Gun rights people, do you really need 30-75 round ammo clips?

[Fast Twitch Fiber]

We're talking about firearms and you come up with land mines and grenades... but for your info, M-203 grenade launchers are legal in Canada. Expensive but legal...

NO, the constitution says nothing about FIREarms or GUNS. It says ARMS. It does not specify the type of arms. If you're arguing that the Constitution gives you the right to any type of gun, then you are also arguing that it gives you the right to ANY type of weapon.

 

[Dial_tone]

NO, the constitution says nothing about FIREarms or GUNS. It says ARMS. It does not specify the type of arms. If you're arguing that the Constitution gives you the right to any type of gun, then you are also arguing that it gives you the right to ANY type of weapon.

The lad has skillz.

 

[manny78]

NO, the constitution says nothing about FIREarms or GUNS. It says ARMS. It does not specify the type of arms. If you're arguing that the Constitution gives you the right to any type of gun, then you are also arguing that it gives you the right to ANY type of weapon.

I have no problem with someone having a full-auto M249 at home or some Claymore even if they have no purposes. I dont question a law abiding citizen. I just let it enjoy its rights.

 

[Dial_tone]

Let's roll with this one for a while. Citizen Manny, who has never broken a law, has a legal nuclear arsenal in his basement. This is his right under the law. What type of law should Citizen Manny have to break in order for his gun rights to be rescinded/curtailed/whatever? Speeding ticket? crime against people? property? felony?

bawk bawk bawk!

 

[strongsmartsexy]

The case is not closed. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to every type of arms on the planet. If you want to stock up on WOMD-loaded grenade launchers you're probably gonna run into some resistance.

Yes, there has to be some limits, unless you want everyone carrying around nukes, which I'm not particularily in favor of.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

There will never be an end to this argument until people first agree whether a document written by men who died over 200 years ago can reasonably be expected to account for every possible situation until the sun burns out.

Or for those in current history to recognize why this amendment is in place to begin with.

 

[jh1]

The lad has skillz.

No he doesn't. Everyone knows that what they intended by arms... don't pull bullshit on that... at least give them that. They meant GUNS... you know it... I know it.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You work with drugs....drugs and guns combined = no good. Therefore you must be stopped.

lawmaking and drugs = no good.
lawmaking and special interests = no good.
lawmaking and rights removal = no good...

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Ummm....that's a bad example. We do ban travelling 150 mph on your motorcycle. 75 is the fastest legal speed in this country.

LMAO, and I suppose no one speeds in that country?

 

[strongsmartsexy]

NO, the constitution says nothing about FIREarms or GUNS. It says ARMS. It does not specify the type of arms. If you're arguing that the Constitution gives you the right to any type of gun, then you are also arguing that it gives you the right to ANY type of weapon.

Ok, what is it "ARMS" mean?