Quote:
Originally Posted by luv2luv
So, I read all of this. Some qualifies as educated, well-thought, and reasonable; others qualify as ... well, the word ridiculous comes to mind. Among the latter is the thought that just because I am in the public, I am militia. I can just imagine the government publishing a notice for all able-bodied men to grab their weapons and report to the local recruiting office for immediate deployment. You would be the first in line to scream "You can't do this. I'm a private system. We don't have a militia any more".
I have always maintained (and by the way, I am a retired Marine with 31 years service and 12 years in law enforcement) that SCOTUS got it wrong, that the first phrase of the 2nd amendment qualifies the right to bear arms, since it specifies the right to carry is to support the militia. But that aside, I dont', the Democrats don't, I know very few folks who do ... want to take all guns away from private citizens. Why do you equate a desire to take assault weapons and high capacity magazines out of circulation with the right to hunt and protect yourselves? Simply isn't the same thing. I have been asking the same question for years. Give me one reason why anyone NEEDS an assault rifle, other than for curiosity or to kill mass numbers. You wouldn't hunt with one. It isn't appropriate for self-protection in the home. You can't carry it in your car or on your person. What's the point?
Enough of my rant. And I won't return to read the impassioned responses by gun nuts convinced I'm ripping the AK-47s out of their arms.
|
I finally read this thread and am awed by some of the responses. There's so much mumbo jumbo blah blah blah, rationalize this and rationalize that in support of gun rights or should they be regulated to minimal ownership.
The banning of Muslims from those nations is not an attack on religion. The Muslim religion is now only a vehicle for political dominance and control...not much different than the Catholic church in medieval times. Sharia law is politics....not religion.
A well regulated militia and the right to bear arms was not intended to mean you can have your gun and go hunting. It means the right to possess firearms that can defend you against the government is specifically reserved to the citizens. It is only a fail stop to allow citizens to reorganize to correct the current government or initiate a new one.
I have an AK47 and a 45-70 Guide gun, both are on the far end of the spectrum for personal defense, but very useful in a militia setting. I use the AK specifically for feral hog hunting because it allows for multiple rapid shots with a relatively effective round, and is a very manageable gun. Very desirable when facing a wounded charging hog or multiple animals. So saying that no one needs an AK to go hunting is absurd.....it's one of the preferred guns in this setting. I'll remind you that it is not the firearm but the person who wields it that is the danger....and I'm hardly dangerous.
The 45-70 is just a toy, tremendous fun with it shooting turtles or water moccasins in the pond, but it has the firepower to penetrate a car or truck at reasonable distances. Will I ever really need it? Don't know, hope not, probably will not, but it's there should the situation arise.
