View Single Post
Old January 9, 2013, 06:10 PM   #56
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
sig, I'm not really sure why you are even arguing with me, since you have stated that you think there is a line, some things should be regulated or restricted entirely. We agree. As far as where the line is, it's a matter of opinion. I think we can both agree that no further restrictions are necessary.

If you admit that it doesn't inherently prevent the commission of future crimes, what additional layers of protection are we receiving?
Already fully explained. Read again.

Which restrictions are those? What evidence do you have to support that "fact"?
7 year olds shouldn't be allowed to own landmines. The evidence for this? Common sense. How could such a draconian restriction possibly promote the safety of the general public?

Now you're combining multiple people's arguments into one. For the record a stealth bomber(which I did not mention, however part of the premise you're attacking is mine) is about as dangerous as a 747 without munitions for a law abiding owner(or even non-law abiding). One could make the specific argument however that the technology used to make it difficult to detect is critical to national security and needs to be restricted though.

Yep, I did combine the statements of different people's posts, but it doesn't change the position the different arguments are trying to make. It is inherent in the example that the bomber would not be without munitions. I'm making an extreme example. There have been comments in this thread The 2nd amendment is absolute, bombs are arms. Someone actually said "anything short of nuclear weapons". No doubt, there are many people out there who have even more extreme views.
coachteet is offline  
Page generated in 0.03615 seconds with 7 queries