Replies

A reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that you can't own a light anti-tank weapon. A mortar. A tank.

"the government can decide that the right doesn't really mean anything"

What are you talking about.? You can own a gun in all 50 states. There are only five states that do not have some form of concealed carry.

I don't know what government you're talking about.

We simply disagree and not just on what is reasonable. We also disagree on what is a right.

Actually a lot of people, and not just convicted felons, cannot own a gun in any state period. In many states you can only own a gun with the state's permission. In fact you can only own a gun in any state at the Federal government's discretion. You have to fill out a form and get their permission to buy one.

That is not a right but instead is some scraps the government throws us poor dogs.

Yes, for now you can buy one from an individual without the governments permission but they can take away that "right" anytime they choose. We are not talking about rights anymore.

__ Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad. As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those. 1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

robertpaulsen wrote:
A reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that you can't own a light anti-tank weapon. A mortar. A tank.

______________________________________

Your anti-constitutional slip is
showing again paulsen..

Our governments, -- on all levels, are violating individual rights.. You cheer them on..

Get lost, you are not a conservative, nor do you agree with the principles of our free republic.

A reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that you can't own a light anti-tank weapon. A mortar. A tank.

So long as the government uses tanks and other armored vehicles against its people, that's not a reasonable restriction.

Kindly note that the constitution does NOT state that the right to keep and bear small arms [exclusively]...shall not be infringed.

So how is it reasonable to restrict my right to own a mortar or some other anti-tank weapon if I can afford it? Is it because these weapons would be used in a criminal fashion, say for armed robbery? How is an RPG to be used in a crime that could not be performed by crude bombs or other obtainable explosives such a big advantage? Maybe just to evade arrest? I cannot fathom the reasoning for posession of weapons to be "reasonably" restricted. The USE of these weapons is what can and should be "reasonably" restricted. The very reason for the second amendment is so the people can resist a military force used against them, foreign or domestic. The "reasonable" restriction you support is to limit the people's ability to kick the government's butt.

"A reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that you can't own a light anti-tank weapon. A mortar. A tank." - RP #172

So, do you withdraw this comment and all the subsequent comments along the lines, 'that only fools believe they have consitutional grounds to personally own cannon'?