One of the reasons that is always cited as a reason for the 2nd Amendment is because an armed citizenry can defend itself from a tyrannical government. The left seems to laugh this idea off and they suggest this kind of government is not possible and there is no chance of this happening. It is interesting to note, that the Democrats have Presidential candidates, who are polling well and enjoy quite a bit of support in the democrat party, are pushing tyrannical ideas. We have Bernie Sanders. Many here on ET actually support this guy. Bernie came out this week and said "Fossil fuel executives should be criminally prosecuted for the destruction they have knowingly caused." -Bernie Sanders The problem for Bernie is these people have not broken any laws. He is going to throw people in jail, who did not break any law, simply by decree. Bernie puts this kind of crap out and democrats and leftists are nodding their heads with him and think this is a good idea. There is a word for this kind of government. It is called totalitarian. Power hungry politicians who want to take law abiding citizens and throw them in jail is the exact reason we need the 2nd amendment.
We need the 2nd Amendment because some of The Founders believed that what was obvious in The Constitution would not be to, or would be misconstrued by, Anti-Americans.
The 2A is there to give us, the citizenry, the potential to defend ourselves from all forms of threat to assault, aggression and our liberty.... either from robbers, muggers, alien invaders, foreign governments or our OWN government! Bless the Founders!!
Nicolo Machiavelli SOME princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects; others have kept their subject towns by factions; others have fostered enmities against themselves; others have laid themselves out to gain over those whom they distrusted in the beginning of their governments; some have built fortresses; some have overthrown and destroyed them. And although one cannot give a final judgment on all one of these things unless one possesses the particulars of those states in which a decision has to be made, nevertheless I will speak as comprehensively as the matter of itself will admit. There never was a new prince who has disarmed his subjects; rather when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, because, by arming them, those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents. And whereas all subjects cannot be armed, yet when those whom you do arm are benefited, the others can be handled more freely, and this difference in their treatment, which they quite understand, makes the former your dependants, and the latter, considering it to be necessary that those who have the most danger and service should have the most reward, excuse you. But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you. And because you cannot remain unarmed, it follows that you turn to mercenaries, which are of the character already shown; even if they should be good they would not be sufficient to defend you against powerful enemies and distrusted subjects. Therefore, as I have said, a new prince in a new principality has always distributed arms. Histories are full of examples. But when a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate; and matters should be managed in such a way that all the armed men in the state shall be your own soldiers who in your old state were living near you.
If they cannot define what an assault weapon is then how can they ban them? I defy anyone here to define an assault weapon concisely enough for legislation. So Virginia police are supposed to go door-to-door looking for them? I don't see how that works. I know a guy who says that they would need to bring an excavator and ground penetrating radar. Are they going to start digging up backyards? Good luck with that. I'm going to the range tomorrow with my scary looking gun. Its nice to shoot ammo that does not cost $1.00 per round and the local guard armory down the street is full of it. Convenient.
Not for the deranged..That means you Wildchild and You B1 and same goes for you Scat. Fuck you too Snark.
If you are a good shot, you can do this with an old wheelgun and you get two fliers as your margin for error. If you are in a crowded space? 4+ people would not be difficult if you think about it. This is all about stripping the 2A right, and not about "assault weapons". If the anti-2A types really gave a shit about guns, they would fight to repeal the 2A. It is political bullshit for vote gouging.