Replies

I'm sorry you are offended by your own conclusions, but you have stated that there is no consideration of the discrimination of a weapon in the Consitution (to wit: "The Constitution does not have a threshold for discrimination and neither you nor the author of the article can insert one").

This means that any weapon, regardless of discrimination, can be kept and borne. Ergo, the most indiscriminate of all possible weapons -- biological agents -- may be kept and borne by any private citizen.

These are your conclusions, and I disagree with them.

This means that any weapon, regardless of discrimination, can be kept and borne. Ergo, the most indiscriminate of all possible weapons -- biological agents -- may be kept and borne by any private citizen. These are your conclusions, and I disagree with them.

You posted an excellent example of taking the opponent's view to its logical conclusion. It wasn't a strawman argument at all.

You have yet to show where the Constitution prohibits ANY weapon or weapons systems, and in the process, your tone is deterioriating.

Do you agree that the Constitution provides for privateers?

If so, what Constitutionally imposed restrictions are there on what weapons may be deployed.

Do not try to make this into a discussion of you trying to corner me into advocating NBC use, especially first strike use because that isn't the issue.

You are acting as an advocate of 'common sense' arms control, and being such, you want to impose 'reasonable' restrictions on what other people may own. Obviously the Founders never considered automatic weapons or long-range rifles.

Does this sound familiar? Your desire to restrict other based upon what you don't think someone else needs is no different in principle than HCI, just not as restricitve.

My position that the Constitution does not deny the individual the right to own any weapon does not imply approval of any improper use of that weapon, be it a nuke or a slingshot.