Originally posted by PsykoOps
Originally posted by scrounger
1. The second amendment says NOTHING about if a weapon is for hunting, if someone has to justify a need for it, or if it LOOKS like a military
and then you contradict that point completely:
2. No one (except someone who is an extreamest) has EVER SAID the second amendment applies to napalm, nukes, tanks, missles, machine guns, automatic
weapons, flame throwers, ect.
You are absolutely right about one thing. 2nd amendment doesn't classify weapons at all.
Are you kidding me or are you so desperate to make your point you go to the level of complete nonsense?
The second amendment does specifically say (now read closely) GUNS/FIREARMS. Hence the term ARMS.
In the time the amendment was written a cannon (the heaviest thing available then) was classified as ARTILLERY not a ARM/GUN.
So back then cannons, mines, and warships were not covered or even looked at as the same way as a rifle/pistol.
Now go today the term arm may not be as common or used anymore.
But if you think a gun (aka worded as ARM in the second amendment) as the same as tank, napalm,, rocket launcher, missle, tank, nuc, or any other
military distructive device I suggest you buy a dictionary (or go on WIKI for pictures).
Even the supreme court does not classify those items as guns/arms nor protect them under the second amendment.
Even the most hated by liberals NRA had NEVER tried to classify above destructive devices as under the second amendment much less wanting them
available without restriction.
The NRA also has supported the Class III federal licencing laws on automatic weapons.
Even the supreme court does not have said above destructive devices covered under the second amendment.
So again let me type s l o w l y so you understand
I stated the second amendment does not requrire how a weapon looks (ex military LOOKING), that it is only for hunting or require anyone to justify WHY
they want a gun or particular gun.
It clearly does not apply to distructive devices or says laws applying to AUTOMATIC WEAPONS (those that shoot more than one bullet per one trigger
pull) are unconstitutional (also supported by the NRA).
So are you so anti-gun that you cannot use logic much less common sense to make your point?