eric922 wrote: MiracleNeeded wrote:
sinfiery wrote:So a basic assumption here is that violence is and always will be a necessity to battle at least one type of oppression.
But you have to grant that the very threat that comes from others possessing guns takes away just a bit of my freedom. That is the cost, and not a cost I want our members of society to pay forever. But for now, yes.
Also this cost of freedom is directly tied to how effective your weapon is. Thus a ban on assault guns to me, is warranted.
Your freedom to live a quiet and undisturbed existence can be violated by many of the rights granted to the people. A Jihadist can blow up a building you're in because some guy makes a cartoon of Mohamed that guy wasn't happy about. Should we tell people not to make anymore youtube videos because we don't want to another attack on American soil (the embassy was technically American soil).
define what an assault weapon is.
The truth is that we pay a price for living in a free society. There was very little gun crime in the USSR, there is no gun crime and very little violent crime in Cuba, I don't want to live in those societies. You say we should ban assault weapons. What's an assault weapon? by your definition.
Any automatic weapon. I'm sorry, but a pistol or shotgun should be sufficient for home defense. No one needs to own an automatic weapon. And to be completely honest, I'm starting to think your political views may be a hindrance to law school admissions. You aren't just a Republican, you are coming across as slightly paranoid and seem to be preparing for an imminent government takeover
Any automatic weapon? Those are already illegal and have been illegal for the last 19 years. The truth is, your definition is not the same as the government's definition. From 1994 to 2004 we had an assault weapon's ban which made ALL fully automatic weapons illegal. In RARE cases with a tax stamp (yes, everything is illegal unless you float Uncle Sam a few hundred bucks) and oh, about $20,000 you can get yourself a preban (post 1994) full auto weapon, unless you live in NY, CA, DC, NJ, MA, and well, it would be easier to list where you CAN have them. In those states mentioned, the original federal ban which expired in 2004 is still in effect. In NYS we added more limits, it USED two take TWO cosmetic features to make a rifle an "assault weapon" now it takes ONE feature. Let me say that again, these things are COSMETIC. If I have a Rifle that fires exactly the same as a so called assault weapon but it has no pistol grip, no barrel shroud, no whatever the shit else, then it is legal, and NOT n assault weapon, this is madness.
I'm also not paranoid, I was arguing for the second amendment and why it was put in the constitution. I have no fear that the Bama will declare marshal law, I don't see a revolution in our future. I do like having options, I do like having the guns that I see fit to have. Which brings me to this point. Who are you to dictate what is sufficient for my home defense needs? I have a Glock 30 on my nightstand, which replaced a shotgun that was in my closet. I also have several handguns that I carry for self defense due to my job. I have an AR, but I don't have it loaded in my home for defense, in fact it isnt even assembled anymore, that's how whacky and paranoid I am. I didn't get the AR for the apocalypse, nor did I get the SKS that's being shipped to my FFL dealer in a week for a government take over. I got them because they're fun to shoot, fun to have, and I just wanted them. You say that should not be so. You say I can't have something because i don't need it in your estimation.