Are stricter gun laws, BANS coming to the land of the free?

[The Deadlifting Dog]

So should all arms be available to civilians?
Why stop at just guns?

Civilians thus should be able to have chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons and radiological weapons.

Surely we are all not safe unless we each have our own nuclear bomb!!!

According to the men who wrote the constitution,

Law abiding citizens ought to be able to own any weapons they want, and can afford.

They knew this to be the only way to guarantee individual liberty would prevail against a growing government despot.

They were very clear about why the right own and bear weapons was essential to be a free(er) people.

I know you’re not being serious and its funny but none of us are askin for any of that we simply don’t want our AR style rifles taken away because once in a blue moon some lunatic mass murders people. Im all for strict gun purchases but somehow a criminal will acquire a weapon one way or another i feel.

I am being totally serious.

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
Arms. Not guns. But arms.

Hughinn thinks citizens should be able to own ANY weapon they want.

Cuz is kinda drawing the line at AR style rifles and under.

My point is...
Where is the line drawn?

Obviously I think nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and biological weapons and radiological weapons should be off limits.
I also think surface to air missiles should be out. (My house doesn't get attacked by Apache helicopters very often...)

But Hughinn's phrasing makes it seem like nuclear weapons are fine.

Obviously the 2nd amendment doesn't go into specifics.
Many 2A folk take that to mean any gun should be fine.

But why stop at guns???

So where should the line be drawn?

Should Bezzos own an aircraft carrier and 20 fighter jets?
Should Musk own a nuclear warhead?



PLEASE NOTE: I am not attacking anyone. If I am misrepresenting what you meant then feel free to clarify.

I am totally interested in how pro-gun people feel about if and where the line is.

[Hughinn]

I am being totally serious.

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
Arms. Not guns. But arms.

Hughinn thinks citizens should be able to own ANY weapon they want.

Cuz is kinda drawing the line at AR style rifles and under.

My point is...
Where is the line drawn?

Obviously I think nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and biological weapons and radiological weapons should be off limits.
I also think surface to air missiles should be out. (My house doesn't get attacked by Apache helicopters very often...)

But Hughinn's phrasing makes it seem like nuclear weapons are fine.

Obviously the 2nd amendment doesn't go into specifics.
Many 2A folk take that to mean any gun should be fine.

But why stop at guns???

So where should the line be drawn?

Should Bezzos own an aircraft carrier and 20 fighter jets?
Should Musk own a nuclear warhead?



PLEASE NOTE: I am not attacking anyone. If I am misrepresenting what you meant then feel free to clarify.

I am totally interested in how pro-gun people feel about if and where the line is.

No sir.

I meant, "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. There really isn't a reasonable argument to make as to what that means.

Weapons are one thing. But time and time again I see the weapons ban and gun control people frothing at the mouth to take people's guns away.

Nobody ever asks why people own guns to begin with. And everytime the Left takes a grab at guns, people buy more of them.

The real question would be to me as far as the line, why would a man like Elon want a nuclear bomb?