Originally Posted by Ruggles
So you agree that we don't need the types of weapon systems being debated to counter a federal government out of control? See we agree after all
Honestly we are not losing (if indeed we are) because of the enemy we face but because of the restraints put on our boys by D.C. via the American people and press. So the real question is would those same restraints be in place in some kind of 2nd American Civil War? If not then my statement still it true IMO. Who knows maybe it would be a war of eradication or just a policing action.
My point was and is that the ideal that average folks need heavy weapon system to counter the U.S. Govt is a bit far fetched to me. But ignore me, it is way more far fetched to the average American so as a point of debate in favor of removing the NFA and all like restrictions it is pointless. That is not going to move the needle of public opinion at all IMO. Those advocating such things better come up with a more realistic reason IMO or the public debate (which is the one that really matters) is over before it began.
No, I do not agree. The NFA and restrictions on Americans that are legally (as defined within the BOR) capable of owning firearms should not be regulated.
Using Microsoft is like playing Russian roulette with an automatic pistol... the results are always messy
"The Constitution is my Law. The Declaration of Independence my bible. And Freedom my religion." - Me
Thick skin... a must in a free society.