Obama spanks Wall Street.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

No right is absolute and regarding the 2nd Amendment, the Roberts court made that clear in its decision in the Heller (DC gun ban) case.

The finding of the Court, written by Scalia:

But it doesnt address Obama spanking Wall Street.

Scalia is a freedom hating fuckwit that in any civilized nation would be beaten daily for his own good. Instead, since we are not in a civilized country, he is a Supreme Court Justice, who makes Samuel Alito look like Thurgood Marshall.

Just saying.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TGRR

And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.

So the Rat Pack once bought a Sherman Tank. Rode it up and down Sunset Blvd.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

So the Rat Pack once bought a Sherman Tank. Rode it up and down Sunset Blvd.

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about.

TGRR,
Off to get his before some liberal has a hissy fit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Only if they put rubber treads on it and obey existing motor vehicle statutes.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Only if they put rubber treads on it and obey existing motor vehicle statutes.

I can make a tank street legal, I think. Except maybe the wheel base part.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then I say you're entitled to have it.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Infringed can also be defined as "to encroach upon".

And yes, it does mean I have the right to a machine gun. Or a tank, if I can afford one.

And yes, unless you are denied your rights after due process of law or previous commitment by a competent court for mental defect, anyone should be able to own any weapon.

No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not at all, there's no amendment that says you can hurt someone else that's not hurting you

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.

cough Bullshit, bullfuckingshit /cough

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

No, it doesn't. And no, they shouldn't. You are taking the 2nd ammendment to the extreme. By your reasoning, Ted Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs and send them to people.

I'm reading it as written.

And Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs. But what in what I have said says he had the right to send them to people?

Owning a gun doesn't give me the right to shoot people I don't like.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by TGRR

I'm reading it as written.

And Kaczynski was perfectly within his rights to make bombs. But what in what I have said says he had the right to send them to people?

Owning a gun doesn't give me the right to shoot people I don't like.

Well this is the crux of the problem.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you can legally make a bomb as a weapon under the rights stated in your constitution, and you intend to use it on someone. Why is it legal for you to do that, but it's not legal for you to be arrested because you have that weapon and you're planning on killing someone with it. Why is it only legal to arrest you after you've done the killing?

Surely that makes no moral sense what so ever.

[classicman]

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself. If you attempt to or there is evidence to suggest that you are planning to use it against someone that is illegal. Otherwise, not.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.

Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.

[classicman]

I'll have to ass-ume thats more of your humor.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well this is the crux of the problem.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you can legally make a bomb as a weapon under the rights stated in your constitution, and you intend to use it on someone. Why is it legal for you to do that, but it's not legal for you to be arrested because you have that weapon and you're planning on killing someone with it. Why is it only legal to arrest you after you've done the killing?

Surely that makes no moral sense what so ever.

If you can prove that I'm planning to kill someone with a gun (or a bomb, etc), you can arrest me for conspiracy to commit murder, and be perfectly constitutional about the whole thing.

I fail to see your point. Perhaps I'm just not reading you right. Could you clarify it?