6 ms·
Sorry but I dont understand what analogy you are trying to make here
by ufo 9y ago
Sorry but I dont understand what analogy you are trying to make here
- OscarCunningham 9y agoPeople sometimes argue that the second amendment doesn't or shouldn't apply to certain weapons, because the founders of the US didn't anticipate those weapons.
- InitialLastName 9y agoI mean, we already know that the first amendment doesn't (and should not) apply to some forms of speech; slander, libel and incitement to violence are all things that we (as a society) have decided are forms of speech that should be regulated.
- friendlydude12 9y agoThe first amendment isn’t intended for physical speech. It exists to protect opinions and ideas. It’s for this reason lots of non-verbal “speech” is protected under the first amendment, like online posts and flag burning. Threatening violence or slander has nothing to do with the first amendment.
- friendlydude12 9y agoAnd they are totally wrong because there were all sorts of machine guns and powerful cannons available in those days, even some used in the Revolutionary war. Projectile weapons have been improving throughout history, it’s silly to assume the Founders weren’t well aware of that. I mean, there were medieval weapons that were pretty devastating by even today’s standards and the first amendment makes no mention of that. These were enlightenment thinkers well versed in the history of governments and technological progress. The 2nd amendment is a principle meant to transcend all time and cultures. The people have a fundamental right to defend their rights.
- hluska 9y agoI'm not OP, but it seems to be an apt (and well written) analogy to the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, which grants: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assaukt weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief.
- mamon 9y agoSo, the logical conclusion would be that every citizen has the right to privately own state of the art nuclear missiles?
- s2g 9y agoYes, absolutely. The internet gives the average person the ability to mass disseminate information. If you want to try and use that as a metaphor then we should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- microcolonel 9y ago> The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assault weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief. Well, there is no definition for the term "assault weapon", and semi-automatic (edit: not semi-automatic, but self-cocking repeating, similar operation and results) weapons were well known (and not that far away from being popularized) by the time the second amendment was drafted, and by the people who were drafting it. "Arms" also encompassed things like cannons and explosive charges, which could be fitted freely to ships/properties and stored (though the latter could create a tort, if you don't take necessary precautions) by private persons, as proven in case law. It also applied to bladed, blunt, or more unconventional arms. The word "arms" is used instead of "muskets" because the right being protected is the right of the people to own arms sufficient to feasibly defend themselves (or, with a militia, defend their community), and to do so unmolested.
- devdas 9y agoGuns in the US.