(October 25, 2012 at 2:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: RE the second amendment.
What about the right to bear arms do you think should end at assault weapons? The arms they were referring to were as sophisticated and lethal to them as assault weapons are to us (and perhaps more-so). Don't get me wrong, if we want to change this little bit I say we do it. But lets not imagine that the people who wrote that one in didn;t have absolutely horrifying weaponry in mind when they wrote it. It's not like those hookers could see the future or anything. I'd be surprised if everything they scribbled down was useful unto the end of days.
I'd still own a few assualt rifles even if they were illegal (case in point, I do). See, can't keep criminals from securing illegal weapons..lol, they don't give a shit about the laws.
(don't worry, I wont go apeshit on a crowd of people, they're strictly for poaching purposes)
Yeah, there was devastating weaponry during the colonial period. However, these types of weapons were difficult to take into a theater, let's say, muskets during the Civil War took a relatively long time to reload, I know the technology was even more primitive in the colonial period. Sure you could turn a cannon on a group of civilians, but didn't the types of cannons they had during this time require horses, or at the very least carts, to maneuver? Military history is not my forte... but wasn't shrapnel ammunition for cannons not around until the Civil War?
I get that there are gun enthusiasts out there who like guns and like to collect exotic weapons, but I place public safety over mentally ill people obtaining such things. Perhaps a compromise, a full psych eval, an extended waiting period, and limits on how many weapons one can own? or perhaps having the weapons be unable to fire? I know people can alter weapons, so maybe that wouldn't work... But I'm not in favor of as easy access to guns as is currently possible.
