On 3/8/2018 at 5:36:08 AM, dvus wrote:


There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and
self-protection, non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more
accurate and less prone to causing undesired collateral damage.

Yeah, a bunch of criminals will wait while you reload your musket.
The Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to bear
arms only if Liberals think there's an "overwhelming need" for them.
For them, that need only exists if they can afford armed security for
themselves.

Apparently you have limited to no first hand knowledge of modern
weapons or understanding of the second amendment and the SCOTUS
interpretations of the amendment.

Modern revolvers accommodate 4 - 10 rounds. Pump and lever action
shotguns accommodate 5 - 9 rounds. Bolt action rifles with internal
magazines can accommodate up to 10 rounds, etc. None of the above
types of weapons can be realistically converted to semi or full auto
fire. They also cannot be converted to utilize replaceable magazines.

If you cannot defend yourself with the above weapons, then you have no
place touching any kind of firearm.

As for the second amendment:

A. Previous rulings have upheld the outlawing of certain types and
classes of weapons.

B. As with the Bible, the constitution is not sacrosanct. It can be
and has been changed.

When the nation comes to it's senses, after however many more mass
shootings, the nation as a whole will do what is required to put an end
to the carnage. If that means amending the constitution, then so be it.

It won't happen today or tomorrow, it might fall to the next
generation, but, mark my words, change will happen and the mass carnage
will come to an end.







--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"