On 12/1/2011 2:57 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:50 -0800, "Forrest"
wrote:


Sorry if I'm not using the correct protocol for posting .... don't do it all
that much.

"Home Guy" said:

How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?

Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?

Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?

What you said is so absurd that it boggles the mind. So, I guess if a person
is allowed to have a knife and a baseball bat in their home for self
defense, then with your reasoning, it should somehow be escalated to
something like, "then why not allow a nuclear bomb as well"? What gives with
that? How does your mind come up with such a conclusion?
Do you apply this escalation to everything?
How you get from a reasonable point (A) a gun to defend yourself and family
to (B) then anything goes? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.


Need an assault rifle to "defend your home?"
Big stink about allowing them to be owned by civilians.
Gun lobby won that one.
Seems a 12 gauge auto-loader should do for home defense, o
You can shorten it to 26" with 18" barrel..
If you take the tack that the 2nd Amendment is to protect you from the
government, you should be able to own mines and grenades, SAMS, tanks,
auto-cannons, etc.
Why not? Otherwise you're basically a sitting duck to gov firepower.
Nukes are another story. There you get into EPA regulations.

--Vic

When the country was founded, the average citizen/hunter had a rifle
that was superior to the rifle carried by soldiers. Technology has
marched on. no pun ^_^

TDD