Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
badgenome said:
Soleron said:
Self-defence is consistent with "only be used to injure people". Every other use can be applied for. It's not restricting anyone's right to possess a gun except for the purpose of wanting to kill people with it.
Nerve gas can presumably be used in self-defence as well.
|
I was stunned for a second that you really don't see a difference between nerve gas and a handgun, but I forgot that self-defense wasn't considered legitimate in modern Britain beyond perhaps bleeding on your assailant (though not to excess). Cultural difference, I suppose.
|
All in the name of freedom, of course. If law-abiding citizens had access to F-15's, nuclear submarines, ICBMs, tanks, and chemical and biological weapons, then government would think twice before making us pay for someone else's birth control.
|
first of all those things cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars to build and good louck finding someone who would build it for you, as currently the companies that do are contracted by the government to build them. so not only would you not have someone to build them, but if you somehow could, good luck not having everybody know you do.
ps: im fairly certain you can own an f-15, its just has to be rendered inoperable.
any way your whole premise is idiotic. we are talking about guns not nukes. the weapons you mentioned are already illegal, those have not been and are not a threat to anybody.
citizens should have the right (we do) be be as well armed as the us government
|
In no way do the citizens have the right to be as well armed as the government. The most basic function of a state is to have a monopoly on legitimate use of force. It can commission its citizenry to have limited ability to use force in self-defense cases, but if the people are as well armed as the state, there is anarchy by default.
|
that is fundamently untrue. if what you said was true, then our country would exist. there was this thing called the revelutionary war. they fought the powerful military force in the world. and this is exactly why we have the second amendment. do you read from our founding fathers? just by reading of few of their writings makes it abundently clear, that what you just said is patently false.
here's a pretty funny take on the second amendment
http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/a-novel-idea-register-nongun
