-Goblin-Gordon
Lock-Goblin-Gordon

Posts: 3411

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:05 am

Location: Arizona, United States

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:08 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of infringed is unclear, GLS?

Gordon
Just when you think you've learned it all, that is when you find you haven't learned anything yet.
<<

echoplot

Familiar Face

Posts: 31

Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:37 pm

Location: Virginia

Post Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:17 pm

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

Since we're on the topic....
For anyone interested, at the risk of sounding like I'm whoring out my photo work (and I totally am :razz: ), I started a firearms photoshoot a while back. Haven't finished the whole thing, but here's one piece that came out of it.

IMG_1099-edit-2-1-3.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
<<

GringoLocksmith

Familiar Face

Posts: 249

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:12 pm

Location: Gringolandia

Post Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:06 am

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

Gordon, some would answer that question by saying that it's not clear that the word "infringed" referred to the right to keep and bear arms outside of a well-regulated militia. I'm not a Constitutional historian, so I couldn't really speak to that. I would say that the men who wrote those words were good and intelligent men, certainly a cut or two above the ones who are currently sworn to serve and protect them. But still they were just men. They weren't infallible, and their words on that parchment weren't manna from heaven. Remember they're also responsible for the 3/5 compromise.

I'll add that I don't want to become this forum's whipping boy for the gun control lobby. I'm a moderate on this issue, and I don't think it's even all that important. Mass shootings are horrific and all that, but it's not clear how much modest reform would stop them, and in the grand scheme of things they're probably the least of our problems.
<<

GWiens2001

User avatar

Lock-Goblin-Gordon
Lock-Goblin-Gordon

Posts: 3411

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:05 am

Location: Arizona, United States

Post Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:29 am

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

GLS,

I should not have singled you out like that. My apologies.

It is more intended to state my views that 'shall not be infringed' had gone by the wayside long ago, much to the detriment of this country. The second amendment was to insure freedom, even from out own government. Therefore the people need the ability to create a militia capable of reining in an out of control government, even our own.

Gordon
Just when you think you've learned it all, that is when you find you haven't learned anything yet.
<<

MBI

User avatar

Site Owner

Posts: 1533

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:25 am

Location: Utah, USA

Post Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:07 am

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

Before the Gun Control Act of 1934 was passed, there was a general consensus that the federal government had no legal basis for regulating firearm ownership in any way.

Some say the law was submitted as a "hail mary" play, to try to regulate machineguns that had become popular with organized crime during Prohibition. The people who proposed the bill did so, fully expecting that even if by some chance it did pass, it would be overturned by the Supreme Court. Everyone was rather surprised not only that it passed, but that it also didn't get overturned.

The premise under which the bill was proposed was the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, allowing Congress to regulate commerce among the States.
Since firearms are frequently sold in states other than the one in which they are made, the argument was made that it made them susceptible to federal regulation. It was an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that hadn't been tried before and so they really didn't expect it to pass. But it did. And it opened the flood gates not only to other firearms laws in the future, but it set a legal precedent which allowed all kinds of Federal government interference in legal and regulatory areas which had traditionally been considered to belong to the States before that time.

An interesting corollary to all this is that theoretically, if a firearm were manufactured, sold and used all within the same state then Federal gun control laws are inapplicable since those laws only exist due to the Commerce Clause, and that instance the firearm would never have entered into interstate commerce. In fact the Montana legislature PASSED a federal gun control nullification bill (I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact name of the bill) which basically states that same thing. That any firearm which is manufactured and sold within Montana, is exempt from Federal firearms laws as long as it remains within Montana. This would even include the ban on manufacture of machineguns for civilian ownership. I'd have to look it up but I seem to recall that despite the fact that it passed the legislature, the Governer of Montana caved to Federal pressure and vetoed that law. But it's interesting how much support it received among the population and legislature of that state. I don't remember if any subsequent attempts have been made to pass similar legislation in Montana since then.

But back to the main issue at hand. Historically, the ownership and posession of firearms was regarded as an individual right, just as every other right in the Bill of Rights has been interpreted. It is a relatively recent legal argument that somehow the founding fathers intended the ownership of firearms to be a "collective right" pertaining only to state-sanctioned militias, rather than an individual right.

Just imagine a world, where we had no individual right of speech, or religion. Where we had no right against unreasonable search and seizure and the police could search or detain you, for no reason, for any duration they felt like as long as they did it do you as an individual and not as a part of a larger group. Where you had no right against self-incrimination, or where if you were found not guilty in a trial, the prosecutor could simply retry you over and over and over, until he got the verdict he wanted. Just imagine if all of these rights only applied to you in a collective sense as a part of a larger (legally recognized) group, and gave you no personal protections whatsoever. With that in mind, do you REALLY think the second amendment, unlike all the rest, they didn't intend to be applied to individuals?
<<

GringoLocksmith

Familiar Face

Posts: 249

Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:12 pm

Location: Gringolandia

Post Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:26 am

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

MBI,

That's just the kind of well-considered and informative post I've come to expect from you. Thanks for that.

I'll gladly answer your question, though now I'm even more curious about how you'd answer mine from earlier.

With the way that amendment is structured, I think it's reasonable to interpret that the people are allowed to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining militias. Since I'm no historian, I don't want to pretend I know what they meant, though I admit that interpretation never even occurred to me until I heard it expressed within the last couple of years. This also raises the question of what matters more: what they meant or what they wrote, and also the meaning of what they wrote then vs its meaning now. Based on the wording of the other amendments, I would have much less reason to interpret them as assuring rights in a collective way.

But I think a more important question is whether it makes sense to maintain an absolutist interpretation of the 2nd amendment in 2013. I'm sure you've heard this line of thinking before, but the extremely literal interpretation of a completely uninfringed right to bear arms would allow our neighbors down the street to keep nuclear warheads in their barn. And I think that for most or all of us, we think of that prospect and say, "Okay, maybe there should be a touch of infringement." A slightly smaller but still-large percentage of us don't want our neighbors to have non-nuclear missiles either. But what about a bazooka? A couple of grenades? A Kalashnikov? A Glock? As soon as we all admit that we don't want our neighbors to have those warheads, we must recognize that none of us are purists. We're all staking out our ground at some point on this sliding scale of gun rights permissiveness. And the closer we get to living right on top of each other, the less comfortable we are with our neighbors being armed at all. So city dwellers draw the line nearer to the prohibition end of the spectrum. When I lived in the country, I wouldn't have minded if the dairy farmer up the road had a machine gun. Now that I'm in a condo, I'm not sure I want the drunk that lives on the other side of the wall to have one. But I think, since there's this general consensus about the largest weapons of war, that we're all kind of doing a similar and self-interested calculation. Ultimately, most of us are okay with a level of infringement that protects us and our families without changing our way of life.

What I question is the thinking that the place where the line is currently drawn is somehow sacrosanct. Even with all the restrictions that are currently in place, one baby step toward the more prohibitive end of the spectrume is never viewed as a slight shift in our collective comfort level with guns. Rather, it always has to be that the levy is breaking and we're going to lose everything. I just don't see it that way. I see gun rights as being like permissible BAC levels while driving. Over the past X number of decades, as we've moved closer together and become more concerned with safety, there's been this steady march away from permissiveness. The prohibitionists are always going to hit a wall, though, because these things -- guns, alcohol, liberty -- are so deeply ingrained in our culture. There will always be pushback. It doesn't need to be alarmist in nature, this pushback. This isn't the beginning of the end. It's the continuation of a tectonic shift that no one can stop. It's moving too slowly to seriously effect any of us, aside from the occasional tremor that spooks us a bit (and maybe requires a call to a locksmith).

Gringo
<<

HallisChalmers

Lord Emeritus of Keypicking HallisChalmers

Posts: 2070

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:46 pm

Location: Hell

Post Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:48 am

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

It's already begun, with California leading the way.

http://www.guns.com/2013/09/14/california-lawmakers-send-gun-control-bills-gov-jerry-brown-video/

And some selected tidbits:

Senate Bill 374, which would prohibit the manufacture, sale or possession of any semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting a detachable ammunition magazine.

Gun owners who currently possess these firearms, which the state will now consider “assault weapons,” will be allowed to maintain ownership, however they will be required to register them by July 1, 2015.


In other words, the Masters will tells the Slaves what tools it can possess.

and this...


California law currently requires an individual to obtain a “handgun safety certificate” before purchasing or receiving a handgun. The certificate is obtained by taking and passing a written test on firearm safety and is valid of five years. SB 683 would require a “safety certificate” for the purchase of all firearms, not just handguns.


And so we must prove to our Masters that we are well versed in the use of our tools.

and then...


Updates the definition of a prohibited assault weapon to include a shotgun with a rifled bore and revolving cylinder.

As with semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines, these shotguns will have to be registered with the state.


and any of you habitual drug [cough] users watch out - they haven't forgotten you either...

Updates the definition of a prohibited assault weapon to include a shotgun with a rifled bore and revolving cylinder.

As with semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines, these shotguns will have to be registered with the state.


And this doesn't include the so called "loophole" the Our Lord and Savior Obama has decided to close concerning NFA weapons and devices - even though such firearms are the most expensive, strictly regulated, and taxed items on the market.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/daniel-zimmerman/atf-to-focus-on-gun-trust-loophole/

Sonsofbitches. :armed:
<<

echoplot

Familiar Face

Posts: 31

Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:37 pm

Location: Virginia

Post Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:04 am

Re: An email I received today: "Gun control push begins"

The thing that tends to set off the more alarmist type push back is the fact that we do have politicians, currently in office, currently still pushing for restrictions, who have gone on television and said things like this... http://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY
A lot of folks will tend to take that quite seriously, as they probably well should.
Some of us might be more inclined to come to some sort of sane agreement if:
1. We didn't have politicians like that who never quit trying to work toward a total ban.
2. We didn't have politicians like the following, who are totally clueless about the very things they're attempting to legislate. They're dangerous because of their ignorance in a position of power. Not only are they the ones passing laws, they're also the ones going around on television and radio convincing their constituents of what to back and why. Those of us who know better can laugh at their fuck ups; however those who don't, end up being misinformed in a way that ought to be considered criminal. http://youtu.be/9rGpykAX1fo

I think those are largely the reasons for the alarmist reactions.

As for 2A interpretations....that's certainly widely contested.
While I certainly wouldn't back the right to own a nuclear warhead, I do back the right to own small arms on par with current military standards, and I do so for the following reason.
When the US Constitution was drafted, the muzzleloading flintlock rifle was the pinnicle of weapons technology, and everyone had access to it. It didn't matter if you were a farmer or one of the king's soldiers, that was the best anyone could get their hands on (manufacturing quality aside).
Many folks will argue that the founders never conceived of automatic weapons and so-called "assault rifles", and so they shouldn't be covered by the Constitution. I would argue that it doesn't really matter what advancements in weapons technology they could conceive of. At the time of the document's drafting, they supported the right for the average citizen to own weaponry on par with that of any foot soldier in the army of any nation on the face of the planet, including our own. Technology advances, but that doesn't render a provision in a legal document moot. I would argue that as firearms tech advances, so too should our right to have access to it. Unfortunately, we've been long since overshadowed, for decades, in our ability to remain on par with our own army and those of other nations.
Next

Return to Full Metal Jacket Required

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Don't forget to visit our sponsors for all of your lockpicking needs!
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Grop
"CA Black" theme designed by stsoftware