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.
Because I believe that having such weapons protects us from our government, and would allow for a much reduced military spending as defense could be more easily handled by the people.
Some things are worth the risks associated with them.
Eh, I think that purpose is served by the National Guard. I think that's what the Founders intended, too.
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California 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'm pretty sure you're getting the Russian Buk missile system confused with the bukkake 'missiles' that were fired at you that one time at band camp.
But either way, the odds of anyone being able to actually buy and maintain a Buk missile system make your scenario unlikely. HIGHLY unlikely.
Now, let's say that Boris -- or whoever your Russian operative friend is -- can rig up a Borrego Missile system -- would you buy THAT? Surely you know what it is, right?
It's a portable missile system, powered by a motorized scooter. It's the future of war, I tell you!
There you go thinking again!
See, that's why you are not on the Supreme court...........
Sigh. SCOTUS judges are much more intelligent than I could ever hope to be. They've studied Constitutional law for many years and have decades of experience with cases.
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.
Um, the "objective" person would have the common sense to realize that you could not afford to purchase a nuclear weapons system; you cannot afford to properly store and secure it; you cannot afford the maintenance to keep the entire nuclear weapons system operational; and you certainly wouldn't know how to operate it.
You can't even interpret meteorological data, nor do you know how to maintain it.
Most people don't even have the first clue how to get upper air data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi
Tanks are already "legal" and many are in private hands. How many have been used to commit a crime?
Tanks require a crew.
Tanks also require infantry support...you know, in case the tank crew runs up against someone like me. Well, I'm just assuming they don't want to die.
Tanks also require maintenance. Road-wheel breaks, tread comes off....oooppps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke
Interesting. Now where in the Constitution can I find the explanation of this distinct difference?
Um, you can try reading the Manual of Arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Did you read the 2nd Amendment? Which part of "to bear arms" do you not understand?
To Bear: to carry as a burden
Source: A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition, 10th Edition, London, 1785.
If you don't know how to use a dictionary, ask your mommy.
Cannons existed at the time. Cannons are not arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke
They're hypocrites. Plain and simple. Either you have the right to bear all arms or you don't.
A reasoner who unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices is using the false dilemma fallacy, as does the person who accepts this faulty reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoke
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.
It is in very poor taste for people who are intellectually small-minded and unable to understand language in a given time period to impose their personal limitations upon others (or to even assume that other people have the same personal limitations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
So stinger missiles are OK, but a crew served BUK isnt?
Its not that simple.
You have never fired a Stinger, so naturally you don't understand it requires two people.
You don't know how to perform maintenance on a Stinger missile. You'd have to hire others, which would cost you a lot of money.
I suppose your solution to that would be the Affordable Missile Maintenance Act.
Naturally, Basic Income will have to be modified so that people can have a Stinger and not feel stigmatized because they have a lower Standard of Living than others.
Or you could just distribute Stingers like needles and condoms. Or, you could have Obamamissiles.
Lets say you are a Tea Partier-Militia member in Texas, Arizona, or California 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?
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.
....
