Just Curious
Posted by Razorback from i1066.photobucket.com
Pin it! tinman97030, KyleMueller, Mick_Lee and 3 others like this
Added in Guns and Such
tinman97030, KyleMueller, Mick_Lee and 3 others like this
8 comments
Login to comment →
Coolduude 11 years, 4 months ago
I don't quite follow the logic here...
Reply
Razorback 11 years, 4 months ago
@cooldude - I agree it might have been worded better but I think the intent is to say that a person's right to bear arms should not be forfeited because someone uses the right to free speech to convince others to violate the search and seizure laws (come and take away someone's gun).
Reply
KyleSmith 11 years, 4 months ago
@Razorback - The last time an assault weapons ban took place, it did not apply to already purchased assault styled weapons, just prohibited the sale of new ones. There was no confiscation or anything, at least as far as I know. Even during the ban, manufacturers still made rifles on the AR platform.
Forgive me, but I am going to post a link to wikipedia about the gun ban, for more info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Also, has anyone thought about how the 9th ammendment applies here?
Reply
Razorback 11 years, 4 months ago
@kylesmith - You are correct. There has never been an attempt to collect weapons and I cannot foresee how there ever would be. The resistance and potential violence from such an act would be horrible. I think this applies more to the anti-gun people who purport the solution is to not only stop the sale of weapons but also collect what exists today. Neither is a viable solution. The AR ban should remain in effect because, in my opinion, nobody needs one. As far as the 9th goes, one could probably argue on either side of the fence.
Reply
High_Binder 11 years, 4 months ago
"Razorback
@kylesmith - You are correct. There has never been an attempt to collect weapons"
Razorback , you're forgetting Louisiana, post Katrina. They DID violate the 4th/2nd.
Reply
KyleSmith 11 years, 4 months ago
@Razorback - Yeah I agree with that, and I thought about the 9th for a minute, and you're right on the money. It can go both ways. However, I will say, in reality, the only thing that separates an assault style rifle from a let's say M1 Garand, is a pistol grip and a removable mag. AND, it's better because the AR actually has a saftey. The NEED viewpoint is foreign to me on this topic, and I probably need more understanding, but we could say nobody NEEDS an Aston Martin, but I WANT one.
Reply
KyleSmith 11 years, 4 months ago
Question, if there is a call to collect, wouldn't it have to be a buy back? Do you think our government could that?
Reply
JakeLonergan 11 years, 4 months ago
Really? You're playing the "need" card here? No, wait, I shouldn't go off on a rant on a guy who seems to be mostly on our side. But, if you think "they" want to stop with AR's (just because they are scary looking) you would be incorrect. If, for example, you think that just because you only "need" and have a bolt or lever-action rifle do not for one minute think you are safe. Try giving Rob Olive's book, Essential Liberty, a read to see the future these people want. There is no line for them. Good call on the 9th, Kyle.
Reply