In response to:

Guns Don't Kill People, the Mentally Ill Do

everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 11:51 AM
Right! Which is why my reading of the 2nd Amendment should allow citizens to have nukes as much as a handgun. Impossible to logically argue otherwise if you know what "arms" are.
Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 1:18 PM
As I said, read the caselaw. Heller, specifically.
deprogramming services Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:29 PM
It is not realistic for someone like George Soros to be allowed to have that amount of power. A more realistic danger though would be if all chemical weapons were legal, rather than just the nonlethal ones like pepper spray and mace. Can you imagine what it would be like if you could buy nerve gas over the internet or at a gun store?

All rights have reasonable restrictions. The problem is not that reasonable restrictions exist, it is that traitors in government lie about what is reasonable. It is not the simple matter of opinion traitors commonly pretend it is. What truly is reasonable can be determined by honorable men of good judgment.
everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:10 PM
deprogramming, if the government can have nukes why shouldn't I be able to have them to defend myself, if necessary?
wiseone Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:05 PM
You finally got something right. The 2nd Amendment, as written, was intended to allow "the people" to have any arms that the government has. In today's technology that would include nuclear and biological weapons.

Why do you trust corrupt bureaucrats with nukes but not law-abiding citizens?
deprogramming services Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 12:00 PM
everydupe: you identify yourself as a fool. There is such a thing as reasonable restrictions on a right. The reasonable restrictions arguments proposed by the liberal cult are lies, but those are not what I was addressing with my post. I was addressing their lie that people should not be allowed to have things defined as arms, as opposed to things you go hunting with.

As with all liberal dupes, you attempt to confuse the issue, because without the fog of confusion, your arguments are clearly absurd.
Resist, We Much!!! Wrote: Jan 17, 2013 11:58 AM
You probably should read the caselaw, idiot. "Bear arms" has a specific meaning.

Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment.

But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho's mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.

At college, Cho engaged in behavior even more bizarre than the average college student. He stalked three women and, at one point, went totally silent, refusing to speak even to his roommates. He was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for one night and then unaccountably unleashed on the public, whereupon he proceeded to engage in...