2667
Comments (146)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-7
Keiichi81 -7 points ago +2 / -9

I mean, while I'm pro-2A, I also have the common sense to realize there needs to be limitations at some point. For example, owning biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. There's too many fucking crazy people in the world to trust individual random citizens with weapons that could kill thousands of people in an instant.

As with everything, there's a rational middle ground that could be reached if the extremes on both ends would stop being so retarded (the "outlaw everything bigger than a slingshot and maybe even those too" people and the ultra-libertarian "literally every form of weapon in existence should be available to everyone" people).

3
badoingle 3 points ago +4 / -1

There's too many fucking crazy people in the world to trust individual random citizens with weapons that could kill thousands of people in an instant.

But couldn't you kill thousands of people in an instant with 22. if you had them all tied to posts and shot at the same time?

Shit, we better ban 22.! It's a weapon of mass destruction!

Go concern troll somewhere else.

-1
Keiichi81 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yeah, you’re right. Everyone should have a nuke if they want one. Hell, let your neighbor stockpile nerve gas too. Because what good reason could there be not to let individual people own weapons that can literally wipe out whole cities in an instant?

0
badoingle 0 points ago +1 / -1

There isn't one. Glad we agree.