Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments


____deleted____ wrote

I can't help but agree with the sentiment many share on guns; they must be accessible to the public in order to allow the people to defeat their own government.


glokaya_kuzdra wrote

Literally made by revolutionaries to protect the right to future revolution. It's so ironic the people arguing for "progress" are on the side of restricting access to guns, since it creates a situation that makes future progress less possible.


edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

The words of the 2nd Amendment are "the right … to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says 'arms', i.e. weapons, and not specifically 'guns'. Do you support personal ownership of grenades? Grenade launchers? Surface-to-air missiles? Ballistic missiles? MOABs ( )? Phosphorus weapons? Nuclear weapons? How about chemical weapons? Biological weapons? All those would be extremely useful to allow regular citizens to defeat an oppressive government.

My brother used to do quarry blasting for work. He would routinely drive around a truck with the trailer full of material with a total of ten times the explosive power of the Oklahoma City bombing. That's a form of 'arms', it would be very handy to prevent a military occupation of an area. Should any citizen be able to buy that kind of explosives without any permit or oversight?

(Edit: To be crystal clear, the US government and all of the citizens already interpret 'arms'. We don't allow unrestricted access to anything that can kill people. So the question has been where to draw the line. It's absurd to argue that no line exists, and everyone should be able to buy anything they want.)