Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

2A is not about duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose."

It is first and foremost an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government.

If the occasion calls for it ... I'd rather be rebelling with 30 round (standard capacity mags) rather than 10 rounders.

The Kentucky rifle, instrumental in helping colonialists prevail over those nasty Brits, was the assault weapon of its day.

The founding fathers today wouldn't blink at the private ownership of polymer frame striker-fired semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines or repeating rifles with detachable magazines.

I think you're spot on. The arguments about "legitimate" uses and "needs" for private citizens owning a gun rarely discuss this point (except by those who are referred to as "anti-government"), and these arguments are diversions from the true intentions of the Second Ammendment. The greatest fear of those that rebelled against British rule and created a free society with a Constitution to guarantee that freedom--their greatest fear was a tyrannical government that would take away that freedom. The creation of this country was precisely so that its individual citizens would have that freedom. And the Constitution which took over a dozen years to evolve from the First Continental Congress to ratification, and was hotly debated, wasn't about wasting precious words over hunting and sport issues. The Second Amendment stands out, like the other Amendments, and the brief enumerations of power, as as one of the rights that protected the people from tyranny, not some minor right to personal pleasure.

And you are exactly right--the founders meant by "Arms" weapons that matched the militias and the government troops of the Revolution. How else would they be of use to defend against tyrannical enemies, foreign or domestic. And for those who think the Constitution should change with evolution of technology, that's true not in regard to the Constitutional principle but in applications--such as weaponry. As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them.

And gun rights people, and tea partiers, and Sarah Palins, and right wing talk radio, are not anti-government. They are portrayed that way as talking points to paint them as radical and dangerous. They are all pro-goverment, not anti-government. They are pro good, Constitutional government. And that is not radical. And it is only dangerous to those who are against the Constitution as it was written.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them..

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

The household cleaner and medicine aisles...but the directions are on another board...

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

Aisle 6 in Newport, next to the 30/06, 367, 22 m and the 3000 boxes of 12 gauge #2 buckshot.
But behind the anti-personnel frags.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

To begin with, the milita and government troops of revolutionary time did not have, as individual soldiers, individual canons, howitzers, battleships, or any other outsized armor that an individual could carry. Neither do the modern day soldiers have their individual tanks, nor carry chemical weapons, nor any such other ridiculous etceteras. I suppose, if you were the incredible hulk, you might be able to keep and bear some monstrous weapon. I suppose, if you could manage to drive a tank on public roads without destroying the pavement or obstructing traffic, it might be OK. Various public ordinances against hazardous materials and property destroying vehicles might restrict your ownership to some underground bunker. As you say, availability would severly, if not completely deter you from not only finding such goodies, but very few could afford them. I don't fear law abiding citizens who believe in Constitutional goverment possessing big, bad weapons. Why do you? A criminal, a psycho, on the other hand, with a simple knife, is a terrifying prospect.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

but then how would you remain carbon neutral and envionmentally friendly ?

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

You know, during the good old days, private ownership of artillery and warships was encouraged.