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

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

Neither does it say you can own any weapon available either. Machine guns didn't exist in the late 1700's.

I guess some could argue a 105mm Holitzer would be legal since it has a barrel.

How about a nuke??

We can't let Hillary get elected.

John



2,059 posted on 03/02/2007 6:08:42 PM PST by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2050 | View Replies ]


To: Diggity
Neither does it say you can own any weapon available either.

It does not make a distinction, so the government is prohibited from doing so as well...

The straw man, slippery slope argument for gun grabber apologists puts you in the same camp as Mrs. Clinton.

2,060 posted on 03/02/2007 6:24:00 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2059 | View Replies ]

To: Diggity

When you can figure out how to use a nuke in defense of your home and property, without incinerating you, your family, and your property in the process, we'll entertain your request for a tactical nuke. Until then, we will consider your absurd raising of the issue as a means to obfuscate the real meaning of the Amendment to be typical for your level of understanding, therefore we will now ignore you.


2,063 posted on 03/02/2007 8:56:51 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2059 | 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