dejapooh
Bronze Member
< wants his cake and to eat it
I think it's a Constitutional right to own guns. However, I'm not all that keen on someone I might anger having a 50 cal machine gun on his car. Or landmines or grenades, or rpg's. So my reading is the Fed has the right to some regulation.
And so far, I don't know of them randomly invading citizens houses to take or even register guns.
Here is the sticking point for me. I agree with you. I do not want people owning land mines, bombs, RPG's and so on. Then again, I basically agree that the 2nd amendment is a specific right to rebellion. A right of Revolution. Self Protection against criminals is really secondary to the intent and function of the 2nd amendment. Then again, do I want clinically insane people getting weapons at the drop of a hat? Do I want Dangerous convicted criminals getting high explosives? It seems that naturally, the 2nd amendment needs restriction and that some of us, due to our actions, have caused a situation where the society through the government has to take the initiative to exclude us from some of our basic human rights, including and specifically the right to rebellion. Then again, if the government is allowed the right to exclude people from that right, does the right exist at all? The government would obviously see anyone who wished to end the government (even for valid reasons) as a threat and exclude their basic rights... which means that as soon as you give the government the right to exclude some from their right to rebellion, the right ceases to exist in any meaningful way. I can see the argument for all or nothing. Let Joe communist buy high caliber machine guns and RPG. It is his right to rebellion. Is it all or nothing? I am very split on this.