Alex Jones Rips Piers Morgan a new one!
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
The truth is that citizens really don't need assault weapons.
This includes shoulder fired missile launchers; which for some strange reason are banned, although constitutionally allowed.
But, gun nuts don't get excited about that level of arms control.
Go figure.
Anyways, as far as assault rifles, they are not optimal for home security.
And, you are not going to prevent the government from doing things you don't like.
Of course, I do realize that we have a few gun "professionals" who would be capable of taking down the USAF if any trouble comes up. LMAO.
I fully understand that an AR-15 is fun for target shooting.
A lot of fun.
But, giving them up to prevent mass killings, is a good thing.
I'm willing to say that it is a necessary step.
The constitution is outdated in a few areas; arms control is one of those areas.
Problem is, we got a few who are stuck, mentally, in about 1776.
This includes shoulder fired missile launchers; which for some strange reason are banned, although constitutionally allowed.
But, gun nuts don't get excited about that level of arms control.
Go figure.
Anyways, as far as assault rifles, they are not optimal for home security.
And, you are not going to prevent the government from doing things you don't like.
Of course, I do realize that we have a few gun "professionals" who would be capable of taking down the USAF if any trouble comes up. LMAO.
I fully understand that an AR-15 is fun for target shooting.
A lot of fun.
But, giving them up to prevent mass killings, is a good thing.
I'm willing to say that it is a necessary step.
The constitution is outdated in a few areas; arms control is one of those areas.
Problem is, we got a few who are stuck, mentally, in about 1776.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE; PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Please choose option #1.
I agree and that is where the conversation should start. Reality is the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a defense against tyranny. That's IT.. not hunting, not sport, or any other nonsense. It is a safeguard put in the hands of citizens against govt. And before someone tells me 'you can't have a rocket launcher or tank blah blah', no one is asking for them. however, civilian police, and civilian govt agents/bureaucrats have access to semi-auto weaponry AND full-auto weaponry AND body armor. Since these CIVILIANS can have them, then every single law abiding civilian should be able to have them as well (aside from the certifiably insane).
Also, it seems to me that confiscation is almost certainly illegal. There is a specific limit on Congress in the US Constitution stating that they can't write ex post facto laws:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Ex post facto
adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
IF the only action taken was the purchase of the firearm (legally), and confiscation were to became law, the owner of said firearm would be subject to punishment for doing nothing, inaction, ex post facto.
+1
BTW, did they have AR-15's in 1776?
Do you know what an "Assault rifle" is?