 Quote:
Originally Posted by nuttyjoe  I have always agreed that while the 2nd Amendment guarantees us this right; there is no logical reason for anybody besides the military to be in possesion of a machine gun (any rapid fire waepon to be more specific). I would support regulation in this area.
The framers of our Constitution could not have had any clue about these weapons when thinking of the 2nd Amendment. That technology was almost light-years ahead of their thinking.
It is no wonder why the 2nd Amendment, abortion, and capital punishment have practically turned into litmus tests for any appointments to the Supreme Court.
Will everybody ever agree totally on these subjects? Never. We can just follow the law wherever we may live. | I own a .30/30 by definition that is a rapid fire weapon. I can load one round in the chamber and have six others loaded and ready to fire. What logical reason do I have for owning this, lets see.......bears and wolves. It often takes more than one round to put down a bear, and sometimes it takes several rounds to make that pack of wolves disappear.
Funny you should mention military type weapons, if we are to believe the collectivist view of the 2nd Amendment and the interpretation of the Court in the Miller case, these are the very weapons that the 2nd Amendment protects.
dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk- |