Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does the 2nd amendment grant the right to bare ALL types of arms? Does it specify all types of rifles? Does it even mention rifles or handguns.. or missiles?
Why aren't missiles protected by the 2nd amendment? What about hollow point bullets? lets be consistent.
Last edited by things and stuff; 01-18-2013 at 09:39 AM..
Does the 2nd amendment grant the right to bear ALL types of arms? Does it specify all types of rifles? Does it even mention rifles or handguns.. or missiles?
Why aren't missiles protected by the 2nd amendment? What about hollow point bullets? lets be consistent.
There is no ban on hollow point bullets. I use them in my KEL-TEK P3-AT.
Does the 2nd amendment grant the right to bear ALL types of arms? Does it specify all types of rifles? Does it even mention rifles or handguns.. or missiles?
Why aren't missiles protected by the 2nd amendment? What about hollow point bullets? lets be consistent.
This is the dodge always brought up by liberals who can't defend their restrictions, gun bans, etc., and who know their schemes are unconstitutional.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says that:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Liberals hate that, because it gives citizens power over government. In the liberal view, anything that renders government any less than all-powerful, is unacceptable... though they don't dare say why.
Does the 2nd amendment grant the right to bear ALL types of arms? Does it specify all types of rifles? Does it even mention rifles or handguns.. or missiles?
Why aren't missiles protected by the 2nd amendment? What about hollow point bullets? lets be consistent.
This is the dodge always brought up by liberals who can't defend their restrictions, gun bans, etc., and who know theirr schemes are unconstitutional.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says that:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Liberals hate that, because it gives citizens power over government. In the liberal view, anything that renders government any less than all-powerful, is unacceptable... though they don't dare say why.
It's not a dodge. It's a legitimate and important question. What does the word "arms" mean in the context of the second amendment. Why does it mean, as most gun lovers argue, "any and all guns and ammunition"?
If you asked somebody from the 1770s what "arms" meant, they'd probably get around to saying rifles and muskets, but the first thing they'd mention would be swords and knives. I wonder if they'd mention cannons?
It's not a dodge. It's a legitimate and important question. What does the word "arms" mean in the context of the second amendment. Why does it, as most gun lovers argue, "any and all guns and ammunition"?
If you asked somebody from the 1770s what "arms" meant, they'd probably get around to saying rifles and muskets, but the first thing they'd mention would be swords and knives. I wonder if they'd mention cannons?
if you look at our own US revolution. if not for privately owned cannon and frigates, the USA might never have been free.
after all, privately owned cannons and ships were given to the cause during our own revolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.