posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:11 AM
An amusing thread, I gotta tell ya. It never fails to amaze me when I behold the lack of understanding present in sheeple who toe the party line. So
many things I'd like to comment on, so little space.
1. An "assault weapon" is, by definition, capable of selective fire (both full and semi auto). So called "assault weapon" bans have no effect
on true assault weapons. Those are already covered by the National Firearms Act.
2. A semi auto ban will effectively disarm the populace, thus allowing the powers that be to do with us as they will. Just like criminals, no civil
servant wants to get shot just for using you as he will.
3. Once they get those "evil black guns" out of the way, you can look forward to a ban on bolt action rifles of all descriptions. after all, the
military uses such devices as sniper rifles, therefore the powers that be will want to disarm all those pesky civilian snipers out there too. A sniper
rifle cannot be used to hunt, anymore than I can kill a deer with my AK. Those a WAR WEAPONS, and of course have no other capabilities. BTW, shotguns
make excellent trench guns, so I'm sure they won't be allowed to stand either.
4. The construction of the 2nd amendment-- the initial phrase, " a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", is
what is known as a "preamble", it is not the operative clause. it sets forth one justification, out of many, for the operative clause which follows,
which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." which is quite clear in its wording. In all other amendments, "the
people" are understood by all to include all U.S. citizens, so why would this one amendment mean anything different, with the exact same word?
Imagine if only politicians as a class were allowed to speak freely as guaranteed by the first amendment, and perhaps you'll understand the danger in
singling out one class of American to apply the constitution to, making everyone else second class citizens, without rights. Yes, grammar is
important. one should have an understanding of it before trying to teach it to others. as an aside, I go sleeveless quite often, thereby exercising my
right to "bare arms". and while on the subject of Constitutional constructions, what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? A dictionary may
help you there.
5. This very evening, in my home town, Obama called Palin a pig. hardly the behavior one would expect of a presidential aspirant. He also told the
crowd the he was not going to take away their shotguns, their rifles, or their handguns. But sir, my ONLY rifle is an "assault weapon", as defined
by the uninformed (semi-auto Romanian SAR-2). How am I to rectify that statement with his desire to ban "assault weapons" and Semi-automatic
weapons? My answer is simple: when a man talks out of both sides of his face, I trust neither side. In reference to his first above mentioned comment,
I assure you that although I am only a poor, ignorant hick hillbilly, I most certainly do not put lipstick on my pigs. That would be a waste of
lipstick, and surely it would irritate both my wife and my pig.
6. I fail to understand why "gun violence" is singled out, as if it is so much more despicable than, say, "knife violence", ball bat
violence", or even "claw hammer violence". Isn't the root problem violence, rather than the tool of choice in executing said violence? I was once
told, long ago, that " a dangerous man is a dangerous man. Take away his gun, he will find a knife. Take away his knife, he will find a stick, or a
rock. Some folks are just junkyard dog mean." I would think society should be interested in defending itself against such people, rather than
inanimate objects, which after all have no power apart from the hand which animates them.
If you all can excuse me now, I feel a pressing need to go cling to my guns and my religion, out of my desperate bitterness.