Replies

Surely he brought up the reason we can't have nukes'n such ? Presstitutes always bring up why we can't have nukes in our gun safes during debate on the ~~AWB~~....SAW !

It isn't a "reel" ~~AWB~~...SAW nooooze debate unless nukes are brought up by the socialist idiots parroting their talking point diatribe they have been fed by their handlers. No mention of personal nukes makes this a fake angst by the talking head and should be ignored.........:o)

Monitoring CSPAN's coverage of the seditious lemmings leadership in congress right now . All shit'n shineola show thus far.... Smoke and mirrors thang in progress while their little trolls are hammering out a "total ban" on SAW's......

Stay safe !

I'm familiar with the argument. Nooks, bio weapons, chemical weapons and mines, and so forth, are indiscriminate weapons. Their usefulness in warfare varies, but they are distinguished from firearms in that they are both impossible to aim at a specific (one individual) target, or they may destroy life and property at a future time without the ability of the user to control the circumstances. As such, they are not protected by the second amendment.

Why are Squantos and I discussing such extreme terms?

Because the argument exists that if semi-auto rifles were permitted by the second amendment (or any other weapon for that matter), so should nuclear weapons. Therefore, the second amendment, in this position, doesn't apply.

This is a false premise. Weapons with accuracy and specificity in terms of time are "discriminate" arms, which can be well-controlled. I would argue that full-auto small arms are included in this category. A vet I knew once used to say that tanks were protected, as well. I still don't know if he were joking, but I think he was serious. He was raised to mistrust the government but had full and complete faith in the Constitution. That is as it should be.

The second amendment is a doomsday clause for resetting the Constitution itself. If the AWB renewal fails, we can gain a small measure of confidence that "doomsday" for the republic has been pushed off indefinitely. If it is renewed, we can surmise that doomsday is perhaps not right around the corner, but may in fact be possible within our lifetimes. It's interesting to note that CW1 began surrounding rumors that Northern armies were rampaging in the Appalachian mountains disarming militias. The secessionist movement lost then, and would probably lose in the future, as well.

We're talking about deterrence, then, aren't we?

The founding fathers would have said that doomsday had been reached at the moment the state had more concentrated firepower than the American people. They didn't anticipate indiscriminate weapons like nuclear arms. Although we can't assume that a depraved state wouldn't use nuclear weapons against its own citizens in a CW scenario, we can bet that they'll be afraid to try.

More realistic doomsday scenarios involve the military and how it would react with orders to use helicopters, tanks, and heavy bombers wielding conventional bombs on patriots resisting disarmament. Having been sworn to uphold the second amendment, I think I know what their reaction would be.

The second amendment is still protecting our freedom today, of that we should have no doubts at all. The element of deterrence holds. Look for every effort to avoid this issue in the pressitute discussions of the AWB. No one wants to discuss the elephant in the living room. No one wants to mention that the Democratic party fears an armed populace that might just resort to violence to defend its rights. In other words, the founding fathers were rolling in their graves in 1934, 1968, and 1984.

They're whispering in the ears of our legislative body today... "What will you do for freedom? Or is it something else you want, Senator?"