first the bill hasn't passed...secondly....where does it say in the 4th Amendment you have a right to own fully automatic military style weapons.
Firstly, this isn't a bill banning assault weapons, it is a bill maintaining the right of self-defense.
Secondly why shouldn't a person own a military style weapon? I see nothing wrong with it. (though, I can't support the right for private indiviuals to own automatice weapons only because they can be stolen and used on the streets and the bad guys don't need more help on that. However, there is a license requirement somewhere on the hand of $5000 a year for the privledge of owning one.
If a person wants to legally own a weapon that looks like an M-16, why not? If a guy wants to legally own a 1911 style .45 why not? HOW DOES IT HURT YOU?
I'm sorry you have a phobia against firearms, and "scarey" looking weapons. However, why not channel the energy you have in writing these postings into writing your dem senators and represenatives about cutting useless state programs. At least you will be doing something creative.
However this bill is about self-defense and restates self-defense is good and proper, and who can be against that?
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
- John Wayne in the Shootist.