Posted: 7/2/2004 9:48:31 PM EDT
|
The assault weapons ban is a Second Amendment issue. When the SA was written it was to provide protection of citizens from a tyranical government with modern military weapons. Durring that time military weapons a muzzle loading single shot weapon. The delicate balance between government and citizens when the SA was written still exists today. Today the weapons have changed, but the need for modern military weapons has not. Someone needs to pound that into Dianne Feinstein's head. |
Amen brother, Happy 4th to ya! |
+1 |
Happy 4th back at ya' pard. That reminds me, I've got to put the Flag up in the morning. 
|
|
I have come to the realization that there are two types of people who support the Leftist agenda in this country. Group one is the educated "elite" few (politicians, College Professors, other educated and intelligent individuals), who hope to seize great power by subjugating the great majority of the population, and or hope that their “elite” status will afford them a position of opportunity above that of the lowly peasants. In order to further their agenda the must carefully word their positions, twist facts, conduct faulty research, and even lie to fool the voters into thinking that they are benefiting by voting/supporting/believing said rhetoric. Which brings me to group two. Group two is the “average Joe Six-Pack” Lower to middle class (soccer mom, student, bum, etc.) They support Group One because they are ignorant of history, ignorant of the founding documents of this nation, and lack the foresight to take anything at more than face value. A good example is the Second Amendment issue. Group One = Feinstein, Shumer, Clinton, etc. Group Two = Soccer Moms etc. Lesson, don’t under estimate the Antis’ knowledge of the facts, they know all about the 2nd amendment (and it scares them to death). |
Put the flag up every day, If some A##holes got a problem...  F' em YEEEEE HAAAAAAWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Very well said! |
|
If ANY firearms are protected under the Second Amendment, it is so-called "military style assault weapons". If they can ban these, there is NO protection for mere "sporting arms". The Second Amendment is about the average citizen having the capability to form a militia, to counter an overstepping federal govenment, and if needed, to overthrow a regime who has hijacked freedom. The writings of the Forefathers makes no bones about it, they did not stutter. This is exactly what they intended. The Second does not cover fishing poles, nor tennis rackets, nor gold clubs, nor even skeet guns. It is all about arms useful to citizens for military and police purposes. And to me, that means the US Citizen should be able to have the same M4's and M16A2's as our military. So, the Feinstein-Schumer crowd are smart. They go after just the ugliest of guns, the ones owned by the least number of citizens... the ugly black rifles, and label them "assault weapons". They go after .50 BMG cal "sniper rifles". They separate those owners from the duck hunters and deer hunters and squirrel hunters, give those guys a feeling of safety. They make it a "us or them" thing. They want the hunters to side against us, hoping to sacrifice the "assault weapons" in order to "compromise" and save their hunting arms. They separate us further with "grandfather clauses", separating the haves and have not black rifle owners vs potential new black rifle owners. This makes the law palatable to present owners, gain their backing, to pass the law, and only bans future production and ownership. Or further, as in Kalifornistan, where a new potential buyer is even barred from buying a black rifle from a previous owner. Attrition. Then they "tighten" the ineffective law. After even more attrition in the ranks, and some more Wacos and Ruby Ridges to frighten more gun owners, they will later ban ALL semi autos. Then it follows the registration-confiscation pattern of England, Australia, and now, Canada. They are always wanting way too much, being unreasonable, then they "compromise" taking a smaller bite they can get away with. And the gun owners are happy, because they think they saved some of their guns. In reality, they lost more. Next time it will be more and more. We KNOW they will only be satisfied with a total ban. "If I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in." We must not only fight back, but GAIN. We must have not only CCW, but UNLICENSED CCW as in Vermont. We must fight places like Illinois with their FOID system. We must take on the Morton Groves with their handgun bans. We must take back the rights of citizens to possess arms in Washington, DC. We must stop fighting defensively, and take the offense. We must take the battle to THEIR home turf. We must actively support pro gun governors, politicians, and against the ones that have screwed us. We must be vocal in public when officials and others spout their antigun lies. We must stop being nice and polite. We are at war. And if we lose, our children may one day ride in cattle cars to concentration camps and gas chambers. We must win, and win totally. |
I think one problem is that they are caught up in their own "power trip" to the point where they actually believe that they can "law" something out of exsistance. They think that they are God and can just "speak" the word and it'l be so. Well, in the real world criminals don't follow laws and if they keep pushing out more and more laws pertty soon Law Biding Citizens won't be following the law anymore either. 
|