Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Every home should have at least one machine gun with 1,000 rounds, someone who's familiar with shooting it, and participate in weekly shoots to keep in practice in accordance with the militia act.
|
Even if I wanted to do this, I doubt I have the money to fire off that many rounds.
This argument is the sole reason I'm opposed to people owning assault weapons. Attitudes like this are insane. Sure, you have a machine gun. Great. One tank and your day is over. The only logical conclusion is either 1) we engage in a government / citizen arms race (government obviously wins since they can buy a lot more missiles than you can) or 2) we stop being ridiculous about insisting on gun ownership.
No one's trying to take your hunting rifles away, but really, do you really think that overall we'd be safer if everyone, including the idiots, had machine guns? That's just crazy.
Quote:
|
The Second Amendment has absolutely squat to do with hunting. It's about keeping the people in power over the government.
|
And that worked great when the best weapon the government could obtain was a flintlock rifle. The citizens had a chance because their weapons were as good as the government's. Now, there's absolutely no chance for the ammendment to work as you say it's intended. I buy a machine gun, Bush buys a B-52. He wins. So since there's no way the citizenry is going to overcome the power of the government, that argument is null and void.
But if the citizenry really does want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, they should certainly buy a gun
and join a well-regulated militia. Unless you're in a WELL REGULATED militia, the 2nd simply does not apply to you. Period.