[Osborn F Enready]

VXerick said: "The Constitution promises me (or you) nothing. The Constitution belongs to the people (citizens). It grants rights that US citizens have with which to hold their government accountable.

Whether the government has overstepped its limits is moot. It will do what it wants because not enough people care to change it.

Never having found the need for a silencer or assault rifle or gun with a clip holding more than 9 shells, I can't logically comment on your question.

But if you are asking me if I agree with gun control laws, the answer is no."


I say: For one thing, I more than fully understand, what the constitution is, what its for, and who it limits, THANK YOU. That was not the issue.

The point being moot about government not being changed because "people don't care enough to change it" is partially right. The ones who care are hampered by the system designed to stem their voice, implemented by the two major parties in power for the last 154 years. The seeds of corruption are planted deep, and almost all seats of the house and senate are filled with Republicans or Democrats. They are the ones at fault for keeping this system oppressed from its original intent.

Not having the "need" to own or operate a suppressor or assault rifle, or a gun with a clip that holds more than 9 (?) shells does not keep you from addressing the point I was ASKING about. Do you know the cost of licensing, the restrictions, and the paperwork involved with being allowed to own a weapon the Fed deems restricted??? I don't expect you to know every letter of the laws, but do you at least know that there are LARGE prices to be paid for licensing and maintaining licensing, as well as the official "beaureucratic red tape." It is financially impossible for people with limited incomes to own or maintain these licenses, and is therefore "selective" in its issuance restrictions.

After all that, I am glad to see that you do not support the gun control laws that are currently on the books.


VXerick said: "But I don't agree with any laws that overturn what is the original intent of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (first ten amendments). I think people are wrong to defend some aspects of those ten amendments, while wanting others to be nullified. In my mind, the US Constitution is the singularly most beautiful and comprehensive document ever written and none of it should be infringed to satisfy the desires of certain segments of the population."

I say: I agree 100%, but that is not the issue here. The statement I made was in reference to your statement about the war in Iraq, and you obviously seemed to be applying our constitution to their situation, which is not the case. If for some reason you think there are a large amount of "recreational shooters" in Iraq, that own .22 rifles, and shotguns, please enlighten me. That is what led me to believe your statement was referring to our Constitution.


VXerick said: "Further Amendments have righted the errors in judgement that our founding fathers made because of the time period they came from. But there have previously been and still are attempts to add Amendments, which have nothing to do with our rights as citizens of the USA. Rights belong to the people (individuals), and the Constitution is meant to protect those rights. The government has no rights. Repeat: The rights belong to the people. That's the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy."

I say: I am well aware of the situation with attempts being made to add new amendments based on rhetoric and faulty data, and that is a majority of my claim in other posts. I agree with all you say here, but it still does not address the issue presented in the thread starting topic.

What were you rebutting, just my accusation that you supported gun control?