Back to "need" Do you "need" to be able to post to political forums? No? Then you no longer have the right.. Goodbye.. See how stupid that is?
Did a 357 just become an assault weapon all of a sudden? All you really need is bread and water. Get crackin.
The right to bear arms has always been based on need - especially during the "progressive" era. “The Cambodian (1975-1979) and Iraq (1987-198 genocides were perpetrated after the Holocaust but during the Cold War and after Vietnam. Bosnia (1992-1995) and Rwanda (1994) happened after the Cold War and while American supremecy and awareness of the "Lessons" of the Holocaust were at their height. U.S. decision-makers also brought a wide variety of backgrounds and foreign-policy ideologies to the table. Every American president in office in the last three decades of the 20th Century–Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton—made decisions related to the prevention and suppression of genocide. Yet notwithstanding all the variety among cases and within US administrations, the U.S. policy response to genocide was astonishingly similar across time, geography, ideology, and geopolitical balance. … People have explained U.S failures to respond to specific genocide by claiming that the United States didn't know what was happening, that it knew but didn't care, or that regardless of what it new, there was nothing useful to be done. I have found that in fact U.S. policymakers new a great deal about the crimes being perpetrated. … And the United States did have countless opportunities to mitigate and prevent slaughter. But time and again decent men and women chose to look away. We have all been bystanders to genocide. The crucial question is why.” A PROBLEM FROM HELL, America and the Age of Genocide, Samantha Power Harper Collins 2002. PP. xv-xvi.
Mine were lost in a tragic boating accident. Seriously, if that were tried you'd have way more bloodshed than the next 100 mass shootings combined, from both law enforcement and patriots. How do you know who has an 'assault weapon'?
again, and I don't know why you have to keep being told this, constitutional rights are not based on what you think someone needs.
You were doing fine. Most of us disagree with you, but your opinions are welcome here. I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding the ultimate outcome of the kind of confiscation policy you advocate. How do you think our country would benefit from such an approach?