Posted on 06/01/2003 12:51:56 PM PDT by fightinJAG
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:06:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
What you say is true, .... but.. One supreme court decision could begin the unraveling of the entire scheme of gun control. And it wouldn't take long once an unambiguous Supreme Court decision was in place. With such a precident it would be much harder to re-impose any sort of gun control on the general populace. Absent such a decision, what one adminstration tears down, another can build up, and they won't wait 10 years to do it either.
That said, what does "the adminstration" have to do with it, their unchallenged official possition is that the President will sign the renewal bill if it comes to his desk. It's up to Congress to see that it never makes it there, but the statements of his spokespersons won't make that any easier.
I do believe they have a selector switch. Nice to have the full auto in those rare instances when you need it, but you have to discipline yourself not to use it when you don't need it. Besides rock and roll is fun! If a bit expensive.
Bull$hit.
Read This from the Second Amendment Sisters web site and come back and try to sell that liberal lie.
But not our government.
The wording was intentionally left open to interpretation. Some view this as a statement that only military personel should have this right. Also under the other interpretation, the ammendment states nothing about ammunition. The government could legally ban ammunition, without infringing upon constitutional rights.
Absolutely nothing ambigous about "right of the people" nor "keep and bear arms", the rest is merely introdution and justification, not any limitation, if you follow standard English grammer rules. It does not say "right of the state", nor even "right of the militia". Ammunition is part of arms, just as knives and swords are. Or did you think arms==guns? Guns are included in "arms" but "arms" include much more. Like cannon for instance, and ships to mount them on.
The version you've quoted probably has too many commas, there really should be only the one between "state" and "the". Copies of the BoR sent to the states had only the one comma, as did the version sent to the "printer" to be printed, but somewhere along the line the extra commas were added. The 3 comma version was rarely seen, except in that printed version which still exists, until about the time some people wanted to make it subject to "interpretation"
Epasonic
Since Jun 1, 2003
Go away troll.
I wish enough of us would get p!$$ed off enough to do something about that
Allahu Ahkbar
LOL!
What state are you in, where you can go buy a *full auto* AK-47s without jumping through 1000 hoops, being licensed, with no strings attached? As I think those in Iraq are allowed to keep and maintain these types of full auto rifles.
Interesting they probably would need new one like ak74?
The AK-74 is very unpopular outside of Russia because of the unique ammunition for it. However, they may be interested in the AK-101 which is the 5.56 NATO version of that rifle.
I said that they were prohibited in CA, not that they were 'easy' to get anywhere else in the USA.
Actually that's not what you stated, as your remark was specifically directed at CA, and was clearly vague, and ambiguous and seemed to suggest that owning a full auto outside of the state was somehow easy to obtain and or legal, when in reality, they are either outright outlawed or severely regulated throughout the entire country.
Thanks for the clarification.
You are wrong. First, the OC Register is about as conservative/libertarian as a major newspaper comes. Second, the American plan is to confiscate "heavy" weapons, like anti-aircraft artillery and such. That is what the Register means when the term is used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.