So a recent debate I had with one of my Marine friends. He’s a combat vet, and of course he’s had experienced with the bigger guns that go boom, Mk 19, 203s, etc. The discussion came up where I said that if I wanted to own a flash bang grenade, I should without permission from the federal government. He aggressively disagree with me on that, citing certain things should be kept out of the public hands in fear of them falling into the wrong hands or misused, but I said wouldn’t that apply to all arms? To which he replied that “you can’t justify the reason why you should have a grenade let alone a 203, cannons, etc.”
To which I reply that you as an individual don’t need to justify possession of anything to anyone unless you actually commit a crime with it and the severity of punishment should be based on what you’ve done not what you COULD do and the act of restricting said ability to have something, ANYTHING based on fear of getting out of hand is a slippery slope. My friend stands firm and un-ironically stated that these things should only belong in the hands of trained people (military/police) and not civilians because he’s seen the damage they cause from using them. Which to me and a lot of us is the very definition of the second amendment.
He has no problems with the stupid barrel lengths, suppressors, machine guns but when it comes to a man wanting to have a 203 and even flash bang grenades, that’s where he draws the line…between us civilians and the government that can have them. Like I said, he says this with a straight face and I wonder does he understand what he’s actually talking about.
I don’t know, what’s everyone else’s thoughts on this?
To which I reply that you as an individual don’t need to justify possession of anything to anyone unless you actually commit a crime with it and the severity of punishment should be based on what you’ve done not what you COULD do and the act of restricting said ability to have something, ANYTHING based on fear of getting out of hand is a slippery slope. My friend stands firm and un-ironically stated that these things should only belong in the hands of trained people (military/police) and not civilians because he’s seen the damage they cause from using them. Which to me and a lot of us is the very definition of the second amendment.
He has no problems with the stupid barrel lengths, suppressors, machine guns but when it comes to a man wanting to have a 203 and even flash bang grenades, that’s where he draws the line…between us civilians and the government that can have them. Like I said, he says this with a straight face and I wonder does he understand what he’s actually talking about.
I don’t know, what’s everyone else’s thoughts on this?