Should STY get a machine gun?

Rana said:
I know, the phrase, "who told them they looked good before they left the house" is constantly mumbled under ones breath!
Click to expand...

Plenty of them just don't care, but there are some who obviously put a lot of time and effort into their look. Which is makes it scary.
 
Socrtease said:
Photos were not envisioned by the founders, so should we not protect photographic images under the first amendment? The founders did not envision the computer and the interwebs where bad guys could communicate with one another in secret, so maybe we should, and in fact have, not protect computer communications.
Click to expand...
Many of the Founders has pictures painted of them, the 18th century version of the photograph.
 
Southern Man said:
Common foot soldiers also carry grenades. Should these be for sale at Wal Mart as well?
Click to expand...
And
Southern Man said:
Artillery was developed in the 16th century. Did the founders envision folks owning these, hauling them around on horse drawn carriages?
Click to expand...
Anyone could - and some did - own common artillery pieces. A 10 pounder was not an uncommon purchase, and, yes, the shells used in these pieces from solid shot to grape shot canisters to the newly invented exploding shell were available to those who wished to purchase them. If there had been a "Walmart" type merchantry back then, they probably would have carried such shells. Just as Walmart today SHOULD have the right to sell hand grenades and other weaponry of the common soldier.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Click to expand...
A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Click to expand...
...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...
(Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
Click to expand...

The early U.S. not only trusted its citizens with "every other terrible implement of the soldier," but depended on them to assure freedom, unless they, as individuals, proved otherwise - in which case they were incarcerated or executed.

Too bad you have bought into the fear mongering of the totalitarians.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
(Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
Click to expand...
 
Liberty said:
Well,,,,,,

If guns were against the law, wouldn't the blood be on your hands? And people like you?

If it's the law, "shouldn't you turn in your guns?"
Click to expand...

I was referring to the existing gun laws; but then, you allready knew that and just don't want to admit that all the gun laws are responsible for what occured.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I was referring to the existing gun laws; but then, you allready knew that and just don't want to admit that all the gun laws are responsible for what occured.
Click to expand...

I was expanding it to a reality in which everything is justified for you to be comfortable with.

It's your logic.:pke:
 
Liberty said:
I was expanding it to a reality in which everything is justified for you to be comfortable with.

It's your logic.:pke:
Click to expand...

I was edumacated by those that propose that since there is a black market for mj, then it is the fault of the law that people have died and there is suffering.
 
Southern Man said:
Artillery was developed in the 16th century. Did the founders envision folks owning these, hauling them around on horse drawn carriages?
Click to expand...

yes, as a matter of fact. maybe not hauling them around, but they were privately owned. I seem to recall something about ben franklin owning a couple of cannons himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top