Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Wow, now I need a gun to protect me from the lunatics who though it necessary to buy an assault rifle because Barack Obama was elected.
They thought it necessary because Barack Obama's .gov website clearly states he wants to ban the sale of those items.
He also wants to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, does that mean I should feel compelled to go out and buy one? As the second amendment does not specify what "arms" means, I think it seems perfectly reasonable for the government to come up with a definition that allows people to defend themselves without allowing them access to weapons that are far more lethal than necessary. I'm not sure the language of the previous assault weapons ban drew a good line, but I'm not opposed to SOME kind of line. Is it really necessary to buy something you don't need just because it might be banned in the future?
If only you could come with a patent on that "semi-lethal" weapon. "This is only gonna kill you a little bit" or "This one only kills you until the police arrive to put you in cuffs..."
Bad guys will always have guns, get this, because they ignore the laws.