Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sh00ter" data-source="post: 2051165" data-attributes="member: 24531">Well that is where the vetting process should come in <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" data-shortname=":)" />...I am not talking about fat guys in camo rolling around in the woods...I mean doctors, accountants, plumbers, mechanics, IT specialists, etc...that have a clean record and are volunteers for training and responsibility and perhaps even a yearly review by the state authorities...but the point is, if the SHTF, the Constitution demands the citizens have their own armory and don't have to rely on the gubbermint. BUT, AT LEAST, if we can't have that, the should keep all semi-auto small arms legal...like I said before, if 85% of all modern weapons technology is banned then why would they control freaks go after the last 15% (semi-auto small arms) unless the goal was to disarm a free people completely??? I don't understand banning 85% of all dangerous modern weaponry for law-abiding citizens and then deciding to take away the rest which are the weakest of the lot? (small arms)I know it is about control...you must have misread me? I was being a pragmatist to say that I understand letting people buy RPG's at Wal-mart or not letting Bill Gates have his own air force is not gonna work in this day & age...but my stance was very much pro-gun...I think we have enough laws as it is and was actually calling for more freedom with the idea of a well-regulated citizen militia where the people (via citizen captains) could have access to real armories in the event it was ever genuinely necessary.</blockquote>

Verification