One of the biggest things that the collectivists/hoplophobes dwell on is that the Founding Fathers never envisioned scary assault rifles and tanks and nuclear bombs. They ignore the very simple fact that at the time, Brown Bess muskets and Kentucky Long rifles (and their bayonets) and swords/sabers WERE state of the art 'military weapons'. They also conveniently forget the reason why the redcoats were marching on Lexington and Concord. Perhaps they need to study history...............
December 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...
The argument that claims we should only be able to own arms that existed when the 2nd Amendendment was written, is as stupid as saying we should only be able to exercise our 1st Amendment rights based on the state-of-the-art forms of communication from the 18th century.
How many free speech advocates would agree to limit themselves to posters, newspapers, and pen and paper, or their mouth from a soapbox in the town square?
Since electronic communications are today's equivalent of the dreaded "assault weapons", using these tools are far too easy to defame someone's character by using mass electronic media to spread lies were millions of people can read their slander.
"Oh but blogs, Facebook and national news casts don't kill people."
Really? Tell that to the parents of the girl who committed suicide when her reputation is wrongly destroyed by lies posted by classmates on Facebook.
Tit for tat, if you have any intellectual honesty defending your anti-gun beliefs, you would have to agree then that the Governement should be the only entity to have access and use all forms of electronic mass media to "responsibly" dessiminate information on our behalf.
"Mark Steyn: Vain search for meaning in massacre"
2 Comments -
One of the biggest things that the collectivists/hoplophobes dwell on is that the Founding Fathers never envisioned scary assault rifles and tanks and nuclear bombs. They ignore the very simple fact that at the time, Brown Bess muskets and Kentucky Long rifles (and their bayonets) and swords/sabers WERE state of the art 'military weapons'. They also conveniently forget the reason why the redcoats were marching on Lexington and Concord. Perhaps they need to study history...............
December 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM
The argument that claims we should only be able to own arms that existed when the 2nd Amendendment was written, is as stupid as saying we should only be able to exercise our 1st Amendment rights based on the state-of-the-art forms of communication from the 18th century.
How many free speech advocates would agree to limit themselves to posters, newspapers, and pen and paper, or their mouth from a soapbox in the town square?
Since electronic communications are today's equivalent of the dreaded "assault weapons", using these tools are far too easy to defame someone's character by using mass electronic media to spread lies were millions of people can read their slander.
"Oh but blogs, Facebook and national news casts don't kill people."
Really? Tell that to the parents of the girl who committed suicide when her reputation is wrongly destroyed by lies posted by classmates on Facebook.
Tit for tat, if you have any intellectual honesty defending your anti-gun beliefs, you would have to agree then that the Governement should be the only entity to have access and use all forms of electronic mass media to "responsibly" dessiminate information on our behalf.
December 23, 2012 at 10:34 AM