|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 02:59 PM EST |
What I responded to:
There are no logical, rational reasons to
prohibit ownership of personal nuclear weapons
I then gave a
logical, rational reson to prohibit ownership of personal nuclear
weapons.
Or perhaps I'm confused and it wasn't me you were pointing your
"failed sniff test" at, instead it was the person I responded
to?
Sometimes the responses aren't too easy to decipher cause they're not
so clear on what is being spoken to :)
Let's say it's the other poster.
Not knowing the full authorings of that particular anon - it's hard to decipher
what lead to their response to P.J.s question. But I do think an opinion that
there's no logical, rational reason for the prohibition of Nukes a bit misguided
at best.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 28 2012 @ 08:09 PM EST |
No. It's logic, in response to people arguing
that the purpose of an armed populace is to
deal with a wicked government. My point is,
that ship has sailed. Tech makes it a ridiculous
thought. You can't use handguns against a nuclear
weapon or a drone or sarin or any othe other things
governments can do.
If that is seriously why people think they need
guns, then they are logic challenged.
And deeper, what about the First Amendment? Does it
not matter? The Second Amendment is the only one
that counts? The First Amendment protects my right
to peacefully assemble without some nut with
an automatic weapon mowing me and the kids down
while we are in school or going to the movies.
Law requires a balancing of rights, and if the
Second Amendment is interpreted in a way that
infringes my First Amendment rights, someone needs
to figure out a balance. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
