Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
And where in the 2nd amendment does it exclude WMD's, or weapons that could destroy the person using it? You run around telling us the 2nd is nonexclusionary (which is why you should be allowed to have a machine gun), and then in the next breath you tell us it excludes certain weapons. You need to sit down and think out your position on this so that you can present a consistant argument.
|
This is you 'spinning'.
Plus, if you make the argument that we're allowed to bear arms UNLESS the weapon we choose to bear could destroy the person using the weapon, then ALL guns should be illegal because the person could shoot themself with any gun.[/QUOTE]This is you spinning faster.
Yes, but you wanting to own a handgun or rifle, or even a machine gun isn't absurd, even though compared with the weapons the government has you may as well be using a slingshot?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
I sometimes carry a simple stick as a self defense weapon. If I'm up against someone with a machine gun it obviously won't be much good for self defense. And it certainly wouldn't help me last very long against the army. Perhaps we should outlaw sticks.
|
And this is where you've spun completely out of control.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Ahh, now you're inventing an absurdity clause and a popular support clause to the 2nd. For an amendment that you seem to say does not exclude weapons or reasons to own weapons, you sure are digging up a lot of imaginary exclusions. Interesting that you ignore the only REAL exclusion, which says you need to be in a well-regulated militia to have a gun.
|
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Kindly point out where it says you NEED to be in a well regulated militia to have a gun. If you CAN, then we know who's inventing imaginary exclusions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Saying you can go up against the government with a machine gun when they have tanks, howitzers, and stealth bombers is equally removed from reality. Are you suggesting that you, too, are not worth arguing with because you can't comprehend your own "wrongness?"
|
We've had this conversation before. I theoretically proved it could be done. It's being proven in the real world today, as we type.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
So me saying that I don't think a guy with a .40 caliber machine gun will succeed against an armored tank which shoots shells that are almost 5 inches wide means I hate my fellow citizens? Where exactly do you come up with this stuff?
If you want more people to be convinced that it's a good idea to let anyone own a gun, I think maybe you want to stop advocating it yourself. Your illogical and poorly conceived arguments would tend to convince people that maybe some people shouldn't have one at all.
|
blah blah blah blah blah. Once again you've spun out of control. Is this how you win arguments face to face? take a logical argument or point from someone, stand it on its ear, then call it illogical poorly conceived, and tell that person he's nuts? tsk tsk.