Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
You may have the right to keep and bear a given arm, but you've got to GET ONE first. If there are none for sale in your price range and you have no capability to make it yourself... oh well. It would be a right to have them, not get them.
|
So in your mind it would be completely acceptable, from a legal standpoint, to simply outlaw, say, the sale and transport of guns since you wouldn't be technically prohibiting the right to "bear" arms?
Quote:
|
You run into a lot of megaton nuclear devices at garage sales? Mail order weaponized anthrax spores?
|
Nope, and it whether i do or not has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about. I said that that you don't hear a lot of pro 2nd folks lamenting the fact that they don't have a right to own nuclear weapons. You said that some do. I said that they're dumb. You said a belt fed grenade launcher was as effective a weapon as a nuclear bomb. I said it wasn't. I'm new to the idea that the second amendment has nothing to do with limiting the ability of folks to access weapons- it seems like such an obvious way to nullify the 2nd.
Quote:
|
It would not be particularly difficult for a sufficiently motivated and financed individual or group of individuals to render entire cities uninhabitable and kill tens of thousands of people. Fortunately, people with sufficient motivation and finacing to do these things often have more structured goals than "WHOO! BLOW SOME SHIT UP!" so the question of private tactical nuclear device ownership would remain largely hypothetical whether there was a recognized private citizens Right to have one or not.
|
Since no one has tried to blow up a city yet, so there would be no problems if nuclear weapons were widely available. That doesn't make sense to me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Those who argue that the framers 'could not possibly have imagined the current weaponry' are missing the entire point of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The founders experienced 'first hand' the heavy handedness of a standing army and KNEW that ONLY free citizens had freedom and liberty as an interest at heart. Standing armies could most certainly be held to orders that abridged that freedom and liberty and it was the framers OBVIOUS intent to ensure that free citizens, who were NOT part of standing armies, federal or state, were armed with equal weaponry to that of any standing army so that free people could fight to remain free.
|
Okay, i could see that. So it's not about wmds, it's about apache helicopters and tanks. Doesn't sound good to me. First of all, it's hard enough to find a parking spot downtown as is, i can't imagine how much more difficult it would be if everybody had a tank. The other side of that, of course, is that if you had a tank you could park anywhere that someone else hadn't already parked their tank.
Wouldn't mutually assured destruction be the ultimate deterrence against tyranny?
Quote:
|
All arguments about owning WMD's are really idiotic arguments because the government would be cutting their own throat if they were to use WMDs against the civilian population.
|
Apparently 1010011010 knows people who think that the 2nd also applies to wmds. What's their problem?