So you believe that there ARE instances in which the right to bear arms can be infringed. And I agree, but it's also off topic. And I know I brought it up. But I have had too many of my threads deleted for going off topic. So I would prefer to keep this one on-track. I am happy to hear that you are doing better.
No it doesn't. An AR 15 doesn't have radio active isotopes that emit dangerous levels of radiation. I can stand next to an AR 15 sitting in a shelf for a decade and I wouldn't get anything above normal for radiation.
I don't see how any of what you just said here has anything to do with the second amendment. Also just to be clear, i am talking specifically about a literal interpretation that many pro gun people profess anytime regulation is proposed. "shall not be infringed" is what they love to quote.
Alas I assumed you could think. So if you have a nuclear weapon it's giving off high levels of radiation that harms anybody within the area. You can't own one for the same reason you can't own a gamma ray source. No you weren't you were being obtuse. The reason you can't have a nuclear weapon is because your can't possess radioactive material you could expose others to it.
Out of curiosity are you people have problems with the ar15? More people are killed by hands and feet then by all rifles combined including the AR-15
yea, you just picked one post out of a series, then accuse me of not knowing my own motives. Not really worth talking to you.
Yea, if you are so paranoid about everyone's motives, i'm not sure how you expect to have a discussion on anything.
Thanks, i know. I wasn't telling you to stop talking. I was telling you that you are incapable of having a discussion. You are so burdened by your assumptions that you pretend to know the motivation of a random stranger on the internet.
yea, i know. Your question seemed out of the blue to me, but now I see that my incidental reference to AR-15 must have triggered a defense mechanism in you. I don't care if AR-15's are out there or not. I'm not anti-gun. I was just trying to have a discussion on the limits of the 2nd amendment, but i can see i stumbled into the wrong place for that.
I explained to you the limits. Don't seem to understand. You can't have a nuclear weapon because it puts off radiation it's simply by existing near it that can kill you. Your right to swing your fist in at someone else's nose. It's the same limit on all freedoms.
I don't think that's actually the case. Standing next to an unexploded nuclear weapon shouldn't cause any harm to anyone.
The thing is, people pop up all the time with what they think is a new argument against the Second Amendment, when in reality that argument has discussed and defeated thousands upon thousands of times. I think that is what Polydectes meant by dozens of copies. But I personally don't mind rehashing old subjects with new people. If I did mind I would just not respond to this thread and go read other threads instead.
Yea, i wasn't really pro or against, i thought we could just talk about the limits of the second amendment without retreating to our tribal corners. Sorry, that was my fault.
We can talk about that. I take it that you want to talk about the limits of the militia aspect of the Second Amendment that the courts are currently not acknowledging, and not the limits of the Heller ruling that is focused only on private self defense. Like I said before, although historically there were cases of the ultra rich bringing expensive weapons to battle, I don't know that this was ever made the subject of a right. The courts probably could, if they wanted to, rule that Elon Musk has the right to have fighter jets armed with tactical nukes for the purposes of repelling a foreign invasion as part of the militia. But the courts could also plausibly rule that the right to keep and bear arms only covers the sorts of weapons that normal people can afford to buy. I think the courts will always choose to rule in a way that will keep nuclear weapons out of civilian hands.
I may not know anything about you but I know all about your statements. I've seen them dozens of times almost the exact same wording.