Take out the Bill of rights. What is YOUR opinion on a weapon of this type being available? You think that this is a great idea?
If everyone was perfect.. or if I was a pacifist I would agree there would be no need for weapons at all ;). Long as there is evil in the world and I am not a pacifist, I think it is only right that the people doing evil to me and mine don't have a chance.. even if that may in the future be the government :).
I didn't say you couldn't base it off the law but I was wondering if those were your true feelings. Not just that they can legally have one but that you think this particular weapon is a good idea in the hands of the public.
For example, I'm perfectly fine with pot being legal. However, I currently obey the laws that are set. If we were debating if someone could be arrested for pot possession and it is illegal I will use the law to support the arrest. Doesn't change my *personal* opinion that it should be legal.
I can't speak for her, but I think perhaps what RG was saying was that if we lived in a perfect world there would be no need for guns. However, as long as some people have guns and try to hurt people, then there is a need for everyone to be able to have guns.
But not nec. every kind of gun.
Thats the part that i don't get...and i don't think it matters that it doesn't explicitly list that out in the actual amendment. We've been over this before, we have existing exceptions and rules to the amendments that are not explicitly included in the language.
pac?i?fism <object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" style="width: 13px" height="21" width="13"><embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" flashvars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/P0004800.mp3" menu="false" width="13" height="21" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></object> (phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-fhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm)n.1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
I guess that I've never even considered that anyone would be "anti" definition #1. Or #2A. #2 B, well, I would not personally go to war, but I guess I do understand how other people would go to war, but if 2 out of 3 definitions of pacifist fit would one really be "not a pacifist"? I'm very interested to hear more, if you don't mind.