Magorian Aximand said:
Harkon Haakonson said:
"So gun control, restricting the purchase or ownership of certain weapons while leaving firearms in general untouched"
Can I ask what you mean exactly by this, Mag? Doesn't seem very clear to me, cheers.
I mean that gun control does not equal the prohibition of owning
any kind of firearm. Owning a weapon can and should still be legal. We just need to draw a line on what kind of weapon that can be. Drawing the comparison to alcohol, most types of alcohol are legal. But absinthe was not.
Of course, the assault weapons ban was an abject failure as a piece of legislation. Were gun control laws to be passed, they would need to be completely rewritten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY&list=FL6BNicSb2vkvaC5ZC8JjjZQ&feature=mh_lolz
"... Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry, is new in the American experience. The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development; yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable
citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense, with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty, may prosper together."
I also tend to agree with these two videos, and the men being interviewed in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5EYaW1HZhw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtkgoGY4Cm4
The reason for the quote and the videos is simply to say this: The right to bear arms was not added to the US Constitution for the prevalence of hunting. It wasn't for target shooting.
It was to allow the citizenry to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, should the situation ever arise where they would have to.