There are all KINDS of them. Every law which was created to outlaw "Saturday night specials" was designed very specifically to keep lower income blacks from obtaining firearms. California's current "safety" requirements are designed to keep less expensive weapons off the market.

Some people are only able to afford the finer offerings from Jennings/Bryco. While i wouldnt use one if you paid me, if it was all i could afford, its better than nothing.
Fair enough. I didnt think you were joking. Some people are quite serious about that attitude.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

See, I want all the rich to have weapons I can't afford. I need to be able to steal them from someone.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

I don't know about a filibuster, but if another '94 style assault weapon ban hit Bush's desk, I have no doubt he'd sign it.

Someone else on this thread differentiated between arms for the military, and those for civilians. Well, it's clear that the purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn't to protect the right of the people to have sporting arms. It was to insure that the people had the ability to perform military duties.....outside of government control, as the writers of the constitution did. Without that ability, the Revolutionary War would never have happened in the first place.

hogtrot

__________________
.
Visit my military photo album, Vietnam 68-69....

http://www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha

...but the writers of the consitution didn't have the right to bear arms. For revolutions to happen, it is necessary for people to have the legal right to keep and bear arms?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Danno has this exactly right. Either the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms or it doesn't . Once you claim that "this pistol is OK but that bazooka is not" the precedent is set and there is no constitutional guarantee.

So acting like banning assault weapons is some kind of travesty but bannning stinger missiles is OK makes no sense at all.

As a matter of fact Tree Hugger, yes they did.

You need to brush up on your history.

The right to keep and bear arms was recognized (note, i say recognized not granted) in English common law.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Yes, but why were the British in Lexington?

Oh, that's right...to capture an arms store.

Not to mention, look at all of the successful revolutions that took place where arms were completely or at least mostly banned. The legal right to keep and bear arms is not necessary for a successful revolt.

And since it was "recognized" by English common law, then what "granted" them that right?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

NO - not to capture one, but to ILLEGALLY seize one. There is a distinct difference.
Thats true - on the other hand, a well armed populace does tend to reduce the need for a revolt. Kinda keeps the government in line.
The fact that they are human?

The right of free men to be armed is recognized in written law all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi. Note i said "recognized", not "granted".

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Okay, so even if the English government wasn't in consensus in regards to the colonies, there were forces of the English government restricting the use of arms by the colonists. Not to mention the ban of exporting arms and powder to the American colonies signed into law on October 19, 1774 by King George...Clearly, the right to bear arms was being greatly restricted.

Revolts appear to be a fairly universal aspect of civilizations regardless of how well armed the populace is.

Okay, so the right is "recognized," not "granted." What grants them that right? There is something inherent in being human that gives them the right to bear arms? How do you know this? Does this also grant me the right to keep and smoke marijuana?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Yes it was, hence the reason for the revolt, and the reason so many of us are against restrictions today. See the parallel?
Not really.
It need not be granted to exist. I wasnt "granted" the right to breathe or eat. They are intrinsic to the human condition.
As a matter of fact, yes. Are you being obtuse or do i need to spell it out for you? Not being condescending - im asking that question sincerely. I'll explain if you really do not understand.
The same way I know that ANY living being has the absolute right to defend itself. The human animal, being what we are, is not well physically suited to self defense with natural weapons, hence the reason we developed tools. See how that works?
Yes as a matter of fact it does. You're not going to get me with that one TH. I've told you before that I am personally opposed to the War on Drugs.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

So Gun control was the reason for the revolt? I thought it was about that whole taxation without representation thing. Even though, I see your point, the whole driving force behind the "Battle" of Fort William and Mary was because of exportation ban. The point I'm trying to make is that guns don't need to be legal to provide a defense against the government.

Name one civilization that has been immune to revolt for an extended period of time.

So what rights, exactly, are intrinsic to the human condition?

I'm only being partly obtuse. I know that you're argumenation hinges on some interpretation of Natural Law, I'm just trying to see the parameters that you're using. I understand your general arguement, I'm just trying to get a better feel with the particulars.

I'm not sure you see what I'm trying to get at. How do you know that any living being has the absolute right to defend itself? How do you know anything absolute at all? I'm trying to find the philosophy behind your ideas, so that I can better understand them.

I'm really not trying to trick you into something; I was just wondering if your political ideas extended beyond guns. And you have told me that before, I apologize for forgetting.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Just a shot: The Inuits?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Damn it! I always forget the Inuits...

Okay, name one civilization with more than 5 million people that has been immune to revolt for an extended period of time.

Even though, I'm willing to take a shot in the dark and say that even the Inuits were probably acquainted with a degree of revolt in their own political system.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Here is what I think is going to happen. For the next two years, the dems are going to look somewhat conservative to middle of the road in what they do. By doing this, they are biding their time and hoping that the middle of the road voters will see them as not far left in which case they'll get a dem elected for President. If this happens, then you'll see the gun bans and all of the other socialist plans they are dying to implement...

Kramer

Sometimes at night when I hear gunshots, I think about banning guns.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984