[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, Il Pad, I did answer the question. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to hold any weapons we want to hold. You know it, and that is why you refuse to answer my question while pretending to be disappointed in my response. Do you have a right to own a rocket launcher? A nuclear weapon? A biological weapon? Why not? How about a tank, or mines? What about a flame thrower, or SAMs? Even you must recognize that some weapons are simply too dangerous for the public to hold. You don't agree that automatic weapons fall into that category, so you claim instead that everyone who thinks they do fall into that category hates the 2nd Amendment. That isn't even an argument. It is an attack.

The 2nd Amendment is a legal instrument. As such, it is subject to legal analysis. There is plenty of justification, under normal methods of legal interpretation, to suggest that automatic weapons aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. Read Heller, for crying out loud. Even the very conservative Scalia disagrees with your view of the amendment. Is he anti-gun?

Your legalese doesn't impress me.

You didn't answer the question.