Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Oh no. No no. You're not getting away with that. You want to believe the 2nd guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, then you have to accept it when people bear the arms that they keep. He's bearing the RPG when he's patrolling his yard with it. We're not gonna have the "whatever dksuddeth says goes" version of the 2nd here.
|
Read very carefully what you asked me. You asked about him patrolling his back yard. You did NOT ask about him owning one. I responded with having NO PROBLEM of him owning one, as long as he wasn't walking aimlessly around with it WITHOUT a necessary purpose.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Either you believe the 2nd gives only militias the right to weapons, or you believe that it gives everyone the right to weapons. Either way, there is no distinction between the "keep" part and the "bear" part. Whoever is allowed to keep arms, is also allowed to bear them.
If you're going to tell me that your neighbor has the right to acquire and own an RPG, then he definitely has the right to bear it when he's walking around his yard. If you don't like that scenario, then may I suggest you take another look at the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd.
|
Just like us in the military, we did not patrol our secured perimeter with a tank or a harrier. We DID patrol it with machine guns and handguns and had RPGs and grenades in our armory. It is nothing different in a civilian aspect either. Trying to pin me in a corner with my own words isn't going to work so long as you use my correct words and not yours.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|