Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Troutman, I think, posted a link to the New Yorker a couple pages back that explained that. The NRA transitioned into an activist political lobby group and spent millions of dollars on a concerted campaign to reinterpret the US Constitution so as to trivialize the militia part, and therefore reinvent it to mean it was an individual right rather than a collective right for mutual protection.
|
I like the idea that all civilian available weapons have the separate powder, ball and flint action. Single Round.
If anything that would reduce mass shootings, plus because of the 6 foot long rifle the concealed firearms thing would be a thing of the past.
Frankly - You don't need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon for home defense, hunting or turning out the lights in your house at night. In fact in a confined space where I'd say that more then half of the gun owners are extremely inexperienced or downright dangerous the ability to fire a wall of lead is more then likely to kill an innocent victim then a criminal.
The whole we need these weapons to stand up to the corrupt gubernment is stupid. A guy with a automatic weapon isn't going to do very well if the government decides its time to seize ultimate power, a armored Cav unit isn't going to care very much if you have a M-16. A modern Battle Tanks main gun can travel 3 km's. A squad of trained infantry men in a house to house battle are going to kill you're a$$ dead and move on to the next house.
Ok, how about the whole, if a person had a gun in that church where those poor people were shot, or the theatre in Denver then this shooting wouldn't have happened or there would have been less casualties. I'm sorry this is ludicrous to me, the mass shooter has the initiative and the commitment to his plan, you know the one that involves killing everyone. You get some jacka%% with a gun and a hero complex who has little idea of what he's doing, fill him with a bunch of adrenaline and all you might get is a shootout where innocent people get killed, oh sure you might get the criminal, but I will always put the money on the guy who has the initiative, the planning and the determination to mass murder or rob a liquor store or whatever. On top of that the main mission in the face of a mass murderer is to protect lives, but if you have a yahoo with a gun playing Sherriff Lobo instead of finding a way to get people to a safe spot and maybe barricade it and slow down the attacker more lives are lost.
People argue with me, while what about the Parliament Shooting that was a guy with a gun battling it out with a whacko intent on mass murder. But that guy, was trained, knew his environment and was ready for this eventuality.
Frankly the only way to circumvent the second amendment is to force gun manufactures to make one kind of gun available for civilians (Flintlocks) and one available for the police and military. The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms, but it certainly doesn't define the type of arms. I don't see anywhere where the arms are definable as semi automatic or automatic fire arms with large capacity magazines.
Semi Automatic or automatic weapons and high capacity magazines and rocket launchers and automatic handguns are not protected under the constitution, they are protected by industry, lobby and governments, and that's where the mindset needs to change.
Frankly you can't seize firearms now. But what you can do is put ultimate responsibility on the legal owners by saying if that gun is used in a crime either by yourself or someone else, you bear the responsibility for it. We'll it was stolen they will say. Then the question has to come up, how the hell did you have it stored, because you're responsible for securing your fire arms.
If you use a illegal gun in a crime its good bye freedom for ever.