Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
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?
|
transport? no. the sale? possibly. It's been done before and a totally liberal court has sided with the gov on an extremely radical interpretation of the commerce clause. Would that stop people from making their own? doubt it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
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.
|
At one time, 'shall not be infringed' meant exactly that. In todays PC world, however, we have a bunch of gun haters who have managed to redefine the bill of rights in to the bill of rights we think you should have.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
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.
|
15 years ago, i'd have agreed with you. After WACO, I certainly think it should be in the realm of the ability to own helos and tanks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Apparently 1010011010 knows people who think that the 2nd also applies to wmds. What's their problem?
|
I know some who think that also. Their reasoning can be sound, but they certainly aren't applying practical reasoning. I don't mean practical as in money and maintenance costs associated with it, but practical as in the fact that detonating a nuke is not self preservation/defense, which is really what the 2nd is about, preserving freedom, not practicing MAD.