Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by vkey08
So banning high capacity magazines, and fully automatic assault rifles, as well as armor piercing bullets, is still within the confines of the Second
Amendment, plain simple and to the point, no-one is saying you can't have a gun, just that you have to meet certain criteria with your purchase. You
can't buy a 5000 round magazine or a fully automatic rifle, sorry folks, it's all legal, it's not infringing on that right and I'll be honest, if
you're a good enough shot, ONE is all you need. (I've never needed more..)
So you're okay with the government being the authority to grant the privilege for an individual to purchase a firearm of their choosing?
Doesn't sound like a right anymore.
It sounds more like a platitude or a boon granted by a higher authority.
But they aren't really.. Criminals of certain classes have never been able to legally purchase a handgun, etc. If you had certain mental illnesses,
you were never supposed to be able to (I forget the list but it's pretty short) Nowhere do any of these laws say the average citizen, who has not a)
committed a violent offense/family offense, and b) who is not classified as severely mentally ill to the point that they would hurt themselves or
others, cannot have a gun. All they really say is you can't have a gun that kills your whole town in a few shots.. there's a huge difference.
So unless Obama comes out and says:
"Everyone who is depressed is now banned from owning a gun" (He hasn't he has stated that the criteria is that you have offered up evidence or
statement that you are going to harm yourself or others, which HAS ALWAYS been there, just now it will be in a database)
You can't have any guns at all citizens, turn in even your peashooters. (again, noone is taking away your guns, and there is NO RETRO-ACTIVITY on the
then what's the big deal? Do you feel safe, knowing someone that has told their doctor that they wanna mow down a day care because mommy was men to
them, can buy a weapon of mass killing?
The problem with all of this is semantics, it's the way it's all been worded, everyone is spinning it, it's simple:
If you say you're gonna go out and hurt people, you ain't gonna buy a gun.
If you have been convicted of a domestic violence OR violent crime, you ain't gonna buy a gun.
and If you want a gun that can kill thousands in seconds, no you can't have it, you really don't need it.
That's what this all boils down to, everything else is smokescreen. Now Devil's Advocate says that they can expand that mental health law now to
include almost everyone (and then, and only then should this discussion even be anywhere near where it is now) and that would be a violation of the
right to bear arms. But so far, they want ot have a national dialogue, what happens in that dialogue if it's found that people are sick of being
drugged happy? Well.. hmm ever read One Second After? People who had suddenly gone off their happy pills all turned into flesh eating rabid
cannibals (it was slightly exaggerated for the book but you get the point) maybe they should look at that.. What i'm saying is this has less to do
with the gutting of the Second Amendment and moreto do with the fact that we have drugged our nation into submission and now we have to deal with the
consequences of that..