Nuclear "Fudds..."

FfNJGTFO · #1 11-12-2016, 08:12 AM

Preface: The following is a reprint of a thread I started a while back in a different forum. Thought I'd bring it here to gather additional thoughts.

----------------------------------

I'm fighting a battle on one of my other forums. There are some who believe that RKBA should be absolute and totally unrestricted... even if it means that a private citizen, who could afford it, could possess and own such things as Nukes, SMAWs, Stingers, Cruise missiles, etc. etc. etc. They argue that it was the Founding Father's intent for "We the People" to do just that. That said, the Founding Fathers didn't have nukes etc. to deal with. If they had, I wonder if they'd have been so "approving..."

FTR, I get the concept of an "unrestricted" RKBA. And I fully support it for conventional firearms, including NFA, full auto, etc... But I'd be very nervous if I saw my neighbor building a silo in their back yard and filling it with something. Not only would I be concerned in re: their training on the weapon, but also, they just made their property (and mine by proxy) a "1st strike" target!

Does that make me a "Nuclear Fudd?"

Discuss...

pitor · #2 11-12-2016, 08:22 AM

For me it's simple. The key word is BEAR. It's my belief the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to keep and CARRY the same INFANTRY weapons the armed forces of the time possessed.

And so, in line with that thought, I wholeheartedly believe that any modern infantry weapon, a weapon that can be effectively carried by a person, it's protected by the 2A.

BlackKnight · #3 11-12-2016, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pitor

For me it's simple. The key word is BEAR. It's my belief the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to keep and CARRY the same INFANTRY weapons the armed forces of the time possessed.

And so, in line with that thought, I wholeheartedly believe that any modern infantry weapon, a weapon that can be effectively carried by a person, it's protected by the 2A.

This is along my line of thinking as well.

Riverpigusmc · #4 11-12-2016, 01:22 PM

I'll be happy with a few LAAW's and a

more or two. Perhaps a few frags for those quick "f*** you" moments

TLE2 · #5 11-12-2016, 01:50 PM

Not really interested in ICBMs or Cruise Missles, but a SAW and a Dillon mini would go far to make me feel more secure.

skosh69 · #6 11-12-2016, 02:05 PM

I'd be happy with a M1A1 Abrams tank.

FfNJGTFO · #7 11-12-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pitor

For me it's simple. The key word is BEAR. It's my belief the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to keep and CARRY the same INFANTRY weapons the armed forces of the time possessed.

And so, in line with that thought, I wholeheartedly believe that any modern infantry weapon, a weapon that can be effectively carried by a person, it's protected by the 2A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackKnight

This is along my line of thinking as well.

The thing is, Stingers and other like SMAWs can be "effectively carried" by a person...