Sending More Troops to Iraq

Wolfscout,

I agree with you but you are getting a licence for it and have the knowledge to use it and know when and where to, i mean those who have them with no licence or knowledge how to use them, they have them just to have them
One question if there is no such thing as an assult rilfe how do you differentiate between a 2 round rifle and a 30clip rapid fire rifle, i am asking not bieng rude
What is your feeling about those who own rapid fire rifle, no licence for it, no knlwedge how to use it and no intentions of doing either
And I disabgree, the reasom\n the assault weapons band died is that the NRA OWNS congres, what they want they get, that is when the Brady Bill never passed, the gun lobby is the biggest and strongest in the nation
Even conservative such as Nacy Regan and Sra Bradt want the Brady bill passed but the NRS killed it, and nobody is goin to say that Nancy or Sara are just left wing liberals who wan this, very much to the contrary,neither are liberals or ever will be
A Few years back, cuhck heston was the chairman of the NRa at their convestion he raised a rifle over his head and talking about the ban said "Over my dead body" I have always wonder what chuck heston would say or do if his son, or grand child were killed with a handgun or rifle
I do apploaud you for your process on your gun, as i said i may not agree with your action but i defend with my life your right to do it, and you are doing it the corect way
Hope you have a nice day

I think you shouldn't have to have a license for it.
And it really doesn't matter if it holds one or a drum of 75 or a belt of 500.
you're talking the citizen versus the criminal.
the citizen should be able to own whatever.
look to the businesses and where the criminals get them .. there's your problem. not the rifle.

I am with Wolfscout. Furthermore, there is no language within the constitution that allows for the regulation of firearms. Like many powers the federal government has, it is a usurped power. Regulating away, or otherwise limiting, the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves will not further the cause of less criminal activity. Criminals will acquire weapons regardless of what the prevailing laws are, that is why they are criminals (because they do not abide by the laws.) The criminal element aside, my concern would come more from armed government agents. As government accrues more power (unconstitutionally and often illegally) it becomes more corrupt. As power centralizes there are fewer and fewer forces to hold the centralized authority in check. To paraphrase Lord Acton; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An armed populace is a powerful countervailing force to centralized power. This is the reason why we have seen historically tyrannical and authoritarian/totalitarian regimes strip the populace of its weapons and prohibit the right to bear arms (this can be seen during the Tokugawa period in Japan, when only the Samurai were allowed to be armed [outside of the standing army], Stalin stripping the ability of the citizens to protect themselves, Hitler (first with the Jews, then I believe the rest of the German population,) the British leading up the Revolution in the colonies, etc.) Ultimately, in a free society, the individual is responsible and has the right to protect themselves; this is a philosophical issue.

Regards,
Princi

Usually I don't post but honestly I could use the support and this seemed like a good window into it. My Master is in the army.He's in basic right now. Basicully it ended up being the fastest way for him to pay off his debts, pay for school, and get the money so that he can marry me. Not because he believes in the war or wants to kill Iraqi's or anything silly like that. He also wants into the FBI and thinks that being an army officier might help. Now that I've explained all that.

I hate Bush's plan. Everyone but him seems to know it's a bad idea. It seems like he knows he has little time left in office and the next president is going to be democratic and so he can do whatever he wants. I worry when highly religious people are elected. It seems to me like he just has a personal thing againest Musliams and is out to get them all. There is no way this war can be done. We can take down govenrnments which we have done but now we're just fighting a relgious group. We are fighting people who don't care if they live or die or how many innocent people get hurt because they think they are doing God's will. Sorry the discussion has kinda shifted by this point but there are my two cents.

Welcome to Forums Masterspet and what an eloquent post to launch yourself with. I have given my very limited penny's worth on the Iraqi matter much earlier and will not repeat what I said; but I did wish to give you a big cyber hug and wish you and your Master happiness and protection.

Please draw on this community for the support you need, and if you have not already done so, you might like to consider popping into the chatroom, where relationships are also fostered.

cariad

Princi,
One reason the Constiution may not have limits on fire arms is that when it was draw up over 200 years ago, I would imagine no thought was given to future weapons, I am sure our fore fatherdid not inviosion, assualt rifles, hand guns, crinades ect
Yes while it offer no specific weapons guaranteed beside arms, what type would they have invisioned

Well the founding fathers did prepare for things that they could not imagine that being the elastic clause but the problem with that is it is so open for interpretaion that it is easy to abuse.

BTW Thanks for the Support although I can't chat :( I'm a college student and chat rooms are firewalled by our network.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterspet

BTW Thanks for the Support although I can't chat :( I'm a college student and chat rooms are firewalled by our network.

---

Forget about the right to carry arms - that is an abuse of your rights!

*grins*

Well, not being in the chatroom will give you more time to explore the threads here, and perhaps even jump in the mad whirl of the Fun and Games section.

cariad

I also just heard on the new (2-20-07) that British Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce in the next few days that he is pulling at least 1,500 of his own troops out and brinig them home, no one will replace them
Not sure atthis point a surgewill help, they are in the middle of a civil war
the Maliki Gov. needs to show it's BALL and take control of his country