Hawt 2nd Amendment Incorporated by the Supreme Court

fly said:
So you are for restrictions then. Playing devils advocate, where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...

This has been debated forever on the intarnet :lol: I'm not for any restrictions on what most normal people call "guns" up to and including 30mm anti-aircraft type deals, and personally a 40mm grenade launcher would be fun for 4th of July at the 'ranch (I could kind of understand why people would be leery of those in more crowded areas I guess), or whatever else you could come up with, but a nucular (snerk) device? Those can take out a major city with one 'oops', I'd say that's a line.

Plus, regular HE stuff doesn't dick up the environment for a loooooong damn time like radioactive weapons do.....

But if you're asking me if the "reasonable restrictions" as people use that phrase today are okay? Then no, those are NOT okay. It's pure folly to think that a metal box with a spring that is two inches longer than another metal box with a spring should possibly be illegal, or if a barrel is 15" versus 16", or if a stock folds or doesn't, or if a handgun has a loaded chamber indicator or not (All guns are ALWAYS loaded, duh!).

And I know I won't have too many, if any, friends with this - but the background checks are a load of crap too. If someone is out of prison then they've paid their debt to society and should have all rights restored, if they're too dangerous to be out on the street - DON'T LET THEM OUT!
 
fly said:
So you are for restrictions then. Playing devils advocate, where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...

There's a very defined and simple line, that being the difference between a destructive device (nuke, grenade, chemical gas, bomb, whatever) and a firearm. I should be able to own any FIREARM that I can afford, but I've never been in favor of citizens openly possessing unregulated DDs.
 
shortguyrage said:
There's a very defined and simple line, that being the difference between a destructive device (nuke, grenade, chemical gas, bomb, whatever) and a firearm. I should be able to own any FIREARM that I can afford, but I've never been in favor of citizens openly possessing unregulated DDs.
Click to expand...

And I trust you mean the logical description of a DD and not the GCA68 description of such.
 
shortguyrage said:
There's a very defined and simple line, that being the difference between a destructive device (nuke, grenade, chemical gas, bomb, whatever) and a firearm. I should be able to own any FIREARM that I can afford, but I've never been in favor of citizens openly possessing unregulated DDs.
Click to expand...

So should be able to own a howitzer?
 
shortguyrage said:
You aren't half the troll I am.
Click to expand...

While trolling, yes, I'm also kinda serious. I don't know enough about the shit to know. Everyone interprets the 2nd amendment differently. I wanna know what YOU think? Where is the line? Destructive devices doesn't seem to make enough of a demark line...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back