Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 50:
Line 50: − − − I think that there shouldn't be guns older than the revolutionary war allowed in American because then there wouldn't be as many gun deaths.
Talk:National Rifle Association (view source)
Revision as of 15:43, May 20, 2013
, 15:43, May 20, 2013Reverted edits by NoGunsinAmerica (talk) to last revision by Elamdri
::: First of all, that's a very different claim than claiming that it is a natural right. Second that argument in any event has a multitude of problems including that it implies that we have rights to pretty much all weapons. I don't think anyone would try to argue that their is a natural human right to possess nuclear weapons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::: First of all, that's a very different claim than claiming that it is a natural right. Second that argument in any event has a multitude of problems including that it implies that we have rights to pretty much all weapons. I don't think anyone would try to argue that their is a natural human right to possess nuclear weapons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was never claiming that we have a right to possess all weapons. We have a right to "Possess enough power to defend our life should the need arise." Thats a very vague statement, and its purposely vague, as so that we can interpret it to mean what we want it to mean when we need it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was never claiming that we have a right to possess all weapons. We have a right to "Possess enough power to defend our life should the need arise." Thats a very vague statement, and its purposely vague, as so that we can interpret it to mean what we want it to mean when we need it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)