Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Having a right to keep and bear arms does not guarantee "for anyone at all to be able to procure" any kind of arm they may wish to keep or bear. Much like the right to pursue happiness is not a right to happiness.
|
I think that you're contradicting yourself. Above, seemingly in reference to the absolute right to bear arms intended by the founders, you said:
Quote:
|
Or they really thought that Joe Citizen should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment... because it was that important to the security of freedom.
|
Either you are saying shit that you don't believe for the sake of argument- in which case you might want to be a bit more consistent for the sake of argument- or your opinion on the meaning of the second is essentially not fundamentally different from someone who supports gun control- i.e. that the right to bear arms isn't absolute and, like the freedom of speech, should be limited. Maybe you do support gun control, though that's not the impression i've gotten from you.
Quote:
|
You could legally own a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher... cept you probably couldn't afford one even if you did find someone willing to sell you one. Do you think the situation would be much different with your doomsday devices?
|
Do you think that a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could kill 80,000 people and obliterate an entire city in the blink of an eye? Do you think a fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launcher could cause an epidemic of fatal disease? Granted, i'm no expert when it comes to fully automatic belt fed 40mm grenade launchers, but i find the idea pretty unlikely.