4/26/2006 7:39pm, #31
So then: why can't I bear the arms I want to annatrocity?
4/26/2006 7:41pm, #32Originally Posted by Camus
I can only assume that you're not actually trying to make a point, but are instead making a lazy attempt at humorRanked #9 internationally at 118lbs by WIKBA http://www.womenkickboxing.com/wikba...rch%202009.htm
4/26/2006 7:43pm, #33Originally Posted by Kidspatula
4/26/2006 7:44pm, #34Originally Posted by Camus
Are you seriously comparing biological weapons to small arms? Do you want a serious answer?
4/26/2006 7:46pm, #35Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
EDIT: Before bitching about how lame and un-serious I am consider I am parodying your katsap paranoid who thinks the people can protect themselves from the evil hand of the government with small arms. I don't hold it so much against the guy, being former USSR, but Americans should know better.
Last edited by Camus; 4/26/2006 7:48pm at .
4/26/2006 7:48pm, #36
Well ****, apparently you do.
Because biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are cannot be used without radically affecting a substantial area, biological weapons especially once released are really pretty much beyond control and act indiscrimenantly. I can put pistol bullets where I want them, I can control how many of them are fired, I canmake sure they're fired in a safe manner. You cannot do that with biological weapons.
Chemical and nuclear weapons have widespread disasterous affects on a signfigiant surrounding area. This is quite a lot differant then a little peice of fast moving lead that makes 1 single 9MM hole in a very precise direction in a relatively limited range.
On top of that I can shoot my guns without ever affecting another person, you cant do that with Bio/Chem/Nuke weapons.
4/26/2006 7:49pm, #37
If someone takes away my right to have bear arms, there's going to be a mauling.
Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
4/26/2006 7:50pm, #38Originally Posted by Camus
There's actually also a differance between "arms" and "ordanance" ordanance being explosives.
Arms refers to small arms, rifles (even relatively large ones), pistols, shotguns etc.
The distinction has been around since the constitution was written.
Though civilians can get their hands on ordanance legally, it's not really constitutionally protected the way small arms are.
4/26/2006 7:51pm, #39Originally Posted by Camus
Are you suggesting that 80 million gun owners with circa 200 million firearms is an inadequate force for unseating a government?
I would suggest that you are wrong.
4/26/2006 7:52pm, #40
Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats
- Join Date
- Jun 1998
- Cow Town
- MMA (Retired)
Actually, if Jefferson were around today he'd have nukes in the hands of state governments and not the federal one. Our federal government is MUCH bigger than he and the founding fathers ever intended for it to be.