Reply With Quote
It could threaten the existence of for profit online shooting galleries, once you start encouraging quadraplegics to own and shoot their own guns.So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either?
So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either?
It could threaten the existence of for profit online shooting galleries, once you start encouraging quadraplegics to own and shoot their own guns.So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either?
no !I would argue yes, but I fully admit that I'm greatly in the minority.
a tank for self defense against the government? a tank won't protect them any more than a handgun or a bazooka...I would argue yes, but I fully admit that I'm greatly in the minority.
nukes, otoh....
Sounds like a challenge! Ok, jump onto GTA4 online, I'll use a tank, you use a handgun, no hijacking allowed, and we'll see who wins.
in this case, more =/= longerSounds like a challenge! Ok, jump onto GTA4 online, I'll use a tank, you use a handgun, no hijacking allowed, and we'll see who wins.
What would the reason be to deny them? Couldn't the man a post, or a checkpoint?So then people with wheelchairs shouldn't be able to own guns either?
I'm just taking the words to their understanding of the time. Still, I'm up to playing this game.
What's the harm in it?
What if we were invaded by another country? The more armed citizens we have the better. that is what a militia is. An armed citizenry that is capable of fighting. Someone with a tank would simply be better armed against an invading force than most citizens.
What's the harm in it?
Do you guy's think someone who buys a Tank would go all "Zack Carey" on someone?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-02-2010 at 11:59 AM.
I'm the biggest pro-gun guy around. Handguns & rifles - yes.
Bazookas, tanks, etc - no.
among other reasons, the odds that we get invaded by another country are currently so astronimcally low that it in no ways justifies arming our citizenry "just in case".
Well, if you don't like it, push for a cons utional amendment to abolish the 2nd amendment.
among other reasons, the odds that we get invaded by another country are currently so astronimcally low that it in no ways justifies arming our citizenry "just in case".
I'd rather someone have a tank in public than a concealed handgun.
That aside, what is the cut off point as far as weapons go under the 2nd Amendment as you see it?
Should the citizenry be allowed to keep explosives just in case we get attacked?
I've never really thought much about that point. It seems to me the cons ution allows us to have any we want. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that. lots of pros and cons. However, when you make something illegal, only criminals have it. Makes it rather unfair for those who remain legal.
I can tell.
So? I'm not trying to make a solid decision, and if I did, what I would think is best, and how I think the cons ution is interpreted could be different.
You have a point, or just think it's funny that this is rather low on my priority list?
Uhhh guys...you can legally own tanks, cannons, bazookas, etc. already. you don't even have to register them, but the explosive AMMO is controlled/registered.
I think it's funny.
Fine with me. I simply have more pressing issue to than take the time that topic would take for me to arrive at a more solid conclusion.
depending on the state, you have to register the actual bazooka, grenade launcher, etc.
hmmmm. Don't think so. I know for a fact you can own a fully functioning tank complete with cannon without it being registered. It's the cannon s s that are regulated.
True or false: The 2nd Amendment allows citizens to keep nuclear weapons.
well, in lots of states things like slingshots, bb guns, airsoft, etc. are restricted. Not illegal I mean, but not allowed to be ordered thru the mail and maybe not even to sell in state. Hard to believe, I know.
I'm going to say, no.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
