Democrats Back Down on Assault Weapons Ban!

Watermark said:
As with most gun control issues, it's not actually that unpopular at all:

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/04/26/poll-majority-support-assault-weapons-ban/

That's 71% who support it.

The people opposed to the ban are just EXTREMELY loud about it, making it appear more unpopular than it actually is. And a lot of supporters would stop supporting simply because of this ban, while very few people would stop supporting because someone oppose the ban. So in a way it makes political sense.
Click to expand...

That's interesting but it doesn't surprise me. Most reasonable people would want to restrict the distribution of military style weaponry for which there is no other purpose than to kill law enforcement or military personnel.
 
I think we should give assault weapons to everyone, especially children.
 
There was a guy who had a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. He gad to cross over a river to get back home, but he could only take the fox, the grain,or the chicken, Well, if you leave the chicken and the fox on one side of the river while taking the bag of grain across, the fox will eat the chicken. Same thing with the chicken and the grain, you can't leave those two alone or the chicken will eat the grain. how do you get them all across the river safely?
 
a11n said:
There was a guy who had a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. He gad to cross over a river to get back home, but he could only take the fox, the grain,or the chicken, Well, if you leave the chicken and the fox on one side of the river while taking the bag of grain across, the fox will eat the chicken. Same thing with the chicken and the grain, you can't leave those two alone or the chicken will eat the grain. how do you get them all across the river safely?
Click to expand...

Kill the fox?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
read earlier up the thread. I take very seriously the oath I took when I entered the USMC. WE, that's you and I, are responsible for the security of a free state.
Click to expand...

You're clearly referring to using assault weapons against some imaginary totalitarian state that "might possibly could" exist but really doesn't. If this were 1787 you'd be rebelling over a whiskey tax. It's absurd to think that the vague notion "defending the constitution" means you need military style weapons whose only purpose is to harm members of law enforcement or the military.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I'd love to see that conversation between you and the cannibalistic decapitator on the canadian bus. I'd enjoy the absolute hell out of that.
Click to expand...

Reading back, the irony of this astounds me. That guy was sleeping, if he had a gun it would have been quickly used by the cannibalistic decapitator.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
You're clearly referring to using assault weapons against some imaginary totalitarian state that "might possibly could" exist but really doesn't. If this were 1787 you'd be rebelling over a whiskey tax. It's absurd to think that the vague notion "defending the constitution" means you need military style weapons whose only purpose is to harm members of law enforcement or the military.
Click to expand...


It does actually exist. And they're trying to disarm the citizens so they can more easily abuse them. And you give them intellectual cover, you dicksniffer.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
You're clearly referring to using assault weapons against some imaginary totalitarian state that "might possibly could" exist but really doesn't.
Click to expand...
eternal vigilance is the key. It may never happen (hopefully), but if it does, shouldn't we be prepared?

ImaTanArmyMan said:
If this were 1787 you'd be rebelling over a whiskey tax.
Click to expand...
not sure what this has to do with it, but taxes are a power of congress via the constitution, so long as they aren't prohibitive.

ImaTanArmyMan said:
It's absurd to think that the vague notion "defending the constitution" means you need military style weapons whose only purpose is to harm members of law enforcement or the military.
Click to expand...

so the framers of the constitution and the founders of this nation were absurd? I think not.
 
ImaTanArmyMan said:
That's interesting but it doesn't surprise me. Most reasonable people would want to restrict the distribution of military style weaponry for which there is no other purpose than to kill law enforcement or military personnel.
Click to expand...
In the first place, if some one gets their jollies by ripping off a belt of M-60 just for shits and giggle, and has the means (ammo ain't cheap) to do so, what harm is he doing to anyone else in doing so? Putting holes in paper through the challenges of marksmanship is a valid purpose of any and all firearms, with each type, from muzzle-loader to bolt action to semi-auto, to full auto, having its own unique characteristics and challenges.

You want "reasonable" (by YOUR totalitarian definition) restraints to make you feel safe, then restrain yourself. Go fucking hide in a deep hole and pull a cover over your head. You'll be safe enough. Meanwhile, leave people who enjoy firearms, and the Constitution alone.

Second, there is a reason the 2nd Amendment was worded the way it is. There is a reason they included the phrase "being necessary to a free state", and it was NOT so people can hunt or protect themselves from criminals. It is for the security of a FREE STATE - meaning THE PEOPLE (as declared in the 2nd Amendment) protect our freedoms, if need be by violent revolution against the excesses of a run away government. It is UN-reasonable to expect a government to stay within the constitutional boundaries laid out for it if you give them overbearing military authority by limiting the people's right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
ImaTanArmyMan said:
Why do you need an assault rifle? What is the purpose?
Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering. Duck hunting, maybe?

Look,I'm no constitutional scholar but I do believe that the second ammendment was intended so that we, as private citizens, would have access to firearms for sport, sustenance and personal defense against criminals, tyrants and others who intend to do us personal harm and so that we could organize "Well Regulated Militias" for the public defense and safety. I don't think it was intended so that the private citizens could collect millitary style weapons for their own personal armies or militias.

My concern with military style weapons is the harm that can occur when unstable persons, psycophaths or criminals have ready access to them. This is a serious public safety issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top