Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dog Gone

"But the weapons of the day didn't include WMD. Would they have intended that the 2nd include your right to create and own chemical and biological weapons? A nuke is probably out of your capability, but it if you could buy one from N. Korea, is that fine with the Founders?"

You are sounding more and more like the antis.

"What did they intend, indeed? Machine guns weren't invented yet. They certainly wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves with guns. But machine guns and WMDs aren't easily classified as defensive weapons."

Following that logic then semi-autos and bolt actions would fall into the same catagory. So lets classify them with machine guns.

"If you're arguing that no line should ever be drawn, I disagree. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme. Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be."

So who defines the lines, people that claim that such and such was not not around when they wrote the 2nd so they should be banned. See above for the issue that would happen. Same for taking rights from "criminals" and people with mental issues. Who defines those?


242 posted on 07/27/2006 1:43:42 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: looscnnn; Dog Gone
Dog gone contends:

There are no absolute rights in the Constitution

Our absolute & inalienable rights to life, liberty, or property are twice mentioned. No person shall be deprived of them without due process of law.

because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme.

Thus due process of [constitutional] law is used to resolve the conflicts.

Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be."

Looscannn asks:

So who defines the lines, people that claim that such and such was not not around when they wrote the 2nd so they should be banned.

Lawyers like Dog Gone claim that gov't can prohibit you from owning 'dangerous' property ['machine guns'] in order to protect your own 'life & liberty'; -- a ludicrous concept of circular reasoning.

The fact is -- gov't wants to prohibit in order to protect its own power, and take away yours.

256 posted on 07/27/2006 3:24:18 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

To: looscnnn

I have nowhere on this thread said that machine guns should be banned. I said restricted. If you're comfortable with the Goth kid down the street having a machine gun, you're more laid back than me.


263 posted on 07/27/2006 4:15:14 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson