Re: Political Attitude Overall
As radical as it sounds, I don't believe there should be any regulation on the type of weapons people can own.
The Second Amendment doesn't say .."the right to keep and bear arms...as long as it's not bigger then such and such a caliber." I know all the arguments about "But the Founding Fathers didn't know guns would someday be able to do this, and they never thought society would decide that."
#1, people forget that at that time, people HAD the most advanced rifles in the world. Many if not most civilians HAD rifles for home defense that were equivalent to our most advanced combat rifles. It's only in recent times that armies have consistently had weapons that were better or even as good as were in the civilian field.
#2, there is a fundamental American principle that is broken by the banning of firearms: The ASSUMPTION of guilt on the part of legal purchasers of firearms that they're out to do something wrong, when there is no evidence to support this.
and #3, there is a dangerous and Very slippery slope when you allow the government, ANY government, to slowly but surely take your means of defense. Maltese hit it perfectly: Nazi German, Communist Russia, and most other totalitarian regimes have set a very clear pattern that we should learn from, and one of their trademarks is the confiscation of weapons from their populace.
I'm not saying the gun laws banning machine guns back in the 20's were forwarding a Nazi agenda. I'm not saying the restrictions placed on gun ownership in the 90's were directly linked to a desire to take us to Communism. And I'm not saying that the even stricter laws that politicians want to further impose now are linked to a scheme to take us to either of these systems. These are steps taken by people who I think have the honest intention of doing good as they see it.
What I AM saying is that no matter how good the intentions, they mean nothing if a stripping of our basic Right to defend ourselves is the cost. And it is the cost many people are willing to pay for the promise of safety, while they get back little to no results, or as in many cases have shown do the reverse of the promised bliss and tranquility. The ironic this is, the more gun laws Fail *every school shooting was in 'Gun Free Zones,' probably Every work place shooting broke dozens of city ordinances against allowing LAW ABIDING Citizens from carrying guns, and the list goes on*, the more laws are suggested because the last flurry of them apparently wasn't strong enough..... the sad thing is so many people agree
It is part of the natural order that governments wish to consolidate power, and the only way for them to do this is to take the rights of their citizens. They do it in the name of public order and safety........yet I wonder how many of us feel as safe and secure at home as our grandparents and their grandparents did...
Wow. How can you think that? Do you honestly think it would be better for people, like the ones who would go to work, or school and shoot their peers, to be able to get their hands on a SAW? or what about just an M16 legaly. Do you realy think that because we cant have guns that can rip a man or womans head of legaly that were going to turn into Nazis? How can you say that?
Their 'trademark' if you insist on calling it that was not confiscation of weapons, it was, and still is oppression of the people under them. The founding fathers may have said that americans had the right to bear arms, but I think seeing a gun that could rip a mans head off, or a gun that could fire 750-850 rounds per minute put into our society today would cause them to revise their choice of words. A society where sometimes a sudden urge to kill people will arise and a boy or girl will bring a gun to school and start shooting. Can you honestly think that thats what people who are famed for declaring independence from the tyranny of a monarch would want?
Last edited by Adeptus_Astartes (Saturday, October 11, 2008 5:21 am)
[url=http://lfgcomic.com/page/1]Interrogations are hard...[/url]