Ok, first we have the patriot act and the anti-terrorism bill, now we have the 9th circuit declaring that only politicians and military people are allowed to have guns and that the 2nd amendment is wrong and FBI comming after people with public wireless networks because they 'aid terrorism.' This is really starting to get scary.
there are only two enemies of guns: Rust and Liberals. Like they say, only from my cold dead fingers will they pry my gun. If someone should kill me with my own weapon, they will have to beat me to death with it, as I would have used all my ammo against them... >
I don't see what you really need the guns for.
Protection of course.
Also, the original Constituion permits us to posses firearms. This is our right as American citizens. We American's get pretty pissed when people just try to take away our freedoms. And once the guns are gone and out or our hands, what's to stop this country from turning Comi-Nazi?
I think my views are conflicting with the views of certain members on this one... I think for the sack of peace I will refrain from uttering my opinion futher on this matter.
where did you hear that Ash?
[quote author=praetorian link=board=14;threadid=5812;start=0#55359 date=1039384192]
Protection of course.
Also, the original Constituion permits us to posses firearms. This is our right as American citizens. We American's get pretty pissed when people just try to take away our freedoms. And once the guns are gone and out or our hands, what's to stop this country from turning Comi-Nazi?
[/quote]
the original Constituion wasn't it written in a another time where owning a gun might have been prudent.
Though guns don't kill humans do, wouldn't it be better if there where better gun-laws, your prolly hurting your self more then protecting if that is the sole purpose of owning a gun? the "people" your protecting against will only arm them self more, it's an never-ending cycle of violence..
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/fri/21...-ARMS-NYT.html
I don't mean to make a big deal out of this, but that ruling regards assault weapons, not regular handguns or hunting rifles. I personally can't se why a regular person would want an assault weapon, unless thinking of the neccessity of making an assault. And as far as I know, the only ones legally able to do so are policeman and military.
My personal opinion is this:
I don't think this was a bad ruling. It does not has a thing to do ith regular weapons normally used for protection. If no restraint is put on high-end weapons, you'd end up having people with tanks and bazookas for personal protection.
We obviously have a problem of gun control, guns on the street, etc.
Lovey, you also don't have a dumbass prez who'd sell your country, get you into a war that *no one* will win, or any of the other exceptionally stupid things bush has done.
I'm glad there are a lot of guns in this area. I don't know and have never heard of anyone having their home broke into here for robbery nor rape. I can see why Europeans are on the net so much. They've locked themselves in their homes to avoid the criminals in that evil outside world created by anti-gun laws.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks