View Single Post
Old April 9, 2012, 10:08 PM   #44
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,872
While it may seem like a futile pipe dream in the face of oh so awesome technology, there are a couple of other points that must be considered. Yes, we are a technological nation. But all the geeks and uber geeks don't (and won't) work for the evil guv'mint. AND, we will have friends on the inside.

You seem to think we want our guns for open battle. If it comes to that, I suppose they'd be nice to have, if they are going to take us out anyway, why not try to take a side party?

Which is why they try so hard to ensure we are disarmed. Cheaper in the long run, you know.

Again I ask, if personal arms (and machine guns are the most effective arms for combat, when used correctly) are so irrelevant, why are they trying so hard to make them so unobtainable?

Irrevelant? Seems like a lot of folks don't share that opinion. Certainly, if those in government don't think they are irrelvant (could never win?) we should do the same.

The truly irritating thing is that for 52 YEARS people willing to go through the process and pay the fees were allowed to own new machineguns, and older guns that had not previously been registered were allowed to be added also. Without criminal penalty, without extra cost, just fill out the forms, get the approvals, and pay the taxes.

And in all that time the number of crimes commited with all those guns, by their owners (stolen doesn't get to count) is what, 2? And one of those was done by a serving police officer!

So, what is our "reward" but a complete denial of any new guns allowed to be added to the registery. No new made guns. No heirloom pieces discovered as inheritance. NO historical artifacts discovered or recovered from their resting places...simply nothing not already on the registery as of May 19th 1986 allowed for civilian ownership. Period.

No, I don't think that everyone should have a machine gun. Nor should everyone have a gun. Nor should everyone drive a car, be unsupervised with matches, or sharp objects. We have a huge number of irresponsible people, and a fair amount of outright mental defectives among us. I think a record of virtual ZERO for over half a century prooves the existing vetting process is adequate, if not actually more than needed. SO WHY cut us off? And the cutting us off from new guns ensures that eventually if shot, the existing guns will wear out. Thus ending the "problem" of legal civilian ownership. And until then, the simple market economics of fixed supply and any demand ensures the price rapidly goes beyond the reach of all but affluent citizens.

And, as a group, the wealthy don't commit many violent crimes, anyway....

Meanwhile, machineguns play a HUGE part in our entertainment industry, and hardcore criminals who want them get them anyway....

Just doesn't seem very fair to me.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Page generated in 0.02833 seconds with 8 queries