With the Democrats in power again the issue of gun ownership is being taken out of context again?


What are your thoughts about your personal rights to keep and bear arms for your personal protection. Please don't afford me the "it would stop the crime speech" it would not. Criminals do NOT use legally purchased weapons anyway. To Quote the founding Father of this great nation "A free people ought not solely to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to misuse them, which would include their own government." Your thoughts? I doubt that anyone would think that they would need an AK-47 for deer hunting. However I might chew over that a bit more fire power could be needed in the near future.
Best Answer:
Personally I see nil wrong with people owning handguns for their personal protection but in that is no reason on this earth why a law-abiding citizen should be able to own an automatic weapon. Also I get the impression that people should be properly licensed and have to pass an exam beforehand obtaining a license and that the authorities should be able to make spot checks on gun owners to ensure that the ordnance are properly and safely stored.
I don't know whats the big fuss when I can walk to wal mart and buy a gun. Too much trouble to wait few days for background check I indicate? What do we need to have gun vending machine immediately every corner? Restrictions on assault weapon really that horrible? Who needs AK-47 to hunt deers? Are we gona get rid of police or army and just agree to us defend our selves? Quoting founding fathers is just so cliche too. What is "sufficient"? Hand gun? Rocket launcher? Machine gun? Great, let ask people who lived during colonial days to set details of gun policy for the US in 2009.
Actually, the AK-47 not lone CAN be, IT IS used for deer hunting. It has about the same power as a 30-30 Winchester which is the most popular deer rifle surrounded by the USA. Please keep in mind that the "assault weapon" controversy is a made-up issue. Assault military capability are fully automatic military arms that can fire multiple rounds with each press of the trigger, like a domestic device gun. The so-called "assault weapons" that are sold to civilians are not really assault weapons at all. They are SEMI-automatic. That is, they fire only ONE round for respectively press of the trigger. They are functionally NO DIFFERENT than my grandfather's Browning deer rifle. They just LOOK like their military counterparts. Diane Feinstein, one of the principal gun grabbers in Congress, admit on the record that banning these weapons is freshly a stepping stone to banning all semi-autos, which make up going on for half of the guns owned for self-defense today. The left knows it can't win a frontal assault on gun rights. So they will try to convince you that you don't really call for this class of gun. Later, it will be another class of gun, and then another, until they eventually get them all. Don't tip out for it. The "assault weapons" ban is just the camel's nose underneath the tent.
Precisely why I feel as I do. When the British be going house to house to confiscate our muskets, they were also checking the barns. Because most cannons in the colonies be privately owned and were usually kept in the barn. Today, to have the equivalent firepower of the cannon put a bet on then, one would need to keep an F-18 or a container in his barn. This is why I feel that we should not just enjoy our puny guns, but we should be allowed explosives and chemical weapons, tanks, APVs, helicopters. Anything that we can purchase or produce, we should have the right to possess. Of course, it should move about without saying that we are responsible for the safe keeping of any weapon we possess - adjectives the way down to the simple hunting knife. Which means we should be held adjectives for anything that happens to or with those weapons..
Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barney Frank in particular, own this air of "I know better than you what's best for you", and I find that insulting and repressive. They even seem to think they know better than the founding father. I'm reasonably sure that if they were a little brighter, they might realize how dumb they are. Even my 15 year infirm son appreciates how appropriate the this Winston Churchill quote is: "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to raise himself up by the handle."
You can go two ways. There is a question as to the placement of a comma contained by the second amendment's actual text. One reading is: "A well regulated Militia, being called for to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and suffer Arms, shall not be infringed." That's the one you probably subscribe to. The comma makes "the right of the people to keep and undergo Arms" an individual clause. The other reading is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the wellbeing of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the one you won't like, because it make a point that the right to keep and bear arms is needed for a well regulated militia. But in that haven't been government militias since about the Civil War, when the US finally fixed to keep a standing army. Personally? I don't see the point of a handgun, because I think a shotgun or a rifle is a HELL of a lot better at scare off an intruder. I also don't see why a citizen would need an M-16, really... Hunting weapons are pardonable, though...
Liberal wussies