Are ANY Gun Laws Legal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So by your reasoning I should be allowed to keep a suit case nuke in my gun safe?

If you say no then the 2A is not absolute. The second amendment says "arms" not "firearms", "guns", or "swords". A basic definition of "arms" is weaponry. If we use that definition and your reasoning about the second amendment being absolute then we have the right to any "arm".
 
Congratulations. You've just learned how to take the first step to gun control...
You have started down the slippery slope, and, where is the slide going to end, with my 22 short Beretta 950?(Did you know .22 short, and .22 long Beretta 950's are illegal to purchase in Kali, unless you are LEO?) Guess they rank right up there with your suitcase nuke as a weapon of mass destruction...

Congratulations on using a truly absurd example, that 'justifys' your position, and, therefore you can now write a law that will ban 30 round magazines, and .50 Caliber rifles, or no handguns, at all, in Washington D.C., for 30 years...

So yes, I'd rather you could try and buy a suitcase nuke, and live with about 20 branches of the Federal government chasing you for possessing a controlled substance, and taking pictures of your sex life, and, where you pee, then some absurd gun law that limits freedom, and, doesn't stop anyone from committing a crime.

How about in England, with no pistols, and, now no fox hunting, soon to be no rifles, or shotguns?

So, your next logical step is to take one, adsurdly horrendous case, 5 year old gang member shoots crack pipe mother, over 8 ball, and write a law banning all firearms for everyone...

Once you've mastered this logic, you become a front runner for a congressional position from Kalifornia...
 
NO, you did. Plutonium is not avaliable at the local store, nor is it a commodity the public is allowed to possess. There are plenty of laws that contain this avenue.

Therefore your entire scenario, trying to create bad law from irrelevance is absurd. Again, you must work for Pelosi...
 
As I've said, prior, your use of absurd examples qualifies you to run for congressional office. You'll fit in, just fine. You use the same absurd one case situation to create law that our congress does.

Is it a terrible tragedy that some crackpipe mom scalded her 3 year old to death? Yes. Does that mean 300 million people should not be able to use water over 120 degrees in their bathtubs???

Plutonium IS already a banned substance. YOU WIN the prize, and, you can run for congress next term...
 
You use the same absurd one case situation to create law that our congress does
Click to expand...

I never once said I would use my example to write new laws. Only to prove the point that the RKBA is not absolute.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. No one is arguing for more gun laws. We are saying that the RKBA is not nor has it ever been absolute.

Is it a terrible tragedy that some crackpipe mom scalded her 3 year old to death? Yes. Does that mean 300 million people should not be able to use water over 120 degrees in their bathtubs???
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the RKBA.

Plutonium IS already a banned substance
Click to expand...

So if it is already banned it is OK? If you have a right to a nuclear weapon wouldn't such a abn be unconstituional?

Does that mean the Hughes amendment is OK because it bans the sale or transfer of machine guns made after May 1986 to civillians? Since those post 1986 Machine guns are already banned it is OK.

Whether or not something is currently banned has no bearing on whether or not such a ban is consitutional.

And please stop with the name calling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top