Dirty Harry
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 317
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Furthermore, a single shot .22 rimfire can be just as lethal as an M249 SAW. ).
No. .
Furthermore, a single shot .22 rimfire can be just as lethal as an M249 SAW. ).
Please cite the court where it says this.Because most people including the supreme court believe that these weapons should be restricted.
Absolutely it can.
Absolutely it can.
We have open carry up here. They are non-stop going back and forth on concealed carry laws in Madison. But he have not yet arrived.
I carry when I have to. I don't like to but it's just a matter of self-preservation. It's a job thing. I find mine to be cumbersome and heavy at the end of the day.
If I'm not workin', I'm not packin'. (Usually. :mrgreen
You can kill someone with both, so yes.Then I guess a sharp stick could be just as lethal as a SAW, too. Right?
You can kill someone with both, so yes.
Then I guess a sharp stick could be just as lethal as a SAW, too. Right?
Or how about a shovel or a rock? A fryin pan? Are you trying to say that anything that can kill is just as lethal as a SAW?
The meaning looks pretty plain to me -- not sure why you don't understand it.So what does that mean?
I think you understand now.
The next step is to realize that it is certain people that are dangerous, not actually objects. In general, laws should regulate the actions of people, not peoples' property.
I believe a distinction should only be made between ordinary arms and say, ordnance, which could ACCIDENTLY lead to loss of life through massive explosions (ie. very difficult to store safely), and are specifically designed for INDISCRIMINATE killing, etc.
He CAN be. He COULD be.So you believe a guy with a stick is just as lethal as a guy with a SAW?
.
Now, were you going to cite the court where it said that it "believe that these weapons should be restricted", or not?
[/U].
So you believe a guy with a stick is just as lethal as a guy with a SAW?
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun"
I do believe that is what he is saying here.
He CAN be. He COULD be.
He COULD be MORE lethal.
(Psst... its the person and his intentions, not the weapon)
So, the court didn't actually say what you said it said, you just -interpret- it that way."Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,..."
I do believe that is what he is saying here.
Funny... 'Round here, its MOST places. "No Guns" signs are prety rare.
So is Ohio.Oregon here...... I've never even seen a "no Guns Allowed" sign. I have seen pistols carried in the local grocery store.... Oregon is an open carry State.
So, the court didn't actually say what you said it said, you just -interpret- it that way.
You still havent explained how what he said is meanngfully different from what I said.
Oregon here...... I've never even seen a "no Guns Allowed" sign. I have seen pistols carried in the local grocery store.... Oregon is an open carry State.
Isn't that the same one that cites an ordinance numbered 30.06? I always thought that was a funny coincidence.Texas here and I'm looking at a state mandated sign that states it is a felony to carry weapons into a bar punishable by up to ten years.
It does -- but it doesnt specify those limits.It says the right has limitations.
No, its your unsupported interpretation, as illustrated above.It's not my interpretation, it is what it says.
It does -- but it doesnt specify those limits.
.
We are only talking about horn honking and name calling here. People shouldn't have to be afraid for their lives, just because they are assholes. :mrgreen: