TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

joe817 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:If you look at the Declaration of Independence along with the 2nd Amendment it is pretty clear that the RKBA is not just about hunting or safety from petty criminals. Not that I would expect the King and his ministers to acknowledge this.

I predict that anyone opposed to a government monopoly on these and other weapons will be roundly labeled as "crazy" and "dangerous". The subjects have been completely subdued at this point, and as a result, the armament gap becomes the rulers and the ruled in this country is much, much greater than it was when our founders felt it was necessary to write the 2nd Amendment. Let's just hope the rulers are gentle......

What in the world was that about?

Why in Heavens Name would anyone WANT a weponized drone??? To shoot a deer, coyote, feral hog, etc, etc, etc anonymously, from afar? Not very sporting, I would say. Nope, no way, I say. To me, it's like complaining that the average U.S. citizen is denied the right to purchase a Stinger Missile. IMO, the thought process is the same. How about an Abram's tank to go dove hunting?

You used a hunting reference in your argument twice in just 1 paragraph... WHY? the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so why reference it in your argument?

Well, first off, go tell the NRA that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and observe their response. [Note: bold type is my emphasis.]

Secondly, I find that advocating the possession of a 'weaponized drone' is SO out of the purview of the Second Amendment that it's almost comical.

Do you actually believe that a remote controlled helicopter or plane, fitted with a gun, is actually a fundamental right of citizens in exercising their Second Amendment Rights? Why, and for what purpose would that thing serve???