Squanto wrote:
I just don't accept that logic. The colonists didn't put together a violent group of armed rebels to overthrow the British. They used legislative means to declare independence, and only when attacked did they respond in defense. In fact, the new US government did everything they could to avoid armed conflict with the British.
Armed, violent insurrection to overthrow government was never something supported by the founders.
To counter this argument, not necessarily this exact quote but this argument. Why should they be allowed to limit what people use for recreation? At the end of the day the responsibility lies on the gun owner, and the person who sold them said weapon. I'm all for background checks, and limitation of ownership of certain types of fire arms (ie Hand Guns, Cannons, Explosive devices, ect) however, I see no reason for them to limit the use of long range rifles. I have several long range rifles that I had to make compliant with the new laws, including two semi-automatic rifles (not assault rifles, there is a difference), I was angry but complied, however, I do not feel that these limitations have made us any safer, as gun violence continues, and will continue. The problem is that we aren't enforcing the laws the right ways. There should be a few day waiting period on any firearm sold, there should be a training course on how to use firearms for any first time buyer, and there should be a registration process for all weapons bought and sold. The issue is with the commerce of fire arms, not the existence of them. This falls under the elastic clause of the Constitution, not the 2nd Amendment. I'm all for stricter laws, and more licensing, but I will never be out there for an outright ban on any firearm. Maybe it's just the redneck in me, but I shoot for recreation, not shoot to kill.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
