Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Well, see, now you're the one imagining I said things that I never said. I said that I don't know what YOU mean by the 2A not being absolute.
|
"Should governments be allowed to own a nuke? If so, why?"
If the Soviet Union had them, then unfortunately we needed them. They "why", and you already know this so I don't know why you're asking, is for deterrence.
"Could you bear (carry) a nuke?"
Maybe. Do they fit in suitcases? Missiles don't, but maybe a bomb does?
You're being silly just to be contrarian.
" do not know what you mean by the 2A not being absolute in regards to the original 2A"
Yes you know what I mean. I mean there are limits. I should not be allowed to keep and bear a fully automatic rile, and carry it around in a nursery school. Since I presume you agree with that statement, that means we both agree that the 2A is not absolute. We just need to figure out where to draw the line. If we can move that line in a way that doesn't surrender what I would call basic freedoms (who needs bump stocks or high capacity magazines except for Rambo wannabees), and saves a few lives, we should have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of that.
But we can't have a rational conversation, because the pro-2A fanatics claim that if we do that today, then tomorrow we necessarily surrender handguns and hunting rifles and swiss army knives and slingshots. Not even maniacs like Chris Murphy are going that far, there is no chance that will ever happen, and if that's the best argument you can come up with, then you lose the debate, because it's not a rational argument, it's tin foil hat paranoia.
Threaded Mode