Lucrum for President?
- Thread starter shortie
- Start date
Lukie, answer these questions:
1. Should a person in the USA, according to the constitution, be allowed to own a shoulder fired missle launcher?
2. If you say yes, then do you support the right for a person to own it?
No spin, no hedge, no confusion, so jive. Just answer these two yes or no questions. Note: There are two questions, above. Question #1 and question #2.
1. Should a person in the USA, according to the constitution, be allowed to own a shoulder fired missle launcher?
2. If you say yes, then do you support the right for a person to own it?
No spin, no hedge, no confusion, so jive. Just answer these two yes or no questions. Note: There are two questions, above. Question #1 and question #2.
LMAO...Not at all. It's just that I know what I believe. I'm trying to help you Lukie.
Watch this:
The constitution doesn't say which arms we can have. So, I believe the constitution allows me to have a shoulder fired missle launcher.
I believe the constitution needs to be amended to prevent citizens from owning shoulder fired missile launchers.
I also believe that the constitution needs to be amended to prevent people from having an arsenal at their house/compound.
I would be in favor of three guns to be owned by a citizen.
Now, really, Lukie, what's so raving looney about all this?
Remember, you're Bush, I'm Cheney. Let me do the thinking. You're going to be at a lot of state dinners.
I can't stop laughing.
Not in the statement you're quoting, no. I did however clearly ask why you guys always bring up largely ridiculous examples (shoulder fired missile launchers) to further your anti-gun agenda. But then frankly I view your whole premise here as not much more than the equivalent of a poor excuse for a trick question.
I think you're assigning terms like spin, hedge, confusion and jive to answers that are none of the above, certainly not intended to be anyway.
[As I've already stated I make NO claim whatsoever to be a constitutional scholar]
1) Strictly interpreted, I would have to say yes.
2) Personally? Not really. NO, if you want a simple yes or no.
Sound contradictory? It's not intended to be, but I think it is practical, pragmatic and realistic.
Basic firearms, rifles, shotguns and handguns, were known at the time the 2nd amendment was written. Shoulder fired missiles, ICBM's, nukes and the like were not. Had they been available or even foreseen at the time I'm of the opinion those who drafted the second amendment might have been a little more specific.
Don't we all?
Technically I suppose it does.
A belief (your word not mine) that you're certainly entitled to
I assume your amendment will define "arsenal" in such a way as to suite YOU. To hell with what anyone else thinks.
Well that's mighty big of you. Tell me again who made YOU the arbiter of what a reasonable number of personal firearms is?
You're serious aren't you?
I hate fancy dinners. I don't even like dressing up. Give me jeans a t-shirt and Hooters or Smokey Bones.
Wow! Sure looked like it to me. But, anyways...
Okay, so we're moving in a similar direction now. There's no trick questions; just seeking clarity.
I agree with your answers to the two questions. That's why we need to amend the constitution.
The reason I bring up the example of the shoulder fired missile launcher is because a citizen shouldn't be allowed to own one. Just as he should not be allowed to own 150 AR-15s.
Okay, so we're moving in a similar direction now. There's no trick questions; just seeking clarity.
I agree with your answers to the two questions. That's why we need to amend the constitution.
The reason I bring up the example of the shoulder fired missile launcher is because a citizen shouldn't be allowed to own one. Just as he should not be allowed to own 150 AR-15s.