Dick's has gun cabinets from time-to-time for about $99 which can hold 10 longguns. While certainly not as secure as a safe, they are much safer than gunlocks. You don't necessarily have to buy a $2000 fireproof safe for security. A lot of people seem to think they do, so they never get around to buying one. Several of my best friends are in law enforcement, and most do not have even a gun cabinet because they think the big safe is the way to go, but it remains on their "to-do" list for years because of the cost. All of them own at least 5 guns if not more, and, when you think about it, the cabinet is probably cheaper than the cost of 6 or 7 gun locks.
1 Free Men own guns slaves do not ! 2. Gun laws or any law are only as good as the Law abiding citizens who Obey them ! Criminals by definition are law breakers so they don't obey gun laws or any others for that matter! 3. Gun control in my book means hitting what you aim at Period!!! 4. If you love being oppressed , conquered and subdued turn in your gun and bend over ( Or Just Vote for Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!!!. 5. it does'nt take an awful lot for society to collapse !!! think Hurricane Katrina -Rita !!!! Looting , Rape , Robbery ,Mayhem ect... or the L.A Riots ' 6. if your anti-gun or just scared all the time Marry a Cop and leave me alone !!!!!!!!!!!. 7. Those who beat their Swords into plowshares will Plow for those who don't !!!. 8. Liberals always through up Europe as a Model for America as many European countries have Gun control - If you like Europe so much take your self there MOve !!!!- I like Europe Too -Switzerland Never been Conquered - Beautiful Women , Neutral , If your in their version of the Ready Reserves / National Guard ? when you come off of drill /manuevers you bring your Weapon issue home ( Sig Assualt Rifle ,Machine gun ect...) and they have a very low crime rate! Now we could debate the Full auto issue but They do atleast trust their citizens . Yet even they (Switzerland) Have Succumbed to the evils of Gun Control awhile back ! They passed a Law stating that you are allowed only 25000 Rounds ( cartridges ) for each firearm you own Per year!!!.I suppose I could live with that but it would hurt competive shooters who burn through thousands of rounds in practice ! 9.IF you Like Gun control, Socialized medicine , limited or no freedoms, low or No wages , oppresion and strife ,no religous freedom , and Hate America or The U.S.A then Move somewhere Else . Make room for a Legal immigrant or other American that likes it here the way it is ! 10. if you disagree with me that's okay that's your Privilege ! just as it's mine to not agree with you ! 10. Peace ! Through Superior Firepower !!!!!!!!!!! ( No Just Peace period ) Peace Out !!!!!!!!!!
I'll show you the best reason against gun bans from the masses of citizenry: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson That, right there, is the #1 reason! Thomas Jefferson, if memory is correct, was one who helped form the current Bill of Rights found in our Constitution today. So, I think I'll go on his interpretation of why the 2nd Amendment was given to us. And, the founding fathers of this nation (U.S.A.) knew it through personal experience. They were all citizens that literally had to fight a war against their domestic government of the time: The King of Great Britain! And his military! The founding fathers literally, and technically "broke" the written law of their day, by declaring independence from Great Britain; because, what they fought for, was a higher law: liberty and freedom endowed by our Creator. Anyone who argues against citizens having arms as individuals in mass, is, therefore, not thinking clearly! Since, if they were time-warped back to the late 1770s, and declared this to be law, then the free, United States of America, would literally not be here right now! That's a fact! Citizens used firearms, those which each and every other military had at their time! Thus, in context of the 2nd Amendment, each sane, non-criminal citizen of the U.S. should have the right to bear that of what our current military possess: automatic assault rifles! Such as the M-16 and M-4, etc. Of course, you can leave the missiles, jets, bombs, etc. to each States' security force (State guards). The 2nd Amendment is clearly in the context of protecting each sane, non-criminal citizen of the United States of America, to keep and bear arms, literally, to protect against tyrannical domestic government! That is a fact. Now, the protection against private criminals, just goes without saying. Crime can rise or drop, but that affects the 2nd Amendment not one bit, since it wasn't written to simply be dependant upon crime rates! We have a certain criminal much worse than private criminals, which many complacent Americans (those that're for banning guns) today do not think about: Tyrannical government! Again, this nation is here, with the liberties it has shown we have the right to have, solely because private citizens had to take it by force, from their domestic government, back in the late 1700s. Many take this for granted, and it most likely doesn't even have a mere chance of entering these peoples' (those that want to ban guns) minds! Do not be surprised if government has suppressed certain information, or has paid the media to do such a thing, in order to get people as a whole to ban guns. This is nothing new, nor is it anything surprising, if one looks at how corrupt any government can be, during the written history of mankind. Just the other day, I was looking at news sources talking about the church shooting in Colorado (U.S.), and to my amazement, I saw one news website, from Australia, purposely leave out an important fact in the church shooting: A private citizen was armed in church, took out her gun, and shot the madman, whom was about to murder hundreds of people! Why'd they leave this fact out? Simply and obviously put: They didn't want to shed any positive light on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms! Amazing, right? I say it is, indeed! Here's the link to the Australian website that refused to speak of the important fact: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22898531-23109,00.html Here's a link to another news website that spoke the truth (you can do your own search, and find many more): http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/10/gunman-defied-guards-order/ A quote from the second link: Here are some other good quotes about how guns should be in citizens' hands, to protect them from corrupt government. Some might surprise you: "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota) "Guns Magazine - Feb. 1960, Page 4 "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi in "Gandhi, An Autobiography" "...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" - Noah Webster, 1888 "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them...the weak will become a prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1787 "Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." - John Adams, 1788 "...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46). "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court, 1803 "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." - James Burgh, 1774 "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis "Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out just because I might yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis "Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants." - Unknown "The danger to a free society is not the guns owned by the citizens but an unconstrained government.... An armed society is a self-governing society, just as a disarmed people are vulnerable to arbitrary power of every kind." - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. "What a crazy world we live in! Trying to treat addiction as a legal problem, and trying to treat criminal misbehaviors using guns as a medical problem! Beam me up, Scotty. Ain't no intelligent life down here." - Julie Cochrane "Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." - Joseph T. Chew, "Usenet posting in talk.politics.guns" "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" - Patrick Henry - Now, let's see who most assuredly agrees with those today that want guns banned from citizens' hands, en masse: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. ... So let's not have any native militia..." - Adolph Hitler - Now, we see who actually agrees with those that want to ban guns today, huh? Scary, isn't it? Notice how Hitler didn't want a native militia, because it'd be too much to handle, in his taking over the population of citizens, unjustly? Now, notice how the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution brings up "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." ? See what I'm talking about? Those that founded the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment, specifically, knew that an armed citizenry is one of the highest ways to help keep liberty in a free society. So, all armed Americans, I urge you to come together, and form well regulated militias in your States, so as to protect against corrupt government. We need this! And, also, since we're in the 'age of terrorism', it's just one more safe guard against said terrorists! - Anyone trying to argue on a crime-based opinion? Well... Switzerland has all of their males carrying assault rifles! Yes, you'll say they were trained! I know! But this is more proof, showing that guns themselves, in the hands of citizens, do not automatically cause unjust death in a nation! That's up to society, and should be dealt with on that level! But not on a level of banning guns from law-abiding citizens! There's a place in Georgia (a State in the U.S.) that literally made it law for every household to HAVE guns in them! Did the crime rate soar to new heights? Nope. It actually dropped! I'd bet it'd drop even further, if every single citizen in that town actually carried concealed handguns on them, 24/7. In Orlando Florida (in the U.S.), 2500 women trained and carried firearms concealed, and the rape rate went down by 83%! Now, isn't that astounding? Imagine if every woman in the U.S. trained with firearms, and carried them concealed? Rape would drop to all new lows, I'm betting my house on that. With that said... Go read this article, which is pretty good, as well: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=975&full=1 Again, last word: Whether crime rises or lowers, for strict gun control, or a lack thereof? It matters not. The reason we have our [American] right to bear arms, is to protect against corrupt domestic government. Keep that in mind, people. Never forget it! EVER! Many have died to give you that right, so let's not make their sacrifice in vain!
Though I'm for gun ownership, I still believe in some limitations. If the military can no longer protect us, then automatic weapons may be called for. Until that looks imminent, let's leave the automatic weapons to the military (including our National Guard) along with the other weapons of war. I agree with having more trained gun owners. There's far too many untrained gun owners. Simply being able to pick a firearm up and pull the trigger doesn't mean a trained owner. Knowing under what conditions deadly force can be used along with the safe use of a firearm should be taught to each adult citizen. In hunting the young hunters have to take a safety course in many states. I think the adults should be required to do the same. Seems more adult hunters shoot other hunters than the kids do.
There are very few things that I would agree with Mao Zedong, but this is it "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" free people are powerless without a gun, while oppressors should be without. Roy Innis, former chairman of the congress of racial equality, and a great American of African descent, when asked by the late Peter Jennings of ABC network news "Why are guns so easy to get in the US?" R. Innis' answer was " Peter, guns are too easy to get by criminals, but far too difficult to get by honest, decent people like you and I" Then asked about his brothers and sisters in prison, Innis' reply was "Peter, I have NO brothers and sisters in prison, BUT all good,decent, law abiding people, whether black,white brown, yellow or green-- they are my brothers and sisters" My point, police cannot protect all of us all the time. A government that cannot trust honest citizens to posess firearms is a government that itself cannot be trusted ( Re Mao Zedong)
I am also paraphrasing poorly, but it goes something like this: " Today we have total gun registration, we will have safer streets, a safer society and lead the world into the future ( or tomorow ). Adolph Hitler 1934 This may be the greatest reason why we need to arm ourselves ( no I am not talking about nukes )
If a group of the populace decides they don't like a new law, today there isn't likely to be an armed insurrection in the US . Our greatest weapon is the free press and our political system. Though neither are perfect, they get things right more often than not. Support organizations like the NRA and leaders who share and support our point of view. Wild rhetoric and suggestions harm the cause more than help it. If we get a total gun ban during my lifetime, I hope they catch the thieves who stole all my guns.
PacMan, I don't know if you read my whole post thoroughly (?), but having automatic weapons in citizens' hands (trained, and good law-abiding citizens, that is...) would protect against domestic military, that is run by a corrupt government. This is exactly what the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) was talking about, when they put forth the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Again, reading the Bill of Rights in literal context, you'll see that it is to protect the people from corrupt domestic government. That includes, above all else, the military controlled by such corrupt domestic government. What do you think the Revolutionary War was all about? Fighting against foreign military? Nope. It was fighting domestic government military! That is why we declared independence! Not simply fought off a foreign invasion. We've got to get this "the military is for our protection" out of our heads, because even though that's technically true on one side of the coin, in that they protect us from foreign invasion; on the other side of the coin, they can be turned against us by a corrupt domestic government! And when you want your assault rifle, it'll be too late, since they'll ban them from your hands, and take over! Back when they (the founding fathers) had their firearms, they were on par with other military firearms; so, I only know it logical that citizens today have that same right, in the true context of the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Jefferson even said that "...every citizen should become a soldier." A soldier to fight for government? Nope. A soldier to fight for the people, if liberty were ever endangered by their domestic government. Now, if people read Thomas Jeffersons' quotes, they'd then realize why the 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Thomas Jefferson [among others] wanted to ensure our liberties, not only by ink and paper found in the Bill of Rights (corrupt governments don't give a rats rear end about ink on paper, no matter what it says...), but by force of arms (guns) in the private citizens' hands. This is a clear and total fact. I say leave the missiles, jets, etc. to the State Guard (which is controlled by our specific State, not federal government), so as to solely help protect the people who live in our State alone, from the federal government. State Guard is for further protection against a corrupt federal government, but what's to protect citizens against a corrupt State or city government? Our firearms, as well, of course! See, it's a layered defense. There's a backup plan for all of these things, if it ever came down to it. Or so it should be like this. The people today need to arm themselves much more than they are now. We need to gather together, and train one another, become competent in warfare tactics, etc. This is also to help protect against terrorists, as well, by the way. This is exactly the independent mindset that Thomas Jefferson wanted the American citizens to have. He didn't want citizens to rely solely on "big daddy government" for protection. No freakin' way! That'd be heresy in his mind, and rightly so. Here in Virginia, I am allowed to buy an assault rifle already, one with a clip that holds 20 bullets and under. When I have a concealed carry permit, I can get one with more. I know, many might read what I was saying here, and my first post, as some kind of "hint" to supposedly overthrow the current government. That'd be totally incorrect! And just want to assure everyone, that I am not talking about such a thing. I am, however, a very cautious person, and so was Thomas Jefferson! I like being prepared for worst case scenarios. Some call it paranoia (it's not), that is, until a worst case scenario happens to them! And by then, it's too late for them to learn a lesson and live. They learn it, then die, and then no one is there to see how they wished that they did what the other "paranoid" people did, in preparing for the worst! Sad, isn't it? Words of wisdom: "A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 - I like learning from history, not repeating it! I hope all others heed this warning, before it's too late.
Of course. If people don't like a new law, then they get up and peacefully protest it! That's our 1st Amendment right to do so! I'm not talking about overthrowing a government, just because they pass a bad law. lol! Whoever is saying that, please let me know, so I can maybe talk some sense into him. A well-armed citizenry is simply a last resort against a tyrannical domestic government. That's all. But, I see a lack of that well-armed citizenry today, and it kind of worries me. It also worries me that people are becoming too complacent, and not protesting, when government passes bad laws, or oversteps its boundaries. I was reading about how a judge in Niagra, NY, threw 46 people in jail, simply because someones cellphone rang out in the courtroom, and no one came forward when he demanded so. All 46 people in jail, for someones mistake? That right there was the breaking of their 8th Amendment right, which states that no cruel and unusual punishments shall be given. Here's the link: http://my.earthlink.net/article/str?guid=20071127/474ba450_3421_1334520071127-1431302246 Did the people prostest? Not that I know of. Was this judge thrown in jail for his literal crime against the U.S. Constitution? Nope. He was merely taken down from his position as judge, by the commision. Now, if people remain complacent when government breaks the law, and only rely upon government to punish other government, then liberty is on its way to a slow death in this nation. Relying upon government to punish government, is the same idiocy as relying upon one Nazi to punish another Nazi for killing a Jew. Insane, right? I'd say so! We need to wake the heck up! So, voting politicians into office and reading what the press says (which can leave out important truths, and/or be paid by the government, itself) cannot be relied upon. The people themselves, must be extremely pro-active, and extremely skeptical of the government. Then, we'll see protests all the time, whenever government oversteps its boundaries! That's how it should be. And that's how liberty is held in a free society. Some more good wisdom: "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." - Thomas Jefferson "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress." - Frederick Douglas
"A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 - I like learning from history, not repeating it! I hope all others heed this warning, before it's too late. I see someone has studied George Orwell and learned valuable insight. I applaud your opinion and your words of wisdom. A government should fear its people, versus the people fearing its government.
Northax I read what you had to say. And as I said, I think automatic weapons in the hands of average citizens aren't needed at this point. Fully automatic weapons are controlled in this country for good reason. Due to penalties few criminals opt to use them. A license can be had to own the weapons, if you don't mind Big Brother probing all your orifices. As for the armed citizenry, unless just a few have all those guns, the US citizens are a well armed group. I notice even in your post you didn't see fit to arm the citizens with all the weapons available to the military. I simply consider automatic weapons among the extreme weapons that shouldn't be readily available. I guess we all have our own opinions where the lines should be drawn. Using your example of teleporting to colonial days: The British and Colonial armies were armed with single shot, muzzle loading rifles. Cannons were the "big" guns. Modern technology has changed the playing field. Though in a package similar to semi-automatic weapons, I still consider automatic weapons one of the "big guns" for warfare. Posse Comitatus generally prohibits US military personnel from directly engaging in law enforcement. It's the "State Guards" the citizenry has to have second thoughts about. Misuse such as Kent State and against peaceful civil rights protests readily come to mind. Still that doesn't call for arming up with automatic weapons. It's more a call to take a closer look at elected officials who are placed in command of such forces. You don't have to repeat quotes from Jefferson to make your point with me. As far as the Constitution goes, I'm a strict constructionist in the true sense. Quotes from Hitler are sometimes thought provoking. The guy was as evil as they come. Some things he said appeared philanthropic, but his actions always proved otherwise. His registration of arms in order to seize them appear different than current registration in the US. I suspect if seizure started, there would be a rash of gun thefts. I would make it a point to accidentally leave my gun safe unlocked. Hopefully we will never see a military dictator running this country. So far the safeguards written into the Constitution by our forefathers have prevented abuses more than arming citizens with automatic weapons.
The single shot, muzzle loading rifle back in the 1700s was the equivalent of automatic assault rifle we see today. Just because the automatic assault rifle today is obviously more deadly, doesn't mean citizens should be barred from having them, as long as they're well-trained, and law-abiding citizens. The rifle back in the 1700s was a lot more dangerous than simply a sword, but that didn't make the founding fathers think "Whoa! This rifle is too much firepower, and makes sniping from long range much too easy to slaughter others with, for the everyday citizen. Let them just have swords!" Nope. They (Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers of this nation) literally wanted citizens to carry the exact same main gun that their current military was carrying, solely because it gives the private citizens an equal stance against such military, if that military was ever turned on them by a corrupt government. Automatic rifles, such as the M-16, are not the equivalent to the cannon of colonial times. The M777 Howitzer cannons and/or shoulder launched RPG's (Rocket Propelled Grenade's) are the basic equivalent to the cannon of colonial times. Again, the literal context of the 2nd Amendment is: to give the exact firearm to the private citizens, with which their current military soldiers also carry into battle. Trying to twist and turn such a context, is exactly what corrupt government loves to do. Do not fall for such a thing. If they have problems with criminals getting such high powered rifles, then they need to come up with another way to prevent such a thing; but not by banning every citizen from owning them. That'd be the equivalent of the King of England banning all rifles in citizens' hands back in colonial times, simply because some criminals abused them, and sniped people from long range; as opposed to running up on them and stabbing them with a knife. If he did forcefully and successfully ban all guns because of this, then this nation (United States of America) would not be here today! Since the founding fathers, and other private citizens that fought in the Revolutionary War, would've been unarmed, and would not even bother fighting a whole army with guns in their hands.
Therein lies the dilemma. The majority of gun owners aren't well trained and there's no assurance the guns will only be in law-abiding hands. That's what curtailed ownership of automatic weapons to begin with. This is one point we're not likely to agree on. I don't think the founding fathers had their thoughts on Nostradamus or an eye to a crystal ball when writing the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin's idea of rapid fire was a bow. I believe in the right to bear arms, but realize there should be a limit. Otherwise, why shouldn't I be allowed a few LAWs rockets along with a GE minigun?
Then let them become well-trained. This is the sole reason why the 2nd Amendment says: "A well-regulated militia..." I am all for this! This is even more so a further guarantee, added onto the effectiveness of the private citizens fighting against such a corrupt domestic government, if the need were ever to arise. So, again, I'm totally for training people in the use of automatic rifles and guerrilla warfare tactics. This is training for worst case scenarios, which I strongly believe should be done. Just like any woman trains herself to be ready for a man that's trying to rape her, even though she has never been raped before in the past... she still learns from history, that she is still a target for such rape. There's no total assurance that only law-abiding citizens will only have automatic rifles? I agree. But there's also no total assurance against criminals getting into government, and trying to take over the people by force; there's also no assurance that criminals will never join the military, steal a bunch of M-16 assault rifles, and use it against the people. But, that doesn't stop us from having governments and armed militaries, does it? No. That's because, even with the chance of there being a possibility for a corrupt government, or corrupt soldiers in the military, we still need government to keep [righteous] laws upheld; we still need a military to fight against another military attempting to invade us by force. Thus, I do not see a sound argument against my point, that all law-abiding citizens should have a right to assault rifles. Selling motor vehicles, planes, and other possible deadly weapons, to any private citizen, doesn't assure the population that these objects will never be used against them. But, we still sell those to people, anyway! And when those planes, which can cause more death than an M-16, crashes into buildings, as seen on 9/11, do we then ban airliners? No. You can't ban certain things, that'll most of the time be used for good, simply because there are few times they'll be abused, and used unjustly. If that were to come true, then I say that all governments must give up their militaries! Since there are plenty of governments that've abused their power in the past, and even today, by murdering millions of people with their militaries. Ban government military's around the world, therefore? Even one unjust government using a military, as seen in Nazi Germany, during WWII, can slaughter millions of people! Much more people died there, than all those that died by private criminals using firearms, let alone assault rifles, in the last 100 to 200 years! Look at Switzerland! All of their male citizens have automatic assault rifles carried on their person, all of the time! You can see people riding on bicycles with assault rifles strapped across their backs! I've seen it myself! No joke. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world! Yes, they're trained in defense of their country (as I imagine our militia doing, as well), but will that assure them they'll never have a murderer with an assault rifle, go on a rampage? No. Do they still let their citizens carry those assault rifles? Yes. There are certain people that want all firearms banned, since it makes it easier for criminals to kill. You do not agree with banning all firearms, right? Because you see some firearms as a right to protect yourself with, from private criminals... correct? Well, I'm simply going a step further up that "tree of logical defense", and suggesting that we have a right to own assault rifles, like the M-16, since the reason is clearly stated by the spirit of the 2nd Amendment: To protect all private citizens from the greatest possible criminal of all: corrupt, tyrannical government! "The balance of power, is the scale of peace." Of course, I do not believe the 2nd Amendment was specifically talking about cannons in every citizens' hands or homes. So, you bringing up LAW rockets in your possession, is not what I'm trying to suggest. Though, imagining if assault rifles are made useless against government military, then I will look further into suggesting we do have a right to something more powerful than assault rifles. However, until then, I think at least 250,000,000+ well-trained citizens with assault rifles (like M-16s or AK-47s) can take on an armed military, using guerrilla warfare tactics. So, right now, assault rifles should be good enough, imo. And, if it comes down to Statewide military trying to fight the people? Then, at the least, the people have assault rifles. Again, this is a layered defense involved, for a worst case scenario. That's apart of the exact context of the 2nd Amendment: To give private citizens, individually and also as a whole, certain firepower, that'd make domestic government (City, State and Federal) not bother trying to rule over such private citizens by force; and, if that government did try to do such a thing, they'd fail miserably! Because the people are heavily armed, to the point of keeping their liberties by sheer force. It's that plain, and that simple. I also believe in a limit to which firearms We The People should have a right to carry! Here it is: We should only go as far as it needs to be taken, in order for all private citizens to have the ultimate power in their hands, to therefore take back their liberties by force, if/when needed, in case their own government attempts to take away those liberties, by force, in the first place. That is the context of limitation for which the 2nd Amendment was written, and for which Thomas Jefferson himself, had in mind. To ensure our liberty, I believe it is best to train, keep and bear firearms, which are the same as your current military's main battle rifle. If the government gives each of their soldiers "laser beam assault rifles" as their main battle rifle tomorrow, you'll see me say that law-abiding citizens have a right to laser beam guns. And so on. If you still disagree with this, then I guess there's no further I can go on the subject. I will agree to disagree. I am happy that you at least do not believe in banning all firearms from citizens' hands!
Lets just say I'm happy with laws on automatic weapons the way they are and along with the majority of the people in this country. We've gone since the early part of the last century without civilian ownership of automatic weapons and I've seen no rights lost that didn't happen in a democratic manner. Most anything considered lost can be attributed to the voting public. I like the freedom to own firearms, but there has to be some controls. If automatic weapon ownership was so important, I suspect someone would try to get legislation changed or at least a vote by the people. Not even the NRA is trying to do that. When tyranny prevails and our freedom becomes eroded, then we may need heavier arms. Until then I think I can protect my home with a tactical shotgun and USP semi-automatic. There's no winning this discussion by anyone. This amounts to your opinion vs my opinion and both are valid in our own eyes. Similar to anti and pro gun factions, no amount of rhetoric is likely to change things. I'm sure there are those who agree with both of us. If/when your faction wins, I'll accept my automatic weapon.
This has absolutely nothing to do to add to this thread...just eerie that the 777th post in this thread was made by PacMan777...coincidence?????
Gwen, it must be the end of the world is coming. It would be really convincing had it been Pacman666 and the 666th post. LMAO Anyway, Happy New Year to you and your family and I hope Papa Noel was good to you.
