Not at all.Just so I'm clear, you're saying common sense is the touchstone by which we as a society should decide which weapons citizens should own? Spread out over 300 million Americans that's a pretty vague standard.
Where there is a right,'reason' is not relevant. The vast majority of firearm-related crime does not involve so called "large capacity magazines"For example, personally I don't think there's any common sense reason to own a large capacity magazine. Do you?
Are you a firearms expert?If just the two of us can't agree on what a standard of common sense would allow in this context how do you expect the rest of the country to? We need to be a little more specific in what makes a weapon beyond the pale.
Huh??? What do you define as a WMD?The economics of producing WMD aren't any deterrent.
If that were the case, why is there not a proliferation of their use?There are many people who have the means to either build or buy chemical or biological weapons.(Which is why, of course, that they're called "the poor man's atomic bomb").
A lot? How many is a lot? That's a very nebuolus claim.The Federation of American Scientists estimates that it would cost about $25 million to produce sarin and other nerve agents in militarily significant quantities. That's chump change for a lot of people in America.
Damn! When you go off on a tangent, you leave the atmosphere!! LOLMaybe you and I can't afford them. But for $25 million Jane Fonda, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers, Kobe Bryant, Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, and probably even Justin Bieber could have their own private stockpile.
Are you REALLY this dense?How do you feel about that? Protected by the 2nd Amendment?
Keep rolling out those strawmen.Can we agree that the 2nd Amendment wasn't drafted by the Founders to allow The Biebs the freedom to possess any type of WMD?
That is not a restrictionof the 1st Amendment. Or can yo ushow me where the word "fire" appears in the 1st Amendment?I find your response to my last point, that even the First Amendment should be limited in certain limited circumstances a little ironical. You say, "When your [otherwise constitutionally protected] actions (shouting Fire! in a crowded movie theater) affect another negatively and especially physically, that should be restricted."
Because it specifically says "shall not be infringed".Why is the 2nd Amendment exempt from that same type of reasoning?
Now you're REALLY showing your ignorance.So we can fight off a tyrannical government which has access to unlimited supplies of vastly superior weapons? That's ridiculous.
First, you have no idea how much firepower is in the hnds of the citizenry.
Second, you're assuming that all memebrs of the military will follow the orders to shoot on their own families and friends.
Third, you ignore that the veteran to active personnel ratio is somewhere between 9.5-12 to 1. That's a hell of a lot of people that already know the military's secrets, tactics, and resource locations.
Fourth, you forget who arms the military. The civilian industry. But you just assume that civilians will keep on manufacturing the very armaments that they know will some day be iused on themselves. An idiot would believe that.