|
Very well said Lendringser, any distinction is artificial. As Tamara said before I could, the ownership of an "object" can not be a crime. Potential is not criminal but intent is.
While I am not sure what definition Tamara uses for "the people", to me that would be all free people legaly in the united states. Those people who are currently incarcerated are not free, those under parental controle are not free (but should be able to enjoy what freedom their parents allow) and those currently locked away for being clinically insane are not free. Every one else fits into my view of "the people" as it relates to the second ammendment.
If it were up to me there would be no legal restrictions to owning any "object". The problem that some have with your "deadly personal weapons" is complex. Isn't any object used to cause damage a weapon? When you used the term deadly some would view that as implying it's only use is to cause the suffering of others. That is how the anti-gun/defense groups have used the power of language to their advantage and we can be defensive at times. I have always thought that the mind is a weapon, all else are tools. That is the only definition that really makes sense to me.
By the way, Tamara is a woman not a man. You said something about "gave some detail on his original on any object with a 105mm....", check her website and you will see that she is an attractive woman and more importantly has a quick wit and an active, intelligent mind. My guess is she reads a lot.
|