These are your Gun Owning Neighbors.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Raees wrote: To answer the question put to me, a rifle you have to chamber the next bullet into -- not something modified to fire 100 rounds with 100 consecutive trigger pulls. That's an assault rifle. Assault rifles are made for nothing other to kill many people in a short amount of time.

I know it's not your description, but it's mine.

I agree...And I'm not interested in the wild off-the-wall irrelevant analogies either.

Actually many of the more accurate rifles are semi-auto AR's. They do tend to use 5 or 20 round magazines instead of 100 round drums off the bench.

And while I haven't seen a law banning atomic bombs per se, with the proper permits, you can own 75mm artillery and tanks.

I am curious. The reason I posted this was because of the picture of two people in your town on this national story. Anyone know them personally?

FredHayek wrote: Actually many of the more accurate rifles are semi-auto AR's. They do tend to use 5 or 20 round magazines instead of 100 round drums off the bench.

And while I haven't seen a law banning atomic bombs per se, with the proper permits, you can own 75mm artillery and tanks.

But don't you agree with the nation's citizens armed with atomic bombs, we would be safer from being taken over by another country or a junta?

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Actually many of the more accurate rifles are semi-auto AR's. They do tend to use 5 or 20 round magazines instead of 100 round drums off the bench.

And while I haven't seen a law banning atomic bombs per se, with the proper permits, you can own 75mm artillery and tanks.

But don't you agree with the nation's citizens armed with atomic bombs, we would be safer from being taken over by another country or a junta?

Sidebar: despite the best efforts of Israel, Barack & "W", Iran will get a nuke. But I think they will find it to be a pretty useless purchase/build. If they actually use it against a neighbor, the world will hit them with super sanctions. Just something to look pretty and hidden. They will probably be like Israel and never admit to actually owning one.

An armed society is a polite society.

And PEACE through superior fire power,, is kinda what keeps some counties away. Just look at Canada, they don't wanna invade us.

Raees wrote: Tell me, do you think the 2nd Amendment allows you to own your own atom bomb?

Nope - know why? It's not what the common soldier carries into battle. Neither is an AR for that matter, it's a less capable copy of the standard issue battle rifle used by the US armed forces. If you are willing to let us have the current issue battle rifle, I'd be willing to give up on owning an AR. Problem with that, for your perspective at least, is the current issue battle rifle lets me send 3 bullets towards the target with a single trigger pull, not one. Oh, and it can accept a drum magazine as well, that would be a problem for you too, wouldn't it.

The federal government has already disarmed the populace to a greater extent than at any other time in our union's history, but some folks will never be satisfied. Personally I wouldn't want the responsibility for keeping my own personal nuke secured from rogue leftists looking to start a revolution of some kind, so I probably wouldn't choose to own one even if I could.

How bout a tiny little one?

I'd rather have a Ma Duece or a 40 mm Bofors truth be told. Those you could at least have some fun punching holes in paper and totaled cars with while you were waiting for the balloon to go up. Couldn't do that with a nuke - though I'm sure a few leftist revolutionary types would set it off for fun if they got their hands on one.

I'm with Jefferson, "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Jefferson sounded like a revolutionary type. He thought we should have one every 20 years...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

The Gun Control Timeline is an interesting read...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

Pretty well clarifies the purpose of the 2nd Amendment from the perspective of the folks who wrote it and ratified it, doesn't it Raees.