| Guest |  Shoe screening
"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-m> wrote in message news:<HHCnpp.2xE@news.boeing.com>...
> not to get testy - but times HAVE changed, you understand.
Yes, I don't wear buckskin coats and coonskin caps as often these
days.
> While it was a
> necessity to maintain individual firepower in "days of yore" IT IS LESS
> NECESSARY NOW.
OK, I may disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's say you're
right about this.
> The "colonists'" decision to write that into the
> constitution was based primarily on maintaining the ability to resist
> foreign (or domestic) dictatorship by force of arms as well as having the
> ability to defend themselves (from those inhabitants forcibly displaced by
> those very same colonists - but I won't go down that road) Thus the
> dichotomy of "while it was necessary some 200 odd years ago, IS IT NECESSARY
> TODAY?"
Again, let's say you're correct. In that context, no, the same
protections are not as necessary today.
> Do you really NEED an AK-47?
Nope.
> Does it serve any purpose other than to kill
> people?
Not as well as others designed more for the purpose. For example, you
could use it to hunt deer, but there are other rifles better designed
for that. The AK-47 was primarily designed as a soldier's weapon - to
kill human beings.
And your problem with that is? It has no legitimate purpose? So
what? Neither does bungee-jumping or hang-gliding or water-skiing.
The world would be not one whit worse off if they didn't exist, but
they sure have killed a lot of people.
> Sure, it makes a lot of noise. How about carrying this to an
> absurd extreme and doing a single shot bolt action 20mm rifle? (Essentially
> an 80caliber weapon) Any purpose other than making BIG holes in something?
Nope - no real wild game that would require a bullet that big. But
then again, I *like* to make really big holes in things. And to see
really big things get blown up. Cool.
> Oh, yes, let's allow use of AP tracers, too. BTW - the M-1 Garand is a gas
> operated semi-auto weapon with IIRC 8 (might be 10) shot capacity. When
> did they make that illegal?
The Garand is not illegal. What is illegal is the continued
re-importation of US-made Garands that were sold or given away to
Allied countries under the Lend/Lease Act of WWII. It was legal to
reimport those rifles, and now it is not legal.
Now, let's come to the crust of the biscuit. Your argument is from
the basis of 'need'. Need is a nebulous and difficult to define
concept, because your need is not my need. I 'need' my morning coffee
- that's very real to me. You may not drink coffee, and would poo-poo
my so-called 'need'.
But just the same, let's take your argument as-is. I agree that I
don't NEED any of my weapons. I agree that the world is a far
different place from that of 200 years ago, and even more different
than the Framers could even have imagined.
Some things have NOT changed - like human nature. We believe that our
forefathers could have possibly forseen what our situation would be
like today - but we claim we can forsee EXACTLY what our own future
will be like. So we don't have a nation TODAY that is vulnerable to
armed invasion from Canada or Mexico or China or what-have-you.
Tomorrow? Another 20 years? 200 years? We don't know how the worm
will turn, do we? No more than our forefathers knew.
But once a right is gone, it is most often gone forever, until the
next armed and bloody revolution restores it. There have been
exceptions, but that's the general historical precedent.
So, do I *need* an AK-47? No. I don't. Plain and simple. But I
have three things in favor of my keeping mine:
1 - I might need it someday, in a manner, time, and reason that I
cannot as yet forsee.
2 - I want my AK-47, and there is no current law (where I live,
anyway) prohibiting me from having it. So really, whether I have one
or not is nobody's business but my own.
3 - The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is plainly written. It says
that the federal government may not infringe on my right to own and
bear arms, period. Have times changed and rendered the 2nd Amendment
obsolete? Fine, so change it. It will require another Amendment, you
can't do it in the Congress. That will require ratification by the
States. But if you can do it, then that becomes the law of the land.
Until that time, you may object all you like, but you can't do squat
about it. And that *was* by design of the Framers, and it is a *good*
thing.
And finally:
Do you have a religious faith? Well, the Framers did not forsee this
new era of 'dangerous' religions that urge followers to kill people,
so that pesky "Freedom of Religion" thing is clearly obsolete. The
world is a different place now. I think we should question your
religion, and if you don't show a 'need' for it, we should take that
right away. If we judge it to be a dangerous 'Assault Religion', we
should take that away, too. You pray too much, and you pray too
loudly. No one needs to pray like that - there is no God that
requires such devotion. We should require all you religious fanatics
to register your beliefs with the federal government (for your own
good, of course). Don't worry, we would never use that list to come
around and arrest those of a differing religious belief than that of
the Party in power.
Your fifty-caliber, assault weapon, cop-killer, fully-automatic
religion has no purpose in today's society except to kill people, and
I think you should not be allowed to have it.
And that "Freedom of Speech" thing? Next on the list, baby.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
|
