4 ms·

>by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? Yes, that was the thinking of the time. However, RPGs did not yet exist.

by readme 14y ago

>by this logic, shouldn't you be able to buy IEDs and RPGs (and launchers) at walmart? Yes, that was the thinking of the time. However, RPGs did not yet exist. Notice what you quoted me saying. "The purpose of the second amendment was..." That is past-tense. Obviously in today's age the original scope of it must be limited. I don't even support the idea that everyone should have an absolute right to a gun. There should be some regulation, but outright outlawing guns? I am glad that I can say I'm confident that it won't happen across the entire US any time soon. I believe they should have about the same level of regulation as automobiles. Both are deadly. Yet, with proper training and mental clarity, they are both useful and safe.

plinkplonk 14y ago
just to be clear, I am not saying you should ban handguns. Or saying that the constitution writers should have foreseen all weapons of the futue. Just saying that if the purpose of the Second Amendment were to promote the ability of the populace to fight tyranny, then citizens should probably be able to access all military grade weapons short of nukes or other WMD (maybe those too?). I am not taking a stance against that position,just pointing out that it takes some weird mental contortions to be have citizens be have a constitutional right to buy a high magazine hand gun, but not (say) a mortar, or RPG, a grenade launcher, or even an HMG. The former provides defence against tyranny, but the latter don't?
- readme 14y ago
  The latter do, and I think there are quite a few people who probably believe they should have a right to those items. I'm personally not aligned with their beliefs. Obviously we can go uphill with this until the argument caps out at nuclear power. I believe that personal small-arms are probably at least enough to make an escape if troops were sent out to capture you and take you to an internment camp or something (which by the way, they are trained to do) -- it should be considered that if the government really did become tyrannical, that a lot of the military would rebel as well.

by readme 14y ago

plinkplonk 14y ago

just to be clear, I am not saying you should ban handguns. Or saying that the constitution writers should have foreseen all weapons of the futue. Just saying that if the purpose of the Second Amendment were to promote the ability of the populace to fight tyranny, then citizens should probably be able to access all military grade weapons short of nukes or other WMD (maybe those too?). I am not taking a stance against that position,just pointing out that it takes some weird mental contortions to be have citizens be have a constitutional right to buy a high magazine hand gun, but not (say) a mortar, or RPG, a grenade launcher, or even an HMG. The former provides defence against tyranny, but the latter don't?

readme 14y ago
The latter do, and I think there are quite a few people who probably believe they should have a right to those items. I'm personally not aligned with their beliefs. Obviously we can go uphill with this until the argument caps out at nuclear power. I believe that personal small-arms are probably at least enough to make an escape if troops were sent out to capture you and take you to an internment camp or something (which by the way, they are trained to do) -- it should be considered that if the government really did become tyrannical, that a lot of the military would rebel as well.