How about a chemical or biological weapon?
The cost and accessibility of very dangerous weapons is going to decline.
Barton: Second Amendment Guarantees An Individual Right To Own A Tank Or Fighter Jet
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
How about a chemical or biological weapon?
The cost and accessibility of very dangerous weapons is going to decline.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
So.....I'm waiting on substance....
Did Timothy McVeigh want a bomb? Should we let anyone who wants to assemble a similar device have access to the ingredients without any form of regulation?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Should we not limit ALL rights equally based solely on the possibility of their misuse?
That's not really an answer.
We do limit all rights including the second. We always have.
Why would anyone believe what a Marxist partisan blog has to say? And who the hell is David Barton or WallBuilders live? Never heard of him so obviously he and his show are obscure to say the least.
As for the 2nd ammendment; I am quite certain that the founders never envisioned what a tank or f16 is. In addition, I cannot remember citizens of the day keeping artillery pieces on thei properties.
This blog you quote is about as irrelevant as David Barton which brings up two thoughts; who the fuck cares, and, what is your point?
Got Strawmen? I haven't seen these proverbial "gun nuts". Who are they and where? Or are you claiming that anyone who owns a gun outside of Govuhmint is a gun nut?
In addition to that strawman; I haven't seen any of these proverbial gun nuts frothing about owning bombs, nukes or rocket launchers.
What we are seeing are leftist asshats who constantly froth at the mouth about these mythical gun nuts clamoring for these mythical arsenals.
The sad irony for leftist asshats who constantly froth at the mouth with their irrational nonsense is that they retardedly believe that criminals abide by gun laws.
Morons.
There will be no rebellion; it's a fools argument. There are loonies on the right, and there are loonies on the left. Trying to project those loonies as being representative of an entire population is...dumb.
Moron.
Dear moron,
I never argued one was likely. I was responding to someone else raising the point and noted that it was a dumb basis.
Dear Morons,
Are you speaking as a moron or for morons? Whatever, your signatures are inconsistent.
Barton is one of your members. He is fairly well known for getting your group to believe that this was a Christian nation by quote mining the founders and taking them out of context. It 's pretty much the same thing done to make it seem as if they were arguing that the country should face constant revolution.
Right wing watch gets lots of traffic by shining the light on the crazies.
It's not a strawman. Barton said it and there are several posters here arguing that he was right. It may be that some of them are just trolling, pretending to be libertarian as grind is known to do and trying to make defense of the second look stupid. I don't know why anyone would defend the red herring.
I posted it to raise discussion and in hopes of getting these supposed defenders of the second to take a more rational approach.
Last edited:
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
They did have artillery. It was a common thing up to around the civil war era. Citizens also had ships with cannon and were given lettera of of marque.
evince
Truthmatters
which is YET another reason that what Obama did in Syria was the correct move
Source? Were these ships required to have a letter of marque?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
We don't limit them prior to their abuse though. We punish abuse, not try to prevent it. Unless that's what you'd like to see.
Dear dullard; no you were not. You were constructing strawmen as morons are prone to do and making yourself look... painfully stupid.
Carry on; apparently you are desperate to remove all doubt that you are an incredibly dense uninformed buffoon.
It is official; you're an idiot.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Nope. Well, if they wanted to use those ships for 'privateering' then yes. But to own them and the cannons? No. Why would you issue a LoM to someone who isn't already capable of executing it?
Please support this with something more credible than "because you say so."
But again, the notion that it is a good idea for citizens to have bombs, artillery and fighter aircraft is an incredibly dense one that has no rational connection with the real world.
It is just as dense as claiming that an element of the population should overthrow a Government because they didn't like the outcome of a free and fair election.
Yo hyper partisan brain dead asshat; Obama hasn't done ANYTHING in Syria yet.
Good lord you give a bad rep to the term idiot.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I ASSUMED that this was common knowledge....
But sure, here. Be prepared for some reading though...
http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law Review/66-2Young.pdf
Well then an amendment would be such simple thing to pass. Except, that no. The only difference between a 120mm cannon and .22S rifle is bore diameter. And if you create the precedent that you can effectively ban one, then it remains that the others can be banned as well based on the exact same principle. In fact every shotgun in existence to this day (other than .410 shotguns) is legal only because the ATF has decided to keep it so. But do go on, please tell me that creating legal precedent like you suggest is good for society.
You're assuming of course that elections will remain free and fair, in which case I must ask what the winning Powerball numbers are.