many gun afficionados (gun nuts), many of them seem to be more
interested in inciting this to happen rather than just wanting to have
protections in the eventuality that it does. A lot of their sites read
like domestic terrorism manifestos.
I will point out again, that these weapons would be illegal even if
the Assault Weapons Ban does expire.
-Kevin
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:26:59 -0400, Matthew Small
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to say that I don't agree with the NRA about much of anything. I think they are a crazy bunch with the wrong ideas about why the US should not ban firearms. I don't think that an M-16 is necessary to protect my house against a thief, nor do I desire to hunt Bambi with a 50 cal automatic rifle.
>
> However, I do think back to the reason that the Second Amendment exists, and that is to prevent the government from disarming the public and then committing tyranny. As unlikely as it seems, it is entirely possible that one day, a President will be able to ban all firearms and then declare Marshal Law, thus negating the Constitution.
>
> It is not beyond the realm of possibility that methods to do just this are in place as we speak. One day, sooner or later, conditions will be ripe for a Coup D'Etat in the United States. The US as it exists now cannot go on forever without checks against the Government by the people, and I do believe that the Second Amendment is the strongest check that we can possible have.
>
> As much griping about the First Amendment there is on this list, why can't the Second Amendment receive as much attention and protection as it deserves? Once the Second Amendment disappears, the First Amendment will be gone forever.
>
> Both the First and the Second Amendments are about keeping the Government from becoming too powerful, and all citizens should be vigilant about keeping it in place - even if it means allowing Jim-Bob next door to have a Bazooka. He might have to use it to protect you some day.
>
> - Matt Small
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: S. Isaac Dealey
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:37 AM
> Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban Question
>
> > Ok, fair enough. I guess that I can understand that line
> > of thinking from
> > them (the NRA) in that their concern is that if there is
> > any limiting
> > legislation, it could become a slippery slope. I still
> > don't see the need
> > for these weapons to be readily available, either for
> > hunting (LOL) or home
> > defense, but oh well...
>
> I find that a good M-16 is much more effective when hunting deer. With
> only a rifle the deer can run for 100 yards or so after its been shot,
> whereas the assault weapon puts it on the ground immediately. Saves me
> some walking. Not to mention if you like puree'd fowl, it's pretty
> effective.
>
> s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
>
> new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
>
> add features without fixtures with
> the onTap open source framework
> http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
