havok579257 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Should there be reasonable limits or should you be allowed to have anything you can get your hands on? Should anybody be allowed to own a rocket launcher or a bazooka or surface to air missles or a nuclear weapon? Should there be no limits to what firearnms one can have or should there be limits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) You appear to labor under the impression that the Second is granting a right to the people, whereas it's really just a proscription against the Federal government (you know, the guys who responsibly incinerated entire cities, slaughtered unarmed Lakota women and children...) abridging a right. Nowhere does it discuss this right being issued. That leaves the States free to violate the right. From a constitutional perspective. And your question is loaded. Edited May 9, 2013 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Should there be reasonable limits or should you be allowed to have anything you can get your hands on? Should anybody be allowed to own a rocket launcher or a bazooka or surface to air missles or a nuclear weapon? Should there be no limits to what firearnms one can have or should there be limits? Nukes are fine. As long as you only use them in self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 You appear to labor under the impression that the Second is granting a right to the people, whereas it's really just a proscription against the Federal government (you know, the guys who responsibly incinerated entire cities, slaughtered unarmed Lakota women and children...) abridging a right. Nowhere does it discuss this right being issued. That leaves the States free to violate the right. From a constitutional perspective. And your question is loaded. Not from a constitutional point of view because the actual constitution does not support your viewpoint. What you mean to say is the perspective of the constitution you wish existed, your interpretation of the constitution that existed prior to the 14th amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffboom Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Any small arms. People talk a lot about automatic weapons, but they are less effective anyways. Assault rifles (semi auto) should be available to every law abiding citizen. As far as explosive devices, nuclear weapons, and other things of this nature....these are not protected by the second amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 OH HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY A NEW AND REFRESHING TOPIC NEVER DISCUSSED ON PHATMASS BEFORE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffboom Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 ^props (i'm out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Should there be limits to the amount of inanity allowed on the debate table? Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestertonian Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Bazookas and rocket launchers aren't considered firearms, and thus aren't protected by the second amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Bazookas and rocket launchers aren't considered firearms, and thus aren't protected by the second amendment. That's debatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chestertonian Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 That's debatable... I stand corrected. I guess they are considered firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I stand corrected. I guess they are considered firearms. I was being cheeky but whoa, I guess I was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Bazookas and rocket launchers aren't considered firearms, and thus aren't protected by the second amendment. It says 'arms' which would be any weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 No. Tanks, RPGs, M203s, Mk 19s, attack helicopters, SAMs, ICBMs etc. should be freely available to any citizen who can procure and afford them. Murder is a crime, preparedness is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 My interpretation of the 2nd is that trained citizens should be able to use anything that the government can use against us. The pro-gun lobby likes to quote "shall not be infringed" but fails to quote "well regulated" in the same context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now