|Damn, I looked at this pic...that one eye is burned into my soul now....ARGHHHHH!|
Link to the story here...
Funniest line in the story... “We must balance the desire of a few to own military-style assault weapons with the growing threat to lives across America.”. A few?
Madam Senator.....the AR style rifle is probably the most popular rifle in America today with millions of them legally sold and in the hands of law abiding citizens in this country.
I am not going to try and take away from their lineage and call them a "modern sporting rifle" ( although that term is certainly appropriate in some cases), I will refer to it as an AR, not an assault rifle because it does not meet the definition of that type of weapon due to its semi-automatic nature. It may be a so called "assault weapon" but lets be serious, before around 1990 there was no term such as "assault weapon", it was made up to spread fear about this type of firearm. They are a direct relative off of the same tree that the M16/M4 family of rifles that we use in the military comes from. No denying that. That's why lots of us love 'em. I was trained on one, I carried one, I shot one....its what I know. Is there any real mystery that because so many vets have used them and they are paraded in movies to the rest of the country that there is a demand for them?
|Show this pic to a libtard and watch them piss their underoos....|
Look, I will admit that they are an efficient tool for what they were designed for, and if used for the wrong reason they can cause quite a bad result. BUT... you have no right to try and control what I own by what you think I MIGHT do (which I WOULDN'T!). I served my country for over 20 years in its defense, I pay my taxes, I go to church, I have not had anything other than a speeding ticket in my entire life.....and you are afraid of what I own?
When the constitution was written, the muzzle loading, single-shot, flintlock rifle owned by most Americans at the time and used in the revolutionary war was the "Assault Rifle" of its time. Yet, the Founding Fathers did not include any type of restriction on the amount of powder or shot one could own with one, in effect what would of been a "magazine ban" of its day. No, instead they decried the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Even if you tie it into the preceding statement about a well regulated militia it still means we can own them, for you see Madam Senator......WE ARE THE MILITIA! Even back then there was a distinct difference understood between a standing army and a local militia! If you look in the same USC (United States Code) that you are trying to write law in, you will find a section that details the unorganized militia, which any of us may consider ourselves a part of. The militia was seen as a necessary counter to the standing army which could be used against the citizenry, as the revolutionary war clearly demonstrated.
Now, I am not calling for armed revolt or anything so you secret squirrel types looking for troublemakers can go away and take the tin foil wearing hatters that are looking for more reason to gather on the green with arms....not going to find it here. All I am saying is that the right to own any type of firearms has clearly been established in the constitution and slowly been chipped away since, bringing us to this great period of unrest we see today in regards to the 2nd Amendment. It should be noted though that it was a column of Red Coats that marched to Lexington to take that same powder and shot to disarm the colonists that started that little toss up that lead to the Constitution in the first place.....just saying.