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.
No. You can not own a fighter plane still equiped with bomb delivery systems.
And though in certain contrived instances you can own 2000lbs of explosive.
You can NOT own 2000lb bombs, designed and equiped for combat applications.
ONCE AGAIN, the AUTHOR said you said a “child” should be able to buy “anythinig”. It makes him look like a friggn’ butcase friggin’ nutcase and you look like an idiot for defending him.
Minors are minors for a reason. They have not reached the age of majority nor attained all the rights thereof granted by constitution nor GOD. They are CHILDREN. Duhhhhhh!
Koo koo...
Koo koo...
Anti-gunners are mostly ignorant about how recent most gun control is. I remember the liberal media was aghast at finding out that there were people who owned great quantities of World War II armament, including large field guns, personally and were storing it out in the desert where it was practical to make use of it. This was about 1960.
It's fascinating to watch Hollywood's product from prior eras and make note of the tremendous changes that have taken place in protecting our right to keep and bear arms.
In the movie "Charlie Varrick", Walter Matthau's character purchases dynamite over the counter in a hardware store. In the John Wayne movie, "The High and the Mighty", a character threatens others with a gun but has it returned to him after he calms down.
The anti-gun hysteria is an invention of the last half century. The half century prior to that was the era of disarming minorities.