3 ms·
Guns typically kill a few people here and there. I'm talking about the deaths of large swaths of people from technology that wasn't envisioned in the 1700's.
by bb88 8y ago
Guns typically kill a few people here and there. I'm talking about the deaths of large swaths of people from technology that wasn't envisioned in the 1700's.
But since you mentioned it, that's the problem with taking an originalist view of the constitution. Nuclear weapons didn't exist back then, neither did DNA sequencing. And in your view for any X it must be legal, because the founding fathers were silent about X.
I am pretty sure that if you could go back in time and ask whether George Washington whether the common man should be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons, the common sense answer would be a resounding "NO".
- jfnixon 8y agoIt is also the answer today for originalists. The standard interpretation is the 2A applies to any weapon which can be carried by a common soldier. It doesn't cover a F22, nor a battleship, nor a tank (although you can buy a tank, but for other reasons).
- bb88 8y agoI'm not against that definition of the second amendment, but a nuclear weapon does not need to be a large thing at all and could be in fact carried by a soldier.
- stale2002 8y agoWell this thread is not about people 3d printing nukes. It is instead about people 3d printing guns. Or in other words, the "controversy" here is entirely overblown, as firearms are very much something that everyone has been able to imagine for a long time, and this is not a "tricky situation". It is a clear and obvious situation covering rights that are clearly covered in the constitution.
- bb88 8y agoAnd I was asking a direct question to OP's comment about what information should be actually made illegal if any. I even clarified the question to "large swaths of people" which exempts plastic guns from the question. Next time, please read the full comments.