What? A non felon can't purchase an RPG? What is the world coming to? Doesn't the Second Amendment say that the right to bear arms will not be infringed? That sounds like infringement to me.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
4 WA police murdered: Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed?
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
What? A non felon can't purchase an RPG? What is the world coming to? Doesn't the Second Amendment say that the right to bear arms will not be infringed? That sounds like infringement to me.
Werbung:
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Maybe PFOS has a strict view of the Constitution and isnt willing to evolve to modern times, meaning that a private citizen can have any weapon that was available when the Constitution was written.
TheFranklinParty
Well-Known Member
More and more posts are confusing me...I was having a light hearted moment with Bunz about a weapons enthusiast discussion. Why are you pointing your pen at me...I think there should be laws about felons and their should be regulation against military grade weapons? Lighten up!
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I was simply stating my view on gun control...as you had suggested to talk about gun control. my use of the words done at the end was ment to say my views are pretty basic...you can have guns, just lets have logic in are restrictions as well...nothing aimed at you....he he get it, see i can have fun to damn it....you may have noticed I was joking more, had a post not been deleated that was funny as hell, but a bit over the top maybe....
that said why can't I talk about guns? like why is the XM8 not the new standard rifle for the military? Why does we fight the world with vietnam war guns, still? seems hard to belive nothing better has come along in all those years.
What is dat? I have not heard of an, "XM8". What caliber? Who make?
Dis seem like "straw man", yeah.
Use of an extreme example of something (RPG), that no reasonable person would say should be possessed by citizens. If you can get people to state that reasonable infringements are alright, than you can contend that restricting common handguns and rifles are also just "reasonable infringements". The old, "slippery slope".
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
actuly if you read, that is no straw man..for 1 people actuly do belive you should be able to own them legally...
2nd. I used it to say I believe there is a limit...thus the only real question is where to draw the line...for me , its Fully Auto ...No American needs Fully auto for "protection" or hunting ect...that should be reserved for Military use and Swat
That is fine, except where in the second amendment does it say that its purpose is for personal "protection" or hunting?
Seems that the second was about the possibility of having to fight against one's own government. And in that context, it would be logical to allow full-auto arms inasmuch as that is what the government is armed with.
Also, no American "needs" a large screen TV, gold jewelry, pit bull, knife, hammer (should be reserved for carpenters), motorcycle, etc.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Because I use logic not a piece of paper from a time when one weopon could not kill a million people
Let us see if I got this right: Constitution (Bill of Rights) = "...a piece of paper...". One single gun, (that is what is being discussed here, not nations with atomic bombs), possessed illegally (convicted felon), by a crazy person (as in the killing of four police) did not,"...kill a million people...".
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
well if you want to just take all things talked about at random, and try to make it all one thing sure ..?
Werbung:
straw man, no. Sarcasm, yes.
It was pocketfullofshells who brought up the RPG, not me. I was just responding to his post.
The point (usually, there is a point to sarcasm, if you don't take it at face value) is that the second Amendment is not absolute. We do have, and do accept, some restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Does that violate the Second Amendment? It does say the right "shall not be infringed" ,and outlawing RPGs does infringe it.
It also talks about a well regulated militia.
Similar threads
