if Hussein decided to take away you right to free speech would you be mad? by your reasoning you shouldnt be mad
Free speech does have it limitations as to what type of "speech" is "free", just as the "right to bare arms" will have it's limits as to what type of "arms" you will have the right to "bare".
Not agreeing or disagreeing with the passing of the law, just pointing out the flaw in that logic.
ok then i guess if Hussein took away your right to free speech you shouldnt be mad?
See above.
if the gov or anyone for that matter comes knocking at my door and wants my guns i am going to tell them to fuck off and slam the door in their face
From what I've found, Obama is just to
reinstate the AWB. Which
should mean they're not illegal to own if they were produced and bought pre-ban, but illegal to manufacture for use other than sale to the government or export and illegal to sell to private citizens of the US. Which means if you legally own you're assault riffle now, no one should "come knocking". (please correct me if I'm wrong, but please cite
factual information and not misleading and nonfactual propaganda).
the right to own guns is in the constitution...
Yes, the right to own guns. But what guns?
Any guns? Apparently not, as the Supreme Court never overturned the original ban on assault rifles. (Which coincidentally, is one of the checks and balances that keeps us from becoming China).
the moment the constitution is not followed anymore is when the gov will start turning into china...the only thing protecting your rights is the constitution
There was an AWB in place for
10 years.....did we turn into China during those 10 years? And where does the constitution state what arms we may bare?
I know most people are going to say that having that many guns is pointless but why have 10 subs when you can get bass from 1? hell you can get bass from stock speakers so why have anything aftermarket anyways? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif
That is a pretty horrible analogy.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't own 40 guns if it's your legal right and ability to do so......I'm just pointing out that your "example" is pretty sad logic.
Do i need to own guns? no...do you need to own cars or an audio system? nope...same principal
Same as above. Not to mention no one is taking away guns all-inclusively, only
certain guns. Yes, that's an important distinction....especially for this (horrible) example.
just because people dont use speakers as weapons doesnt mean they cant be used in that manner. i could easily throw one or drop one on your head and kill you. so by your logic since it can kill people it should be banned.
Yet another horribly thought out leap of logic.
Banning every blunt object which could
possibly be used to kill someone is equivalent to banning specific weapons with
defined design qualities?
Again, not arguing for or against the ban, just pointing out the horrific logic you're demonstrating.
If i were going to be in a gun fight where the enemy was closer than about 50 yards i would take a pistol over a rifle any day because it is easier to conceal and maneuver.
How many times are you going to be performing self-defense from more than 50 yards away?
