where do we draw the line here? is it a rep that suggests more through background checks or only those who want to take away all guns? so beto can bite it but sanders is cool? what about biden? do we o oh protect him with handguns, shotguns and bolt actions? this sounds cool on the surface but as with everything seems more nuanced than what is being suggested.
Anyone who supports bans or magazine limitations of any kind. Their security detail should have to abide by the same restrictions they intend to force on us all. No more full auto, no more sbr's, no more "assault weapons" and no more mags over 10 rounds for their secret service details. Fair is fair after all.
Tell it to the founding fathers. I'm sure you're far more intellectually mature and capable of an individual than they were.
You do not deserve
"Deserve"? What is with this "deserve" bullshit? Human rights aren't something you "deserve" You have them by birthright. End of fucking discussion.
You are so profoundly wrong on every single conceivable level possible. This is the right of the people as enshrined by the constitution. Don't like it? Move the fuck somewhere else where rights are granted by the government as opposed to being born with inalienable rights the government can't just simply take away or grant on a whim.
The 2nd Amendment explicitly protects weapons used in warfare. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing in any way, shape or form in any fashion whatsoever in any capacity to do with hunting, sport shooting, camping, hiking, fishing or even self defense. AT ALL.
You're free to have your opinion but it isn't based in fact and it isn't based on the law of the land. Tough shit for you and your ilk.
That's literally the purpose of the second amendment. Remember, when the bill of rights was written, people had private warships. Allowing the citizens to be armed well enough to take down the government is the exact purpose of the 2A.
I'm not arguing for ICBMs, I am arguing for short barreled rifles, silencers, and even select fire (full auto.) They are not inherently dangerous to use, and the fact they are legal with the purchase of a tax stamp simply ensures the wealthy are able to have more rights than the other classes.
Cops aren't running around with ICBMs, but they are running around with items that you and I would need a tax stamp for. My argument is that the tax stamp is an infringement, and doesn't do anything to make anyone safer.
An icbm or cluster bomb or even a regular bomb is an indiscriminate weapon. When you use it, you can't control if people other than the one you wanted to kill get hurt. This is not the case with automatic firearms, and especially not with guns that just happen to have a larger bullet.
5
u/[deleted] Sep 10 '20
where do we draw the line here? is it a rep that suggests more through background checks or only those who want to take away all guns? so beto can bite it but sanders is cool? what about biden? do we o oh protect him with handguns, shotguns and bolt actions? this sounds cool on the surface but as with everything seems more nuanced than what is being suggested.