On 2/23/18 2:42 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 8:01 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:44 -0500,
wrote:
I'd have no problem with outlawing them also. Again, I don't think it
would be effective, but it
would be 'perceived' as taking action.
More than a ineffective perception, it might be the start of an
awareness that not all guns are suitable or designed for civilian
recreational use.Â* It could be the beginning of a more rational attitude
about firearms without risking 2nd Amendment "rights".Â* I know this
offends many here but I can't think of a legitimate use of a AK-15 style
rifle by recreational shooters other than they are "COOL" to have and
the government, in the interest of the rest of the population, can't do
a damn thing about having one ... or two... or three.
The 2nd amendment was not for hunting.
Oh yeah.Â* It was for a well regulated militia.Â* If you think that refers
to national defense, I guess we can save a lot of money and do away with
the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.
If you interpret that as being a state's right to protect against an
army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government as most
2nd Amendment orientalists (and gun nuts) believe to mean, it really
doesn't matter. If the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard
were ever taken over by a tyrannical national government and turned
against the states and the "well regulated militia"Â* I don't think the
fight would last long.
What part of "well-regulated" applies to today's rabble of NRA nutsies
who are not in the armed forces, national guard or police or similar
governmental entities? Even if one accepts the concept of "militia"
loosely, that is, just a body of citizenry, there is no real regulation
of that militia. Even the kids in the Red Dawn movie "regulated"
themselves by training together.