The second amendment is proposed to protect our right to bear "arms", but how do we define this? A typical leftist argument is "well there weren't a-bombs around when the Constitution was drafted." But does the "arms" Constitute these weapons? Here is one source I found on the issue. (4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm Please discuss.
I see absolutely no logical reason for any citizen to privately own a weapon that shoots several thousand rounds per minute, nor does quick, massive explosive damage such as rpg's, grenade launchers, mortars, etc..
I can see plenty of logical reasons but those don't matter. What matters is that it it's a human birth right and that's the end of it. Violating that right is treason and unacceptable.
The second amendment was meant to level the playing field for The People in case a tyranical government ever came to light. So yes, I agree with OP Our founding fathers knew a thing or two about tyrannical governments.
I've always hated that its a right... There are plenty of people who should not own guns but do because its a "right". I feel it should be a privilege you have to earn and show you're mature enough to handle that privilege. Obviously it wouldn't matter, if you want something there will always be a way to get it and the people that shouldn't have it always seem to find things easiest haha. When people call it a right it kinda annoys me
We have a tyrannical government now. They have bombs. If The People don't have bombs, it isn't a level playing field.
It's strategic planning. We the people should have access to the same weapons as our police and military forces. Of course we can't have nuclear arms, but I believe in nuclear disarmament. It is nearly impossible to rid the world of that though.
In 1776, a regular civilian was capable of having the same guns as military personnel members. There was no gun control back then. By arms, they meant all arms. If one were to use common sense based on the right's historic attributes, the answer is clear. Arms are arms, as in gun weaponry. There is a reason that amendment is so important, and it's not hunting...
No it isn't. That's why it says specifically "shall not be infringed." No exceptions. As for the OP, again, it means no exceptions. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the civilians to defend themselves against a tyrannical government force. That means we are meant to have access to the same weapons they do. No they didn't have nukes back then, but a level playing field is a level playing field. We deserve a few civilian owned nuke silos aimed at 1600 Pennsylania Ave, the Supreme Court, and the Senate/House of Congress, just to keep our public servants in check.
I wasn't trying to make a comment on whether I agreed with that idea or not, just saying that in the eyes of the law, it is illegal for some people to own firearms.
So you think you should be allowed to own a fully functional and armed tank or Apache helicopter? I don't know if anyone here is a Metal Gear Solid fan but Outer Heaven sounds like a gun lover's wet dream.