Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 193

Thread: How far does it go?

  1. #1
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675

    How far does it go?

    As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

    IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

    I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

    Apologies for the asinine question

  2. #2
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

    IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

    I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

    Apologies for the asinine question
    As written, no... there is no limit. If Congress wants to prevent the people from having certain weapons they should pass a Constitutional Amendment to modify what the Constitution and the 2A say... until then I personally consider nearly every Arms related law to be unconstitutional.

    The usual argument I hear is "should just anyone be able to buy a fighter jet and tanks?" And I refer them to Secret Valley, the world's largest fleet of privately owned tanks... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...4-4ec22c399def

    Not decommissioned tanks, fully functioning tanks. Cannons and all... and you can rent one to drive around... AND SHOOT THE CANNON, for pretty damn cheap.

    I ask them to find the law that makes it illegal for the People to own tanks... not one has gotten back to me. They have the false premise that tanks are so dangerous that it must obviously be illegal to own them already. But facts shut their argument down pretty quick and turn them into blathering screaming fools. (in my personal experience at least)

    Not one has admitted to being wrong as of yet, sadly.
    Last edited by Baked on Grease; 03-03-2015 at 07:19 PM.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    The 2A expressly forbids the fed from regulating arms... ANY arms.

    It would take an amendment to change this. Don't fall for the straw-man arguments.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-03-2015 at 08:05 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    I'm not falling for anything. Don't worry

    Thanks for the insight guys-

    What I am really looking for is what (as is written In the amendments) is the historically accurate definition at that time of "arms."

    Any weapon? Again.....I've always defined it as guns. The tank thing is an interesting thought.

    What about a guy in his backyard building a large scale bomb? What about chemical weapons? Should we be able to own and carry agent orange?

    NOT trying to ruffle feathers....just a provoking thought for me

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    58
    At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was not unusual for individuals to own cannon on private vessels. In fact, many privately owned ships were quite effective warships. Hence the name privateers.
    A ship of war was as effective and large scale as military weapons got.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by hovercat View Post
    At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was not unusual for individuals to own cannon on private vessels. In fact, many privately owned ships were quite effective warships. Hence the name privateers.
    A ship of war was as effective and large scale as military weapons got.
    And many ships were decommissioned after the war... and people took those cannons home with them. Top of the line in destructive military power, and nary a thought to regular Joe Shoe farmer toting a cannon home.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    To me there is a line, just not directly. Take for example WMDs. Sure you can own them, but I see no reason why the government wouldn't be allowed to regulate them in regards to storage. Reason being, if you improperly store such an item (not talking about the "arms" themselves, but the actual component(s) that make it deadly) there is a great risk of serious harm/death to not just you but those around you too.

    Another potential area would be use. So sure, you have this nuke, but you can't simply take it to a range and fire it off. Why not? Because the fallout would cause all sorts of issues for the environment and others. Same goes if you were to try to casually use agent orange. And we already see this in the form of regulating where/when one can discharge a firearm.

    Now I know that this could be taken to an extreme and applied to other things (such as attempting to apply it to lead in bullets like CA has done, or a power source if/when energy weapons come about) but that is my view. They aren't infringing on the keeping/bearing of the arms, they are regulating the storage of a legitimately dangerous item if not stored properly. And this "proper storage" has nothing to do with a concern of someone else committing a crime, because again I could see the antis trying to use such reasoning for regulation based on someone else stealing your weapons. Kind of like regulating the disposal of oil. Sure you can have it, but you can't simply dump your used oil in your back yard as that can and eventually will affect those around you.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 03-04-2015 at 12:37 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

    IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

    I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

    Apologies for the asinine question
    The limit should be what you can afford to own, unless you can show me where it says "except", or limited to.

    The words "shall not be infringed" are loud and clear for all to understand. The law says what it means and means what it says. The anti-gun crowd and rogue judges like to misinterpret these clearly written words.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    The limit should be what you can afford to own, unless you can show me where it says "except", or limited to.

    The words "shall not be infringed" are loud and clear for all to understand. The law says what it means and means what it says. The anti-gun crowd and rogue judges like to misinterpret these clearly written words.
    So is it OK if your neighbor is cooking up some agent orange or another neurotoxin? Or a homemade batch of C4, or trying to build a nuclear reactor?

    I'm more on the side you are. But I'm posing the above as devils' advocate, as this is the type of stuff it's important to know, as this is stuff the left wing throws out there all the time.

  10. #10
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    To me there is a line, just not directly. Take for example WMDs. Sure you can own them, but I see no reason why the government wouldn't be allowed to regulate them in regards to storage. Reason being, if you improperly store such an item (not talking about the "arms" themselves, but the actual component(s) that make it deadly) there is a great risk of serious harm/death to not just you but those around you too.

    Now I know that this could be taken to an extreme and applied to other things (such as attempting to apply it to lead in bullets or a power source if/when energy weapons come about) but that is my view. They aren't infringing on the keeping/bearing of the arms, they are regulating the storage of a legitimately dangerous item if not stored properly. And this "proper storage" has nothing to do with a concern of someone else committing a crime, because again I could see the antis trying to use such reasoning for regulation based on someone else stealing your weapons. Kind of like regulating the disposal of oil. Sure you can have it, but you can't simply dump your used oil in your back yard as that can and eventually will affect those around you.
    I can see this logic, for sure. Not all "arms" take a biochemist or nuclear physicist or safely operate, or build either. So that's a tangent.....lol

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northern Nevada
    Posts
    110
    http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

    that's what the founding fathers wanted.
    .
    oh, and no more than 10 rounds per magazine.
    ..
    and they wanted a territory that wouldn't become a state for over 50 years after the bill of rights was ratified to decide for its people.
    ...
    and your coat better not cover it up!
    ..
    .
    and it better not be out in the open while we're at it.


    Sincerely,
    Thomas Jefferson
    ... or John Adams... who cares.
    Last edited by rickyray9; 03-04-2015 at 12:37 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    So is it OK if your neighbor is cooking up some agent orange or another neurotoxin? Or a homemade batch of C4, or trying to build a nuclear reactor?

    I'm more on the side you are. But I'm posing the above as devils' advocate, as this is the type of stuff it's important to know, as this is stuff the left wing throws out there all the time.
    Well, they are not supposed to have meth labs next door either, however, I can't control what my neighbors do inside their homes.

    Fertilizer is also another more common item that can pose a great danger.

    Let's not stop there though. We better license pressure cooker ownership too since the Boston bombers used that to kill and maim.

    I like how Ben put it:

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

    Or Tommy:

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"
    This is actually a translation of a Latin phrase that Thomas Jefferson used: Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

    That is how I would respond to the Devil.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-04-2015 at 12:52 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Well, they are not supposed to have meth labs next door either, however, I can't control what my neighbors do inside their homes.

    Fertilizer is also another more common item that can pose a great danger.

    Let's not stop there though. We better license pressure cooker ownership too since the Boston bombers used that to kill and maim.

    I like how Ben put it:

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

    That is how I would respond to the Devil.
    Fantastic quote!

  14. #14
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Fantastic quote!
    Yup! I like this one even better:

    "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"
    This is actually a translation of a Latin phrase that Thomas Jefferson used: Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    I can see this logic, for sure. Not all "arms" take a biochemist or nuclear physicist or safely operate, or build either. So that's a tangent.....lol
    Yea. It isn't really about the arms either. It is about regulating the handling/storing specific legitimately dangerous items (dangerous on its own without someone even using it). Given that almost anything tangible that is dangerous can be weaponized I think it would be foolish to say that there isn't a line somewhere, or else you could say almost no tangible items can be regulated. Just imagine "This car one of my arms, you can't regulate cars!" Or potato guns and potatoes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Yea. It isn't really about the arms either. It is about regulating the handling/storing specific legitimately dangerous items (dangerous on its own without someone even using it). Given that almost anything tangible that is dangerous can be weaponized I think it would be foolish to say that there isn't a line somewhere, or else you could say almost no tangible items can be regulated. Just imagine "This car one of my arms, you can't regulate cars!" Or potato guns and potatoes.
    Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

    The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.


    Principles of Tyranny
    by Jon Roland
    Definition of tyranny

    Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

    Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. to read more:http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

    emphasis added. To bad the American people became apathetic to the regulation fools and their regulation rules. Have you ever heard or read the parable of how to boil a frog?.......http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html

    We must ask ourselves if we want to be safe or have liberty. Remember, the frog felt safe and comfortable until he wasn't.

    We The People have been boiled alive.

    And just to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution as it was written. I am a staunch supporter of the government and way of life our Founding Fathers envisioned. I love my country only behind God and my family.

    "OURS is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character — but jointly instead of separately.".......John C. Calhoun http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

    emphasis added.

    We are the Sovereign, not the King, not the government. We The People.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-04-2015 at 03:52 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    As asinine as the arguement is of "should you be able to own nukes, then?" It got me thinking-

    IS there a line of what weapons the 2nd amendment applies to? For example, does it cover chemical weapons?

    I've always thought of it as a "gun" amendment. But in a completely literal sense, where, if anywhere, is the line drawn? And how would you respond to this *asinine* (at times) question?

    Apologies for the asinine question
    Do you have any nitrate based fertilizer? A spare can of kerosene or diesel fuel? How about a jug of bleach? Folks have been accused of, and prosecuted for, possessing "chemical weapons" and "explosive materials." Citizens wrongly abused by nitwit cops who had their personal property (guns/ammo) unlawfully confiscated by those nitwit cops have been painted as having a arsenal (more than one or two guns, or more than a box or two of ammo).

    No, there is no line. Yet, the feds/states have drawn lines in the law(s).
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Do you have any nitrate based fertilizer? [ ... ]
    Not if you mean a household NPK labelled 34-0-0 nitrate fertilizer. 100 w/w -NO3 is required. That is why anhydrous ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 fertilizer is being regulated into obsolescence.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I don't think anyone should have WMD's including the rulers.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think anyone should have WMD's including the rulers.
    Define WMD? How much destructive power should a weapon have to be classified as WMD?

  21. #21
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think anyone should have WMD's including the rulers.
    It is easy to imagine new technologies that can bring more and more incredible devastation. It is way more fundamental than the 2A.
    When you've created a device to kill vast amounts of non-combatants for any reason it is a permanent ****-stain on the soul of humanity.
    How long will it be before there are single payloads that can wipe out entire continents...or even an entire hemisphere... or worse.
    No citizens should not have WMDs and neither should governments.
    Ideally an arms regression should take place but it is a fantasy. We are doomed.
    Someone will eventually develop a Molecular Disruption Device (ender's game) and that will be the end of our pathetic journey.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

    The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.

    SNIP
    I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to this. With what you're saying we should basically have zero government, for all governments are going to have rules and regulations.

    While governments over time might push towards tyranny it is up to the people to push back and keep it in its agreed upon place.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Not if you mean a household NPK labelled 34-0-0 nitrate fertilizer. 100 w/w -NO3 is required. That is why anhydrous ammonium nitrate NH4NO3 fertilizer is being regulated into obsolescence.
    That certainly does not stop LE (fed/state) from charging folks who have a several bags of Scotts with possessing bomb making materials if they are looking for something to charge a citizen with. LE gives not a darn if the judge lets you off. They gotchya and that is all they need to do to modify a citizen's behavior from that point forward.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to this. With what you're saying we should basically have zero government, for all governments are going to have rules and regulations.
    You sniped my post and take it out of context. That is against forum rules and dishonest. Try reading my entire post before you make comments that are made in ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    While governments over time might push towards tyranny it is up to the people to push back and keep it in its agreed upon place.
    Did you read the parable? probably not. How does it relate to RKBA? How many regulations are there that prohibit how you can carry a firearm? Can you carry open or concealed without a permit throughout the United States?

    They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
    it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

    But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
    and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
    the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
    The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

    This is a story that is used to illustrate how people might get themselves into terrible trouble.
    This parable is often used to illustrate how humans have to be careful to watch slowly changing trends not just the sudden changes. Its a warning to keep us paying attention not just to obvious threats but to more slowly developing ones.



    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Regulation fools and their regulation rules is how the state controls you.

    The sooner one realizes that, the less tolerant one becomes of tyranny.


    Principles of Tyranny
    by Jon Roland
    Definition of tyranny

    Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.

    Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched. to read more:http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

    emphasis added. To bad the American people became apathetic to the regulation fools and their regulation rules. Have you ever heard or read the parable of how to boil a frog?.......http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/boiled.html

    We must ask ourselves if we want to be safe or have liberty. Remember, the frog felt safe and comfortable until he wasn't.

    We The People have been boiled alive.

    And just to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution as it was written. I am a staunch supporter of the government and way of life our Founding Fathers envisioned. I love my country only behind God and my family.

    "OURS is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States. The former preceded the latter, which was created by their agency. Each was framed by written constitutions; those of the several States by the people of each, acting separately, and in their sovereign character; and that of the United States, by the same, acting in the same character — but jointly instead of separately.".......John C. Calhoun http://www.constitution.org/jcc/dcgus.htm

    emphasis added.

    We are the Sovereign, not the King, not the government. We The People.
    Emphasis added and text increased for your convenience. I am not yelling as some might think.

    Carry On.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-04-2015 at 11:34 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I don't think anyone should have WMD's including the rulers.
    Keep in mind that a computer can be considered a wmd if used to hack into, lets say a nuclear power plant to exaggerate the point, and cause a nuclear catastrophe.

    So can a pressure cooker be classified as a wmd.

    Remember, when we give the government and inch beyond what The Constitution permits, they take a mile.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-04-2015 at 11:40 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •