[arthurus]

You think like a city boy who is not much in touch with real people, like a not terribly zealous liberal. You think that if something is possible then everyone will necessarily do the thing and misuse it to the worst extent possible. That is where we get the attitude that allowing "concealed carry" necessarily means daily shootouts in the streets.

[GunRunner]

Before your started your "pissed off good 'ol boy givin' the city boy a lesson" crap, I was actually trying to argue in a civil manner. The utter incoherence of your argument has nothing to do with where I live or how many "real people" I'm in touch with. You argue kind of like a liberal, as if the particulars of life have something to do with the validity of your points (they don't by the way).

To assert that my statements are somehow on par with gun grabbers sanctimoniously preaching doom and gloom from concealed carry laws shows that you haven't read anything I've stated. I asked you a simple question, "Is possession of a nuclear weapons protected under the 2A?" I said, "No, I don't think so because they wouldn't be used by a militia", and all of a sudden I'm Sarah Brady. Have you ever argued with a "real person" on this issue before?

If "arms" in the Constitution mean every kind of vehicle and weapon to you, from .22 pistols to a 50 megaton nuke, good luck with that. I'll respectfully disagree. In your mind, you might be making perfect sense, I'll just have to take your word for it.