Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Really? The founding fathers were able to foresee the advent of automatic weapons capable of doing damage that whole battalions couldn't do in their time? Missiles? Tanks? Jets? Nukes? All foreseen and accounted for by the Constitution's authors?
|
Where did I say that? The founding fathers, being that most of them were inventors themselves, knew it wouldn't be ball and powder and smoothbores forever. Did they use a crystal ball to foresee what we have today? Of course not, which is why the term "arms" is very important.
I'm trying to find the quote, but James Madison when pressed to define the term arms stated as it being anything one man can carry and operate. So the ridiculous arguments of "I want a nuke, I want a MIG" can be tossed aside for the garbage that they are. Especially since gang bangers are not killing each other at a rate of 75% of all firearm deaths with fighter jets or nuclear weapons.
Quote:
|
the Constitution IS outdated and has been amended many times to keep up with changing social ideals including slavery, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc.. Why not guns? What is so bullet-proof about the 2nd Amendment versus any other part? Forgetting the fact that it is being GROSSLY misinterpreted.
|
How should it be interpreted? Once society moved against those ideals, amendments were made and the constitution changed. So again, that's whats going to have too happen. It's at the heart of any movement to control or limit arms so that's where the US is going to have to start if they want a blanket ban such as those proposed.