Well, suppose the police or fire rescue had to come help you, and accidentally got blowed up real good?
Good point, but it is a subset of the requirement that human intervention is needed for a weapon to be considered 'discriminating'.
posted on 04/18/2002 9:29:37 AM PDT
While it is a well reasoned argument I think it fails on the fact that the writers of the constitution did not in fact include any language setting the standard of the weapon as being discriminating. It is also a fact that they did not prohibit any type of weapon , even though non discriminating weapons did exist at that time Ie: trap guns, spring guns, canons w/ grape,chain and other types of loose shot.
A better argument would be that even though it is constitutional to own such weapons, society can have a compelling and overiding reason to ban such weapons, ie based on the magnatude of the damage inflicted. your arguments are very weak when it comes to machine guns,Machine pistols,Small explosive device,Satchel charge, Antitank rocket, Booby traps, land mines, all of these are currently used as standard weapons of war and as such should clearly allowed under the constitution. The deciding factor on using any of these weapons is still the same as to when we use any deadly weapon, was it a reasonable use?
posted on 04/18/2002 10:10:06 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson