Quote:
Originally Posted by rcubed
Again originalism. I don’t think the founding fathers meant what we have now. They wanted to be able to protect themselves from the english. They had muskets at the time, not assault rifles.
Second amendment says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Random 18 year olds with ar15s is not a well regulated militia with the intent of protecting the country.
|
You need to understand the constitution, which you obviously do not. That is not a slam, it is just factual as most don't. There was no standing army at the writing of the constitution. Militia is you, I and everyone.
The weapon is irrelevant, the technology of the weapon is irrelevant, how many rounds it will fire are irrelevant. The constitution is to prevent government from infringing on us. It is not a document in which the government grants you rights with. The puckle gun is the first fully auto, and predates the constitution by some 60-70 years. Facts are inconvenient for the cries of the those who get their knowledge from the media.
AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Not even close. It is not used by any standing armies on the planet. It is simply a semi-automatic the same as a 9mm handgun. One trigger pull, one round fired. Assault rifles have been banned since 1932 without a tax stamp from the ATF. Even if you have a stamp you can't own anything currently issued to the military. Another huge infringement. The founders actually had better than military grade weapons at the time. Their barrels were rifled which made them far more accurate than the British smooth bored weapons.
People who get their firearm knowledge from media should stay out of gun debates, they are not equipped. Mercifully the founders didn't write our constitution with feelings in mind.
How about we start issuing a permit to exercise the 1st. amendment? I mean if it is ok to do it to one amendment why not all of them? Weakening any part of the constitution weakens the entire document.