Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Mr Khan said:
Of course it would have to come with a constitutional amendment.
Time burns away all absolutes, including the rights outlined in the Constitution. For instance, the definition of "speech" vis-a-vis the use of money.
|
Then what happens if say, once china knows that our citizens are no longer armed. And want their money back. Our military isn't the only reason we haven't be invaded. I know it sounds funny. But it could happen without guns. Besides we are far from that day and age where we don't need guns. Do you know that one deer can feed a family of 4 for several months? So now you want to take that way too?
|
That is apocryphal, like the idea that "Germany was too scared to invade during WWII because of the 2nd amendment."
If they had wanted to invade, they would have. And no "Red Dawn" fantasy is going to fix that. (aside from the fact that, in China's case, they have nearly enough soldiers to match our entire population 1:1)
|
It was hypotical i know. And a very unlikey senario but not out of the relem of possiblity. What about the hunter feeding his family?
|
Hunting and other sports are the only point i would make concessions to guns on, but i would (in my perfect world) have those guns kept at some sort of central location (say a storage site on State Game lands) and not be in the homes of private citizens.
Although i doubt too many hunters at this point are doing it professionally (some, i know, but not many)
|
But you can't make a concesson on one gun and not the other. Not to mention many hunters don't go down to game lands to hunt. Many around her just go in their back yards. And many do it to feed their family. Having a butcher process your deer is 75 dollars. That meat could last for as long as 3 months. My house hold spends 75 a week on meat. Do you see the cost saving here? And you take that way from people? Just because someone might kill someone with a gun?
