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.
There is a distinct difference between personal weapons and crew-served weapons or weapons platforms.
Mircea
Interesting. Now where in the Constitution can I find the explanation of this distinct difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
So stinger missiles are OK, but a crew served BUK isnt?
Its not that simple.
They're hypocrites. Plain and simple. Either you have the right to bear all arms or you don't. It completely destroys the whole second amendment... which is why relying on such an outdated, clueless amendment like the 2nd word for word is so flawed.
Well, why don't we let people own nuclear bombs then? Let's make Abrams tanks street legal; road rage would be non-existent!
We definitely should make Abrams tanks legal. However, when you decide to use the tank as a weapon, or start destroying people's property, then you must face the consequences.
Some rights have to be infringed to guarantee a more important right. In this case, the right to bear arms is second to the right to life. A single crazy man with a nuclear bomb is infringing on millions of peoples' right to life.
How so? Are we assuming that he is going to use it? Just out of curiosity... Do you support abortion?
We definitely should make Abrams tanks legal. However, when you decide to use the tank as a weapon, or start destroying people's property, then you must face the consequences.
Tanks are already "legal" and many are in private hands. How many have been used to commit a crime?
It wasn't that long ago when gun control activists and global warming alarmists were taken seriously and weren't laughed at. While they almost always lost in debates, at least they gave an effort. Not anymore.
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California
Yawn. Here we go again. You are obsessed with the 'Tea Party.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
and the Russkies sell you a Buk missile system. Would you be outraged if the gubbermint seized your missiles? Shouldnt they be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Wouldnt you be outraged and the seizure of your missiles?
I think that is "government," not "gubbermint." But, however you care to spell it (or pronounce it yourself), if that suits you.
I think the Second Amendment refers to "guns." I don't think there is anyone who would argue that it should apply to advanced military weaponry such as missiles and missile systems.
You are putting up a "straw man" argument as a means of discrediting valid Second Amendment arguments. Nice try.
By the way, I live in the country (I choose to - moved from the suburbs) on 11 acres. I identify with the 'Tea Party' (and I don't pronounce "government" as "gubbermint" — neither do my neighbors). My neighbors own guns and hunt. They have good jobs. They are not ignorant hicks (we may be much smarter than you appear to be).
Another of my friends (not a neighbor, but a good Christian man) is a Vietnam vet. He also identifies with the 'Tea Party.' He owns guns. He is a smart man, who works in sales in the auto body shop business (he loves cars as much as he loves guns). I suspect he is also a lot smarter than you appear to be.
I suggest you know very little about people, who they are, what motivates them. You think anyone who owns guns and identifies with the 'Tea Party' is an ignorant country hick — just like Barack Obama does. That just proves your ignorance.
Interesting. Now where in the Constitution can I find the explanation of this distinct difference?
This debate has really gotten out of control.
The second amendment was designed for one primary purpose. To allow militia's to replace the need for a standing army.
This was because the framers believed that a large standing army was incompatible with freedom. And would eventually lead to a tyrannical government and endless wars for the sake of empire. Thus, it wasn't just the right of men to keep and bear arms, it was actually the duty of men to keep and bear arms. Their very freedom relied on it.
Obviously the concept of an individual owning a nuclear weapon seems to be a contradiction to the intents of the second-amendment. But, it actually wouldn't when you look at the situation more objectively.
Of course, no one wants to live in a country where individuals can have nuclear weapons. So the restrictions on the second-amendment to "firearms" only, seems pretty reasonable, even if they are technically unconstitutional.
I would much rather we just amend the constitution. Or at least return the issue back to the individual states, just like it was pre-14th amendment.
High explosives risk a catastrophe and are regulated and licensed with insurance and laws controlling their use. The same goes for potentially lethal chemicals.
This is a silly thread since it in no way compares to the right of US citizens to own firearms. You're beaten. You've lost. You know it so stop trolling. PS, that goes for global warmers, too.
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.
