Can you really own a 50 cal. machine gun legally?
Are you kidding or serious?
If that is serious . . .then wow! you learn something knew everyday.
Who has got that set up in their house accept some militia freak up in the Idaho panhandle?
I guess my question wasn't really about the actual legal limits, but rather a question to all those in favor of liberal gun laws (note how diplomatically I put that, I didnt' say pro-gun, nor pro NRA . . .in fact its a pretty accurate description).
Should anybody be able to own anything? Or do those (besides Alan) think there should be limits? What should they be?
Maybe I'm just being redundant and should shut up (and finish working on my paper)
Guns make you safer.
As for warrantless surveillance. From listening to the news media and partisan hacks, it's not all that easy to understand what the government was doing. It is my understanding that all communications monitored without warrant were to or from known Alqaeda suspects OUTSIDE the U.S.. Not only did most on the right think that no laws were being broken, they generally believe, that in a time of war, our government should be doing everything that it can legally do to foil the enemy. I tried to follow this story pretty closely, and have not heard of even one specific instance where it is alleged that the government abused the program to spy on Americans.
Again, it is my understanding that if I somehow decide to ring up ol' Ben Laden, in Pakistan or wherever, I could expect the G-Men to be listening in. In fact I'd be pretty pissed if they weren't.
Again, it is my understanding that if I somehow decide to ring up ol' Ben Laden, in Pakistan or wherever, I could expect the G-Men to be listening in. In fact I'd be pretty pissed if they weren't.
In order.
1) Yes
2) No, not kidding, I'm serious
3) More than you can imagine. Google "machine guns in the desert" if you'd like to see some video. There are lots of people in this country that love shooting machine guns, cannons, etc. The bigger the boom, the more they like it. The reason you don't know about this, is because gun nuts are rarely trouble makers. The neo Nazis are Nazis, they're dangerous without guns.
4) Now that's a good question. Depleted uranium rounds? Explosive rounds? I don't know the answer. But like I said, governments, at local, state and national levels have already answered, with legislation.
1) Yes
2) No, not kidding, I'm serious
3) More than you can imagine. Google "machine guns in the desert" if you'd like to see some video. There are lots of people in this country that love shooting machine guns, cannons, etc. The bigger the boom, the more they like it. The reason you don't know about this, is because gun nuts are rarely trouble makers. The neo Nazis are Nazis, they're dangerous without guns.
4) Now that's a good question. Depleted uranium rounds? Explosive rounds? I don't know the answer. But like I said, governments, at local, state and national levels have already answered, with legislation.
I guess my point is more general than just the warrantless surveilance.
If the government can do anything they want to fight the terrorists, should they eliminate the right to bear arms in the same way they have threatened other fundamental civil rights? (if the right to bear arms is a civil right?)
For example, Jose Padilla has been in jail for how long? How long did it take them to even charge the guy with anything? I am not saying he's innocent, but if he isn't innocent and he is a terrorist, then charge the guy with something bring him to trial, and put him in jail as a convicted felon. It took them close to three years to even bring charges against him.
Is this how a democractic goverment treats its citizens? Seems problematic. Again, I am not defending Jose Padilla necessarily, but I guess it just seems that if he isn't worth defending then he must be guilty, and if he was guilty of something why did it take soe %$$# long to charge him?
But I digress. . . . the surveilance isn't bad because of what has been done per se but because of the potential harm. Given the lack of tranparency of this admin., their hunger for raw power, I don't trust them with any of this stuff. They are committed to staying in power by any means necessary (why wouldn't they want to make sure the votes were counted in Florida) therefore why wouldn't they abuse such a system.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. . . just ask Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover.
I think its naive to think that Dick Cheney is just looking out for your average american and is just trying to protect us. He is trying to consolidate power plain and simple.
The question is still out there: should there be any limits on guns?
If the government can do anything they want to fight the terrorists, should they eliminate the right to bear arms in the same way they have threatened other fundamental civil rights? (if the right to bear arms is a civil right?)
For example, Jose Padilla has been in jail for how long? How long did it take them to even charge the guy with anything? I am not saying he's innocent, but if he isn't innocent and he is a terrorist, then charge the guy with something bring him to trial, and put him in jail as a convicted felon. It took them close to three years to even bring charges against him.
Is this how a democractic goverment treats its citizens? Seems problematic. Again, I am not defending Jose Padilla necessarily, but I guess it just seems that if he isn't worth defending then he must be guilty, and if he was guilty of something why did it take soe %$$# long to charge him?
But I digress. . . . the surveilance isn't bad because of what has been done per se but because of the potential harm. Given the lack of tranparency of this admin., their hunger for raw power, I don't trust them with any of this stuff. They are committed to staying in power by any means necessary (why wouldn't they want to make sure the votes were counted in Florida) therefore why wouldn't they abuse such a system.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. . . just ask Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover.
I think its naive to think that Dick Cheney is just looking out for your average american and is just trying to protect us. He is trying to consolidate power plain and simple.
The question is still out there: should there be any limits on guns?