Quote Originally Posted by ds0110
100 years ago it was not "every man for himself" or whatever thunderdome scenario you were imagining. Life went on without so much govt in peoples lives. Economy flourished, people were fine. Civil rights was going to happen regardless of what economic policies we adopted. We do not need all these unnecessary laws regulating our everyday life so that a politician or LEO can keep a job they shouldnt have in the first place.

Its our right as americans to own these things. Especially if we ship 50$ billion of them to pakistan, saudi arabia, (EACH - this week) and elsewhere around the world we are one of the biggest arms exporters. If the other countries can have them, so should we. Americans should be able to buy everything foreign armies can buy, plus more...not the other way around.

The situation of our military sending arms that are prohibited to US citizens, to foreign countries that later on illegally resale them to US citizens at a huge markup...is wrong. That major source of funding for foreign organized crime is only present bc of current gun laws.

It doesnt matter what you think people need or dont need. Thats freedom. If you dont want to buy something, then dont, but dont try to tell other people what they have the right to buy, its not going to stop anyone from buying what they want, when the supply is clearly never going away. Guns are here to stay. Forget legislating them out of existence, that wont happen. This includes all "illegal" guns. Someone will profit. The question is do you want the mexican/russian cartels to profit from it, or an american in a gunstore? One will sell to felons, one wont.

And to your RPG concern...the cost would be prohibitive, much like if you want to buy a .50 cal sniper rifle today youre going to pay as much as you would for some cars new, then $10+ per shot.

Again, regardless of the laws, if I want a fully auto ak or m16, or even hand grenades or suppressors....Its not hard at all for me to buy them...and it doesnt come from a gun show/store or private purchase where there are checks to see if im a felon. It comes from a "guy" just like any illegal drug would. That stuff is actually easier for me to buy than it is to get a semi-auto .22 from a "legit" channel such as a gun show. (no bg check, no ffl, no fingerprint records, dont even give him a license) So the gun laws didnt make it harder for me to buy "illegal" weapons, they made it easier. (bc now theres big profit in learning basic gunsmithing or importing foreign military surplus) The laws provide a new way for criminals to make money.

The socialists in govt. know its not the right thing to do, and that socialism is not popular. This does not stop them from passing socialist policies to benefit their foreign lobby (bribery) interests while they hide behind their democrat or republican title. Corruption is what happens when you have big govt.



No they dont. The American Dental Association?? You can have both civil rights and libertarian policies. One does not somehow cancel the other.
They're not going to listen to you. It's like casting pearls before swine. And the sad part is that they are convinced that they are mainstream and we are extremists. The worm will turn, as it always does.
senorx12562 Reviewed by senorx12562 on . Tancredo moves within 4 points of Hickenlooper Last Friday Tom Tancredo the 3rd party constitutional candidate and pro-legalization marijuana advocate was 8 points behind Hickenlooper. One week later (yesterday) Rasmussen is showing him at 4 points behind. Tom Tancredo is gaining quickly--while Dan Maes is floundering at 12%. Hickenlooper numbers have not gone up--and it is showing a 2 or 3 point drop for Hickenlooper in the last week. I hope most of you will join me (in crossing party lines) to vote for this advocate of legalising Rating: 5