Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by truthermantwo
oi buddy check out the switzerland gun laws. they are all required to own semi auto assault weapons and learn how to use them efficiantly. ONE IN EVERY HALF MILLION DEATHS are caused by gun violence
Yep... you've underlined the problem - AMERICANS can't be trusted with guns... the Swiss obviously can.
One day maybe AMERICANS will be responsible guns owners, but right now, they're NOT.
Thanks for reminding me, that it's not the guns, but the population...
The US population is unable to safely own guns.
Originally posted by Hijinx
Originally posted by madenusa
reply to post by Hijinx
I see no need for seat belts,helmets, some do, some dont.
Its not going to stop some wack job from buying 50lbs of furtilizer at Wallmart & wipeing out a city block,
I see no need for over 10lbs of furtilizer per person.
At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government?
See the interesting thing you miss here, is Ammonium Nitrate(the fertilizer used for explosives) Is monitored. Large purchases are reported to the fed.
How does you seat belts and helmets even remotely relate? It's not a matter, what need does a civilian have for weapons designed to kill human beings alone? You still have the right to bear arms. The constitution says that exactly, it also states in a well regulated militia. Implying regulation, and a militia. The civilian populace is not a militia(though it can be) so the fact as a standard civilian you get them at all should be a bonus.
Your right to bear arms is not infringed. You can still own guns, just not guns designed specifically to kill large amounts of human beings. It makes perfect sense, and unless your intention to own the weapon is to just that why do you need them? Why must it be your right to put others in danger? Even if you are a responsible owner, are you willing to be labeled because of the actions of others? It's quite simple.
They continue allowing these weapons, and pry into the privacy of the owners. Random checks on possession of the weapons, ammo, magazines and accessories. Having a neighbor call because they feel you're acting out of sorts knowing you own Assault weapons. Random break ins by the law suspecting you may be up to no good because you own said weapon. Risking those weapons being stolen etc.
It's simply easier to remove them from public sale. It really is. They are unnecessary in any regard. You can take an assault weapon, put it in untrained hands and the individual can kill or wound dozens of people. This is not the case with all fire arms however. Why give something designed to be easy to use, easy to maintain, with a high likeliness of putting down multiple targets in quick succession in civilian hands. It's not necessary.
It is not a civilian right to put others in danger. It is not a civilians right to own Assault weapons. The Amendment says Arms, with out specifying kind or quantity. This does not impact that law, until you are not allowed to own any guns this law is irrelevant.
Originally posted by spoogemonkey
Why don't you guys just use your fists?
Plenty of space in my country for you yanks who don't care for guns, so come on over. All the others.. well you can stay there. Does that make me a gunnist?
enjoy your gunfights guys! pow pow
*why's that guy putting his hand down hi... pow pow
*No! you cut me off son of a.. pow pow
*that's my parking space! no it's not.. yes it i... pow pow
*why's that car window lowering... oh it's bob.. pow pow
edit on 22-11-2012 by spoogemonkey because: no reason
The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21.
We didn't stop the tyrants
We watched them steal our freedom
By our silence we consented
While the Bill of Rights was murdered
And the Constitution raped
Others too afraid
To think about our children
But we watched the flame of freedom
I'm sorry we were timid
My selfish generation
Like cowards we behaved
We could have left you freedom
Instead you are enslaved
Children of tomorrow
Originally posted by Bedlam
Wow, interesting list. Too bad about 75% of my pile is on it.
Got a couple of Barrett .50BMG rifles too, it's surprising they didn't list them.
Originally posted by spoogemonkey
But the idea that someone would walk around with a high powered gun for the reason of protection, would suggest that that person would be inclined to use it (no S**T). The problem is humans make mistakes, and may use disproportionate force on the bad guy (if a guy steals your wallet, does he deserve to be shot? killed?) your legal system says no. But that's what happens. It opens up vigilantism.
Originally posted by mash3d
Yeah I noticed that also. Which makes me think that this isn't a real list or whoever made it up doesn't know
a .50 cal from a sling shot.
As far as I know, State governors maintain control over Guard troops domestically unless they are acting in a Federal capacity for national defense. But seriously, and I mean really, would a state governor have the authority, and balls, to issue orders to National Guard troops that trample the Bill of Rights? The Feds clearly don't have a problem with that, but do the States? Additionally, do we know for certain which Chain of Command the National Guard was operating under? State or Fed? Of course, this is a perfect scenario for FEMA to step in and do everyone's Dirty Work.
More than 1,000 firearms were illegally seized by the police and National Guard troopers, without warrant or probable cause, and with no legal authority under existing statute.