Countertrey wrote:ESSAYONS, brother! I miss the chest clearing WHUMP! of a cratering charge, and the concept of using too much TNT or C4!
There is no statute of limitations on the tenets of the Bill of Rights (it is timeless). It is absolutely as applicable today as it was in 1791... and as it was in 1936, when the government in power invoked all gun ownership to the Third Reich. That is the real reason Madison and others viewed this UNALIENABLE right as critical, making it clear in the SECOND amendment that it may not be abridged by man. The right of gun ownership, as I noted, was NOT contingent upon membership in a militia... but was viewed as a hedge against a tyrannical government... which, frankly, remains as valid today as when written. It is clear that the very first act of a tyrant is to find the guns... and take them... as has been demonstrated multiple times in the 20th Century. Registration simply makes it easy to find the guns. The reason we have these debates is that there are those who would compromise their freedom for the illusion of security. How is that security working in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit? How is it working in so many declared "gun free zones"?
Yessir. This 12B has seen a few M12s is his day and even a handful of M6s. I'm not arguing what the right should be. I think I made it clear in a previous post I am a gun owner. But I have serious concerns about the language of the law being manipulated by both political parties, depending upon which one controls SCOTUS at any given time. They will never try to take away our guns. There are over 300 million of them and over 100 million of us who own them and they can't go door to door. What they can do though and are doing is regulating "law-abiding" gun owners into small corners because federal gun law does not apply to the states. States can be as restrictive as they choose. So can private businesses. New York's seven round magazine law doesn't bother me because I won't need seven shots
