|
Why we should draw the line...
I really hope this isn't the line of debate that most of you are using in non-gun forums because the whole point of the comment is to draw people into a position that the vast majority of the world outside TFL sees as untenable (defense of the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons) and make you appear to be either an idiot or crazed extremist.
Now you can either formulate a convincing debate that individual ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed or you can accept that the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute and try to find some justification in the Constitution and the law for where those lines are drawn.
Let me tell those of you arguing for weapons of mass destruction - your arguments are not convincing me and I am probably the most sympathetic listener you will ever have for the argument. Some of them are patent BS - somebody is claiming that there is a book that shows you how to build a nuclear bomb for $2,000? I bet that is a real shock to the several national governments across the world spending millions to develop such technology. I guess they just had not checked amazon.com recently?
If somebody CAN formulate a convincing argument (and support it with the Constitution) then let's hear it; because we could all use it.
It seems to me more likely that none of us will be able to present an argument that is convincing even to fellow gunnies and will therefore be better off in discussing how the words of the founders and past law shows unequivocably that the "right to keep and bear arms" definitely includes all type of firearms and man-portable weapons. The case I provided above is one example of that - does anyone else have another?
|