Lookie, lookie, lookie...It's Lukie, Lukie, Lukie!!! Welcome back Lukie! I been worried about you. Place ain't been the same!
The plutocrats have much more effective weapons than drones to destroy the working class, and without all the blood and guts.
funny proof that context does matter. When Obama said you did not build that -- the context did not matter. It was an affront to americans regardless of whether he was referencing infrastructure.
Those weapons are passe when people take to the street. Many countries, ours included, are expanding their fleets of domestic "surveillance" drones right now. When things get scary, the drones will be armed.
When that happens I'll let you know how we beat the drones. Until then I'm silent. Black Ops Captain out.
Lol, ok. But in the meantime then it should be ok to limit us to one rifle, one sidearm, and some limited amount of ammo. I mean, since we won't really be using them in a potential battle v. government anyway... ; )
What's wrong with pistols? The police can carry them but citizens cannot? What's wrong with an assault rifle? Is that flash suppressor really that scary to you?
Since the purpose of the second amendment is to protect the population from the government then the weaponry allowed must be capable to that end. In order to be 'reasonable' we need a point of reference. Let's use the police, why should "peace officers" be allowed to carry something that law abiding citizens are not? (edit:didn't see your post Lucrum, guess i should have refreshed) They shouldn't be, what good does it do to have a single shot rifle when the police have swat teams with M4's.. none. We don't want to live in a police state now do we? For the nth time the 2nd is not for hunting/sport etc, it is for keeping the govt in check, and protecting yourself. Now brass or whoever will come along and say you can't have what the military does, and that is true, but it is irrelevant. The military can't be used against the population without a total breakdown of our federal govt. laws can be passed to completely undermine the second amendment however, laws like limiting ammunition or the number of firearms one may own. These laws would do nothing to stop things like the Aurora shooting from happening, but I'm sure they would allow for confiscation of law abiding citizens weaponry, whenever they get 'caught' breaking them. That IS a bad thing even though it's obvious that's what the left wants. My opinion, full auto rifles should be legal, and carrying laws should be more lax. Sure background checks and training courses should be mandatory. I'm guessing most of this stuff is already on the books but I am not that familiar with gun laws. Owning a gun can't do you much good if it isn't on your person or nearby.
Excellent point and summation. Currently you have to posses a Class III federal Firearms License to own a full auto weapon. AND you can't get an FFL JUST for that purpose. Believe it or not that's illegal. Maintaining the FFL will cost you $500 per year. Several states already have what is referred to as constitutional carry and several more are considering it. Any regulation is an infringement and the 2ND amendment specifically states this right should not be infringed upon. Myth: Gun control reduces crime Fact: The U.S. government âfound insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.â Fact: Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United States have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate rose during the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Fact: In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent. Fact: Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. Fact: In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just six percent of the population â New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. â most of which have/had a virtual prohibition on private handguns. Fact: The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states. Fact: Washington, D.C.'s 1976 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nation's capital. Fact: New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation â and 20% of the armed robberies. Fact: There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level. If gun control worked, then we should be free of crime. But the Federal government concluded that no criminal that attacked a police officer was âhindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws." Myth: [Existing] Gun laws are being enforced Fact: During the Clinton administration, federal prosecutions of gun-related crimes dropped more than 44 percent. Fact: Of the 3,353 prohibited individuals that obtained firearms, the Clinton administration only investigated 110 of them (3.3%). Fact: Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check, only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71% of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons. None of these crimes were prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998. Fact: Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia prosecutes felons caught with guns, and prosecutes them using Federal laws that require mandatory imprisonment. The first year result was a 33% drop in homicides for the Richmond Metro area in a year where the national murder rate was climbing. This shows that enforcement works. And according to Andrew McBride of the Richmond Justice Department Office, these cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street." [of course enforcement only works when the bleeding hearts aren't shouting about racism] Exactly, I look at my carrying as no different than carrying an umbrella on a cloudy day.