SocialistSlayer said:
starcraft said:
As mentioned above, I changed the title.
I did this because the supposed 'right' to purchase ammunition for high caliber rifles fundamentally does not meet any agreed or reasonably arguable requirements to be classed as a 'human' right.
Further, it is my belief, which fortunately is well borne out by the research available to us, that this is not a 'right' in any sense of the word. Certainly they are not natural rights, as those are universal and inalienable, which is of course entirely inapplicable in the case of guns in general, let alone specific ammunition.
Constitutional lawyers will argue back and forth as to whether or not 'legal' rights apply under the US Constitution for you to own and operate a variety of single purpose weapons of war. What is clear is that it takes a willful and nonsensical distortion of the intention of the Constitution of the United States to pretend that 'the right to bear arms,' when written, was ever intended to support the slaughter of over 10,000 innocent Americans every year, which is pretty much all it does now. |
the 556 rounds is no where close to a "large caliber" by definition it is intermediate..
and your last paragraph is completely nonsensicle and flat out idiotic, noone is claiming the 2A protects or supports the slaughter of 10,000 people. though though 10,000 are hardly "innocent" people, over half of the murders are criminals. its mostly criminals killing criminals.
|
The bolded is one of the main reasons I avoid engaging in this debate on forums more often than note.
One side presents evidence, the other promotes unsubstantiated myths to try and defend the indefensible.
Hell, even if you were right, the lack of morality associated with apparently not giving a shit because supposedly someone that got shot was a criminal (of some kind????) is astounding.
