To: Trailerpark Badass
"We better come up with a better argument to keep semi-automatic weapons than “they’re not full auto.”" Umm.., the founding fathers did that. When they wrote the second amendment the intent was not for hunting or even crime prevention, it is to protect the people from government tyranny. They knew that governments are the greatest danger to freedom. Perhaps they were thinking of the British government primarily, but they knew even our government could become currupted.
30 posted on
08/25/2019 5:43:22 AM PDT by
outofsalt
(If history teaches us anything, it's that history rarely teaches anything.)
To: outofsalt
Then we should be able to have full-autos, as well, correct? Because that’s not really what I’m hearing when we discuss “assault weapons.”
48 posted on
08/25/2019 7:26:36 AM PDT by
Trailerpark Badass
(There should be a whole lot more going no than throwing bleach, said one woman.)
To: outofsalt
Umm.., the founding fathers did that. When they wrote the second amendment the intent was not for hunting or even crime prevention, it is to protect the people from government tyranny. The fact of the matter is that there is not a politician in Washington, R or D, who would not be happy to see every American dis-armed.
51 posted on
08/25/2019 7:47:35 AM PDT by
Roccus
(When you talk to a politician...ANY politician...always say, "Remember Ceausescu")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson