Chadeaux
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2011
- 5,512
- 6,409
- Detector(s) used
- Ace 250
- Primary Interest:
- Cache Hunting
"It isn't the guns, it is the HUMAN WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER that is dangerous."
So you don't think there is any items that are more inherently dangerous than any other. Using that logic we should have no problem if folks had anthrax, nukes, sarin gas. Do you think that is a valid argument because of course none of them kill people, is the person who uses them that kill people. Would you feel safe in that kind of world, yes?
I guess you have proved that Forest Gump was right. Thanks.
Anyhow, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mention anthrax or sarin gas. I wasn't aware they were "arms" . . . if they are considered arms, then yes they should have them. Now, I have answered your completely stoopid question with a completely stoopid response.
As you wish to be absurd, I might as well join in.
Nukes, on the other hand, fall under the scope of governments as I don't know anyone who might have one other than political organizations. So, again, your argument is moot.