Debunk this liberal LIE: “The 2nd Amendment allows me to own WMD’s!”

So you are saying Iraq did have WMDs?

I just want to live in a country where I don't have to worry about a man with a fully automatic grenade launcher to kill me and my community.

I don't know many that don't own a Wireless Mobile Device

quote:

---

funnystuff

---

I agree. But some view it as “I have the right to own whatever weapons my government owns.” How do you resolve this?

quote:

---

Oh man, someone else had a “Boy’s Life” sub 

---

Or chewed Bazooka Bubble Gum.

quote:

---

WMDs are fundamentally offensive weapons

---

There's that, but 'bearing' arms would pretty much mean they have to be man portable.

In Heller, even Scalia notes that the 2 is not an unlimited right, as no right is. It protects your right to own weapons that are “in common use for lawful purposes,” not those that are abnormal or especially dangerous (relatively speaking). Fact is that “assault weapons” are in common use and circulation and are used by many everyday for lawful purposes. Granades, nukes, etc are not, hence why you can’t walk into the local gun store and buy one.

The entire debate on guns, from both sides, would be much more productive if the conversation was constrained to the Courts interpretation of the 2A. It’s silly not to, but the vast majority of people probably couldn’t tell you the case name D.C. v. Heller, and of those that even know it I venture to say the vast majority have never actually read it.

I don’t think stinger missles are in common use/circulation for lawful purposes which is the test essentially outlined in Heller for what it/isn’t protected by the 2A

quote:

---

At it’s core, the spirit of the

---

As strict textualists, patriots,and small government conservatives, we don’t do the “spirit of” the amendments.

We transport ourselves back in to the minds of the Founders to ascertain exactly what they meant in their 18th century prescience based on the black and white words on the paper.

Please govern yourself accordingly from here on out.

When I say “at its core, the spirit of”, I’m referencing the exact same thing you are. What was in the minds of the founders when they wrote the rules. I just used different words to (apparently unsuccessfully) communicate that perspective.