View Single Post
Old January 9, 2013, 10:07 PM   #65
Shane Tuttle
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 8,829
That definition would mean that limits could be placed on the ownership of a Cival War era canon, since it is too heavy to be carried by a man... But that ownership of an advanced MANPADS could not be limited, or infringed, by the government.... MANPADS = man portable air defense systems, i.e. shoulder launched surface to air missiles. At least 7 commercial jet airliners have been attacked with MANPADS by terrorists in the last 40 years.
Key word: Terrorists. How many law abiding men/women used one for use of that nature?

I honestly can't believe the debate has been diluted to absurd statements of thinking the 2nd Amendment really includes items beyond what it says and the Founding Fathers' intent. Keep AND Bear means what it says.

Name one, ONE full auto weapon that should NOT fall under the guaranteed protection of the 2nd Amendment and a real reason why. None of this, "Well someone might not use it effectively or safely" or, "I don't think there's any use for them" bullcrap. Show me facts that back up your claim why a person that's law abiding should not be able to exercise his/her right to owning one.

Do your research. Find out what the Founding Fathers wrote about firearms ownership. Read up on how things were handled when advanced firearms of their day were invented, used and owned. Bear in mind you're reading what was new over 200 years ago and is easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. Rifling, repeating arms, etc didn't come into fruition until many, many years later. That stuff was radical in development. What did their descendents have to say about these God-awful newfangled inventions to firearms?

Oh, and one other thing. What is a "law abiding citizen" since a member stated it isn't in the 2nd Amendment? The laws are written as to what a man/woman is compared to a child. A law abiding citizen is such until one is convicted of a crime, yes? Well, now. Wouldn't they be in prison/jail if they're a convicted felon? If not, then fix that current law. Doesn't do a dang bit of good to add yet another law since another one isn't enforced. "What about when they get out, Shane?" So? If one does the crime, one does the time. After that, I'm in belief the person has served time and starts over in life. Don't like it? Then change/enforce the existing laws.
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU:
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Page generated in 0.04245 seconds with 7 queries