snippage...
I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for
military
purposes, not hunting.
Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.
And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his
local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has
diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.
=======================
I see your idiocy still commands your mind. Too bad Psychiatric
waiting times for you are even longer...
The drug dealer has no protected right to buy any weapons. If
fact, is prohibited from just that action.
Wow! How progressive! Drug dealers are banned from purchasing assault
weapons? Does Heston know about this? Surely the Framers would be alarmed!
Again, your ideological ignorance
Please explain what my "ideological ignorance" would be here. Do you mean
that I am lacking in ideology, and therefore my view is not valid, or do you
mean that I have an ideology that is ignorant? Assuming the latter, what is
my ideology, and why is it ignorant?
is getting in the way of rationality, eh?
I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
