Help me with the logical 2A conclusion

This is a discussion on Help me with the logical 2A conclusion within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The issue of this-gun-is-OK-but-that-one-is-not came up the other day in a discussion I was having with an anti-2A friend. I pointed out that the idea ...

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Help me with the logical 2A conclusion

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array Paymeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,540

    Help me with the logical 2A conclusion

    The issue of this-gun-is-OK-but-that-one-is-not came up the other day in a discussion I was having with an anti-2A friend. I pointed out that the idea was to arm the populace with the same technology as the army, so as to provide a check on army misbehavior.

    My friend asked, "Where do you draw the line? Are you saying that Joe Average should be able to keep and bear nuclear weapons?"

    From a logical standpoint, it seems that "shall not be infringed" says Joe Average should be able to do so. Or perhaps "bear" might suggest one has to be able to carry it... though that sounds like quibbling. I am certainly not a Constitutional lawyer and haven't spent a lot of time chewing on this. I was less than pleased with my answer to him.

    Thoughts? I would be interested in hearing how folks here might answer him...
    with further remarks, perhaps, addressing the risks of having serious weaponry out in the community and thus available for theft by bad guys or one's mentally ill son.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,079
    My answer to such a foolish response is no, but they must have the same access to small arms as the military has.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,787
    If the US can own it the citizens of the US should be able to own it. Whether that's an M9 service pistol and magazine or an ICBM tipped with nuclear warheads. Unless we want to amend the Constitution we have no choice other than to follow what it says. We've been screwing up the 2nd Amendment for a long time, pretending it is new and is starting with black rifles is fantasy.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  5. #4
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,062
    Are you saying that Joe Average should be able to keep and bear nuclear weapons?

    There is no individual soldier in the U.S. Military that can just decide to keep a nuke.

    That is a dumbo comparison question that some log headed individual would ask.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,079
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Are you saying that Joe Average should be able to keep and bear nuclear weapons?

    There is no individual soldier in the U.S. Military that can just decide to keep a nuke.

    That is a dumbo comparison question that some log headed individual would ask.
    And to launch one requires two individuals with separate keys.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,158
    First of all ask your friend if he wants to have a logical discussion or he just trying to convince you to think his way? The folks that use the Nuclear Weapon argument are not trying t have a reasonable discussion with you... Any logic you interject into their simple minds short of their heads exploding they will lash out or change subjects to something that stirs emotion or tries to get everybody on their side. First of all NO company is going to sell a nuclear weapon to a civilian so thats off the table.

    I would first ask him to tell you what the second ammendment means to him, if he uses terms like hunting and target shooting. He does not understand the 2nd Amendment.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •