Except for that whole well regulated militia thing, but why pay attention to that bit and the historical context?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Printable View
Except for that whole well regulated militia thing, but why pay attention to that bit and the historical context?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
For what purpose does someone need a fully automatic weapon?
https://i2.wp.com/pitweston.com/wp-c...sofspiders.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Bump stocks are flying off the shelves.
No, for that you need...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
https://d2p4va2bfxy5el.cloudfront.ne...-bg.jpg?3d4c76
Then we shouldn't go down the slope at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Ok, then you are fine with anyone owning a fully auto machine gun?
What about a rocket launcher?
What about a tank?
What about a nuclear weapon?
Do you see how your argument makes no sense at all?
FTFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Lots of legal scholars have argued both ways. Based on the English standards at the time it does not modify the primary sentence which includes ". . . shall not be infringed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenlaar
Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want? Why is it that wen a drunk hits someone, it's the drunk's fault, when a suicide bomber kills people, it's the bomber's fault, when a terrorist (or fucked up rich teen brat) drives into a crowd it's their fault but when someone shoots people (other than in Tennessee) it's the gun's fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
And I thought Back was the king of stupidity. Congratulations on stealing his crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~