Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Has there ever been an Presidential election where ALL the lead candidates were anti-gun?

The answer is of course that reasonable regulation....which I think includes prohibiting privately held nuclear weapons and Apache helicopters....is not infringement. Just as the founders did not intend to encompass privately held artillery batteries when they protected a private right to "arms".

The whole concept of reasonableness is of course utterly absent from libertarian analysis, of this or any other issue

All property is theft, all taxation is slavery....yada yada yada

You have any documentation which verifies that?

To answer the question why can't you have whatever the governement has.....well, if you can't understand why non-state actors shouldn't have Trident submarines and ICBMs, there's not much point in discussing it.

That's not an answer.

Then you don't understand your own question, I guess. If it isn't self-evident to you, then any other anwer won't make any difference to you.

You and Barak quit giving your money to RP and maybe you can save up for a Stinger or something.

I didn't think you could.

I actually have use for a Stinger - you ever see the mosquitoes up here?

Why don't you anwer it? Do you think the Second Amendment recognizes your right to own a Trident submarine? A Stinger? A backpack nuke? How about a mortar and weaponized anthrax shells?

Huh? Can't hear you? Do you need to check in with RP control?

Show me something in the Constitution which prohibits such ownership by the people.

Or just show me something related to the 2nd amendment which states that the founding fathers intended for the government to have weaponry which is superior to that which the people can own.

Bristoe....Try and use your head for a second. The FF's dealt with muskets, cannons and minimal sized explosives. Do you really think, even for a second, that if there was the weaponry of today avaiable back then, that they would have specifically written that "The People" should have an individual right to possess such weaponry?

I don't even think your RP guy would entertain that foolishness.

And Steve,...as to your prior assertion that the founding fathers didn't intend for artillery pieces to be included in the second amendment,.... that's flagrantly incorrect.

The founding fathers not only allowed for private ownership of artillery pieces,.. they actively encouraged it.

The Continental Navy only had 64 ships at the time of the Revolution,.. but privately owned ships participating in the struggle numbered 1697,... and they carried 14,872 guns.

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

So it's your opinion that the 2nd amendment is now invalid?

With such extrapolations, it's no wonder folks can't get through to you on matters such as these.

Facts will get through to me,..incorrect opinions won't.

Yeah Bristoe...I'm telling you the 2nd doesn't permit you to house the Father Of All Loads in your garage nor a nuclear bomb in your back-pack.

If you believe that to be the case, then all I can say is we have an incredibly scary faction of folks in our population.

So just go on and say that the 2nd amendment is about duck hunting.

,...maybe John Kerry will take you out on a hunt with him someday,..

And you go on espousing you should be able to carry a nuclear bomb in your lunch box if you want to.

I'm fairly confident I know where I'll be at the end of the day. Fairly confident as to where you might be as well.

The fact is,.. the founding fathers encouraged the formation of an entire privately owned navy,.. replete with battleships which represented state of the art weaponry as existed during the period.