Originally posted by lazs2
Hmm.. interesting... I suppose I should have said that i have anarcist/libertarian/republican leanings with allmost no democrat or peace and freedom leanings.
none of us are true to the parties we support.. that is as it should be. an anarchist or libertarian would have no problem being paid by locals for doing local work. In my job I compete for a contract like everyone else... anyone who gets the contract would be paid by the city.
gun rights can be effectively nullified without ever touching the second... or.... more accurately ... without any clarification from the supreme court... it started with the effective removal of machine guns, silencers and short shottguns by the tgovernment by a huge financial and paperwork burden on them... this was an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.. in the miller case (sawed off shotgun) in the 30's... the supreme court judged that the government had no right to infringe at all... the feds appealed and miller (a dirt poor moonshiner 1000 miles away) and his lawyer (a pro bonno guy with financial problems) did not even bother to show... this set the precedent that any and all restrictions were not "infringing" on your right to own weapons...
it is only getting worse and the democrats are on a fast track. Why are guns that are effective for a militia banned? why are the soldiers that used them in a standing army banned from owning them as a part of the militia? Is this not against the 2nd?
raider... are yu saying that you see no anti gun rights agenda in the democratic party?
lazs
Yeah, you kinda did just say "an anarchist like me". that doesnt leave a whole lot of room to manuever. The fact that you receive a paycheck from a government, any government disavows you from anarchy. You can say your one, but your gonna get laughed at everytime, especially when they find out you vote. lol
Anarchism is not a party. It is the lack there of. It's not comparible to Repubs,Dems,Libs because it is the opposite of all of them.
Like I pointed out antigun legislation hasnt had anything since Brady Bill and that was 11 years ago. Since then Assault weapons ban and protection for manufacturers has passed. Seems like guns are winning so relax.
As for bringing the constitution into it, you do know that in 1770's they didnt have "short-barreled shotguns, machine guns and silencers" So to say that those rights are protected is a little bit of a stretch. For all we know the founders figured fire-arms wouldnt get much more powerful than they were. I seriously doubt our founding fathers want us walking around with Grenade launchers and rpgs and machine guns. That kinda sounds like Iraq/Afghanistan not America.
Some parts of the Constitution are outdated, including the need for a militia. The national guard fills that role effectively.
No, I will admit some of the Dems do seem to be anti-gun , but I have yet to see 1 amendment that got serious consideration for outright Banning them.
Do you believe that there should be absolutely "no restrictions" on the purchase of fire-arms of any type? Should a 12 year old be able to go buy a MG if he wants? After all 2nd amendment doesnt say Adults....
well maybe if that shotgun owner had been more responsible in the 30's and shown up in court, you would be able to own them, but I doubt it.
Also, cant you own any fire-arm you want as long as you get a "collectors" license? That hardly seems unreasonable if you want to own some heavy firepower.
