If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about [you] his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
"-- he seems to be pushing the edge of kookville prety hard to me. I am all for gun rights but as much as I may get flamed for it, I don't think the constitution protects your right to own a suitcase nuke.
I do believe your unhindered ownership of rifles, shotguns handguns and a whole lot more is protected.
You're "pushing the edge of kookville" by comparing possession of a "suitcase nuke" to owning and carrying arms.
Why? -- You claim "I am all for gun rights, but", -- but what, [besides nukes] -?
Well... based on past experiences with you, I care very little what you think about this fellow freeper.
However, for the sake of the thread...
The nutty author of this article with his “infantile” writing style is the one who said a “responsible child” should be able to go into the store and purchase “anything”. If I am misinterpreting that to include “suitcase nukes” (which it obviously does at the very least symantically if not intentionally by the author) then you need to correct William Tell in another post here where he informs me that it includes all the way up to and exceeding “fighter planes” and “2000 pound bombs”.
Finally, But what yourself? I said what I meant don’t take away or ad to it. Just say what you think.