Charles- I think you have a misconception of freedom. is freedom allowing an individual, who is obvioulsy of his rocker, to run around our country while possessing RPG's and anti air guns. I dont now if you have children or not, but I do, and I'm not big on the idea of one of those RPG rounds getting let loose at the school my daughter goes to. do we want to live in a country that shows its frustration such as Libia. Maybe you should turn on CNN sometime. I dont want to raise my children in that crap. so i guess if you desire to live in civil unrest you should move to a third world country. as for me and mine, we are gonna stay right here and hold down the farm.
What's your position on citizens with arms that are full auto, suppressed , etc
i think that if you pass the background checks and have the proper paper work for the suppressor or the full auto firearm (i dont like the term "weapon" they are only weapons if you make them a weapon) then go for it.
I did pass
I was just interested in a LEO's take on it. I'm a bit torn on where the limit should be for citizens. My thoughts are that when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, they never considered RPG's, Anti Aircraft guns, or anything of the sort. When they wrote the right to bear arms. I don't think they would have wanted to gov't to have all the fun toys, and the citizens having the old outdated ones. It's like us bringing a slingshot to a gun fight. My understanding is the right to keep and bear arms, was to to allow citizens to remain in a free state.
If the gov't today was to convert to a dictatorship, how would the citizens have the fire power to remain a free state?
On the flip side, I am with you, in that I don't want a bunch of wackos running around with RPG's either...
