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.
this is a perfect example of lawyerly created slippery slope that projects the ultimate conclusion of the slightest ripple. It has become the mantra for the social justice crowd populated by lawyers. they must apply computer program type logic to all behavior sans thought or judgement, not a hint of artificial intelligence.
When a kid chews a pop tart into the shape of a gun the social justice crowd concludes that child is a potential depraved killer. This is no different than when the nazis posted photos of facial profiles to identify Jews. It is the same as the theory that bumps on your head meant you were destined to become a vile criminal.
Go to your room as punishment and listen top all the ganster rap music endorsing physical violence and disrespect for women.
This literal logic rejects the possibility of biased human intervention. Nothing erong with intelligent application of bias.
The foundation of the new regime is that people are incapable of caring for themselves. They are ignorant puppies that have no comprehension of complex subjects. Thus Peklosi's words.....we have to apss it to see what is in it"....children. Oh yes mommy is exempt from obamacare.
All those things can already be purchased with just a little extra paperwork. How many of them are being used in crimes again?
Last time I checked it was the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.
Lol...not a mad anything, when you are able to provide something to be mad at....you know, like a valid argument....then maybe, but until then...lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And...
You know you wanted to add those other weapons I added, now you're mad...cause I cut off your next postings....
Obvious we would put people through background checks but would you support our country legalizing RPG's considering its our right to own one under the 2nd Amendment?
Yes.
Not many people would be able to afford it though.
Obvious we would put people through background checks but would you support our country legalizing RPG's considering its our right to own one under the 2nd Amendment?
No....
I don't think anyone should be able to walk in to a gun shop and buy an RPG at will.
Secondly, your premise is off. RPG's aren't protected by the second amendment, as they are not "arms" as defined by the recent Supreme Court rulings. There are no doubt some that will argue the recent scotus rulings are flawed and that the 2A is absolute. Maybe they are right, maybe not. I happen to think the rulings are right on the mark. Any class of weaspon that is commonly owned by the American people, used for self defense, sporting, or other lawful purposes, is protected by the 2A.
RPG's don't meet the criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
I used one against a tyrannical burglar. And I got that picture window I've always wanted!
Obvious we would put people through background checks but would you support our country legalizing RPG's considering its our right to own one under the 2nd Amendment?
sure why not? after all, the government has no real authority to make laws against the peoples right to keep and bear arms at all. all you have to do is read the 2nd Amendment as it is written, any 5th grader could see that, it is just that our government cannot see that.
Aside from the fact that such "questions" as this poll presents exposes the leftists as the frauds they truly are, the 2nd Amendment is not a right to own any and all weapons ... but a right to keep and bear (own and carry) (fire) arms, which would not naturally or logically include bombs, explosives, missiles, tanks, aircraft carriers and nuclear and biological and chemical type weapons. The definition of "arms" in the 2nd, refers to fire arms ... based on the type of weapons available at the time of it's writing in which a person could "Carry" (bear), or simply, pistols and rifles. Cannons were not specified in the 2nd Amendment, yet they did exist at the time. There was no need to specify such a weapon as included in the right because it was naturally excluded based on the fact that no one could have possibly carried a cannon upon their person.
Secondly, this represents another example of the left creating asinine and imaginary scenarios to establish a foundation for restricting firearm ownership, using non firearms as an example. They seem to think that the rest of the population are as simple minded as they are, and will confuse a rifle with an intercontinental ballistic missile. They then hope to exploit the very rational, reasonable and intelligent restrictions on the possession of very dangerous weapons which the general public are ill equipped to own, handle or store safely, as the basis for restricting the ownership of firearms to which the public has a right to own, and have demonstrated that they can own, handle and store safely.
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.
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.
