"If one has realized a truth, that truth is valueless so long as there is lacking the indomitable will to turn this realization into action!"
-A.H.
-A.H.
Originally Posted by: HammurabiDepends on the shotgun. A sawn-off shotty with a small pistol grip can be very easily concealed.
Such weapons are, of course, [u]very[/u] illegal.
I think the age for handguns/ammo is 21 in most states.
Originally Posted by: HammurabiYup. I've been playing too much Mafia.
Not if you plan on eating the deer after you've killed it (bullets spoil the meat -- more bullet tracks, more ruined venison steaks).
Look up the second ammendment of the Bill of Rights. It's the principle of the issue that many people care about, not the practicality.
Originally Posted by: orangebloodI question the rationality and reason behind an obsolete article that allows any idiot out there to own an automatic weapon with which they could mow down a whole group of people in seconds.
Originally Posted by: Old SchoolYa gotta want one of these!!
http://www.hkpro.com/gmg.htm
Originally Posted by: orangebloodOkay, The Bill of Rights (which I have studied extensively) does not guarantee the right to own an uzi. It grants the right to bear arms for the purposes of Militia defense. That's all well and good when the idea of a big arsenal was a whole bunch of muzzleloaders that wouldn't put a dent in a twinkie at 50 yards.[/quote]
For one, the Bill of Rights reads "shall not be infringed." That sounds a lot more like "you have the right be a gun nut if you want" than it does "OK, you can be armed but not too well armed." It's also much more in line with a lot of the Scottish philosophers and thinkers whom inspired much of the Revolutionary movement here in America. Remember: This was a time when military state of the art and "common" weaponry were one and the same. Any old schmuck who had the money could build a battery of cannons if he wanted to and nobody would bat an eye about it.
Second, have you ever even SHOT one of those period muzzle loading rifles? They may not have a high rate of fire, but they do an INCREDIBLE amount of damage. The balls they shot were easily two or three times the mass of your average round shot out of a gun today and there were some DAMN good shots running around the colonies at that time.
Third, legal gun owners are not and never have been the problem. The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed by people who have been previously convicted of felonies (and therefore aren't legally allowed to own ANY gun anyway) and using guns bought on the black market. This is because legally bought guns are easily tracable and using one to commit a crime essentially hands the prosecutor your conviction with a pretty red bow on it.Originally Posted by: orangebloodIMHO and in the opinion of many lawmakers in this country this particular article needs to be re-written to allow the right to own a weapon without granting the right to start an armory. This argument about rights for the sake of rights is idiotic. This article was put in place to allow militiamen to own weapons to protect from British invasion because we didn't have good military support at the time.
And because, in the event that the government they established ever stopped being what they designed it to be, they wanted the people to have the means to overthrow it... That's going to take an arsenal or two.
[QUOTE=orangeblood]The need for such a provision for the sake of Militia support is obsolete at best in this country. While I do feel that a right to own a weapon should be part of our constitution...I question the rationality and reason behind an obsolete article that allows any idiot out there to own an automatic weapon with which they could mow down a whole group of people in seconds.