And why should the public have access to these again?

[imported_Counts]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the most part, the uzi's arent being used by law abiding citizens. And I dont see a need for the public to have them - Assault weapon refers to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position - And you cant tell me why the should, so you dont have much of an argument.

How many thugs do you see with a 22? The caliber of the weapon makes it a lot more dangerous. What part of high capacity magazines do you not get? Or firing more that one shot at a time? So again how does it not make a difference? One is clearly more dangerous.

When you want to answer as to why the public should have them, then get back to me. </div></div>



Below is My post that was ignored eairyer in this thread

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OK

#1 to defend us from our Government (One of the 1st things that Dictorships do is disarm the civilian population)This was done during the Roman empire and was done not so long ago Hugo Chavez in Venezuela

Good examples was the Nazi disarming of Jews before they started tossing them in contrition camps (would probably had been tougher if they could have defended themselves from there Gov)

Link1
Link2

#2 The defend us from our Neabors - Sure there are break-ins and the like but I am thinking more alone the line of a natural disaster (Think New Orleans) where even officers of the law start looting and the like

#3 Defend us from invasion - I am not stupid and do not think that "Red Dawn" is something that is likely BUT if the USA were to REALLY be attacked I do not want to leave my only defense to be a general in Washington deciding if it is a stregic advantage to protect SWVA.



There are my 3 arguments to not disarm civilians.</div></div>

[R13]

I dont think we are in much danger like those examples you gave and if a person broke in you dont really need an uzi to take care of business. I am not for the disarming of civilians because most dont own the type of guns that we are talking about. I am talking about the banning of certain guns. I have not found one piece of legislation which was set out to ban all guns everywhere or a certain state for that matter.

[imported_Counts]

But you have to admit that is probably closer to the founding fathers intentions than most like to admit

[R13]

Very true, it was put in because of the history of the British trying to disarm the militia. But youll have to admit that the times were completely different and the founding fathers, as smart as they were, probably couldnt fathom the type of weapons we have today.

[neutral88]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the most part, the uzi's arent being used by law abiding citizens. </div></div>

Great point, so hows your ignorant law gonna take their guns away???

Great thinkin!!!!

[Milk3]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But youll have to admit that the times were completely different and the founding fathers, as smart as they were, probably couldnt fathom the type of weapons we have today. </div></div>
That's the 100th time you've said this

we all saw it the first time you don't have to keep bringing it up

[sup-rbeast]

Until the public at large and lawmakers acknowledge it, it needs to be brought up continiously.

[R13]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral88</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the most part, the uzi's arent being used by law abiding citizens. </div></div>

Great point, so hows your ignorant law gonna take their guns away???

Great thinkin!!!! </div></div>

It was a good point, because taking them away wont have much affect on your 2nd Amendment as yall are saying it will. So how is taking them away infringing upon you, or a law-abiding citizens rights?

[R13]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Milk3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But youll have to admit that the times were completely different and the founding fathers, as smart as they were, probably couldnt fathom the type of weapons we have today. </div></div>
That's the 100th time you've said this

we all saw it the first time you don't have to keep bringing it up </div></div>

Because maybe if I keep repeating it, it will sink in.

[neutral88]

Again I repeat, how is this law gonna save all these lives when the only people who have these guns dont follow laws...Try and keep your minds on more meaningful Democrat ideas, like how many more food stamps we should make readily available quickly...