That is a valid point to think about but honestly what differance does it make when a 9mm pistol has just as much deadly force as a .50cal anti material sniper rifle if you shot someone in a vital spot? Of course the 50 cal is going to have far more dramatic effects but the end result is still the same. With that said, the very same class of fire arms you mention in the hands of a responsable gun owner has no threat to society. So what does it really matter wheather or not the forefathers intended the ammendment to include these types of weapons or not?Elamdri wrote:
I do NOT think it would have been in the intentions of the founding fathers to allow us to own anti-Material Rifles and assault weaponry
Now some might say people simply have no buisness owning an assult weapon or anti-material sniper rifle because of what they are capable of. The truth though is not what the weapon is capable of, but what the person is capable of. One example being that if someone became rebellous against an oil company and decided to go squeeze a few raufoss rounds off at different targets at an oil refinery to cause alot of trouble, and would in that situation, could have been avoided if people didnt own these types of things. The thing that people dont realise is that the same thing can be achived without a sniper rifle, so if you ban them all together terrible things can still happen. An example of this could be that someone in a private plane, say a cessna, decides to kamikaze into an oil refinery. Again, same outcome, but different approach. Also that person used something that was used that is "necessary" to society.(somebody was talking about this previously about cars). Anyway though, outlawing assult weapons really doesnt change anything.
Last edited by Drunken_Tankdriver (2006-12-13 23:57:34)
