I think that a little common sense needs to be applied. Obvously, I woudl say we could draw the line qite a bit before nuclear weapons and most likely before rocket launchers.
Bottom line, even if we banned all guns, all it would do is stop the legal purchase of guns. They would still be available throiugh illegal channels, and in which case, we are fucked. And, even if we could find a way to get rid of all firearms, humans would find other ways to kill each other. On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Judah McAuley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It could be argued that the 'arms' would encompass the firearm and the > > ammunition. > > Out of curiosity, what are people's opinions about the limitations of > the 2nd Amendment? Few, if any, people seem to have problems with > hunting rifles. Hand guns for personal defense seem to be pretty > middle-of-the-road. > > But what about those that take a more absolutist standpoint? Where do > we draw the line in terms of firepower? Assault rifles, hand grenades, > rocket launchers, nuclear weapons? At the end points it seems absurd, > but I'm not really sure that there is an obvious line to draw and I'm > curious about where people would draw the line and why. > > And what about the issues surrounding it, like background checks, > trigger locks, types of ammunition, mandatory firearms education > classes, etc? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:279766 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
