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.
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 the silly comparison?
-- 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.
Look in the mirror, fellow freeper. You're opposing the principles, [as outlined by a quite rational L. Neil Smith] of our 2nd.
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'.
Not too long ago, [till 1968] it could be done. It was up to the discretion of the seller. The USA has lost personal freedoms since then, because people like you think it's "pushing the edge of kookville".
If I am misinterpreting that to include 'suitcase nukes' (which it obviously does at the very least symantically if not intentionally by the author)
You are hyping the 'nukes' point to what, -- concede that the government can 'reasonable regulate' away [prohibit], our right to own and carry certain types of arms?
-- 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?.
Guess what. There is nothing illegal [yet] about owning fighter planes -- or, - 2000 lbs of explosives.
Finally, But what yourself? I said what I meant don't take away or ad to it. Just say what you think.
I do say what I think. -- I think you are wrong about setting limits on what kind of arms we can own.
I don’t think that you are just interpreting his remarks, but twisting and misconstruing them to create your straw man argument.
He was referring to earlier times when we could purchase firearms over the counter and even over the phone without the nonsense of a background check. We have never been able to buy a suitcase nuke at the retail level.*
*If you have the right connections and enough money, I’ll get you one wholesale though. LOL