Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
In public, anyway.
|
Yeah, they don't talk about it in public because it's ridiculous, and talking about it in public would be a pretty surefire way for them to discredit themselves and the people they speak for because most people recognize it as being completely fucking insane.
Quote:
|
Or they really thought that Joe Citizen should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment... because it was that important to the security of freedom.
|
Okay, so we have, "the founders thought it would be a good idea for anyone at all to be able to procure any kind of weapon, even the ones, which, when used properly, could kill everyone in a medium sized town because somehow the ability for every individual to wipe medium sized towns off of the map is a necessary condition for protection from tyranny" versus, "the founders had no fucking clue what was going to be possible technologically, and as such the second amendment is an ill informed piece of law." Okay. Well, i know which side i choose, and it isn't the one based on seemingly naive notions about the innate ability of the average person to employ weapons of mass destruction in the name of freedom.
How about biological weapons? Are the founding fathers advocates of an anthrax vial for every patriot? I mean, if the average person should be trusted to keep any weapon he could make or get someone to sell him, regardless of technological advances or trends in popular sentiment because it was that important to the security of freedom, shouldn't the average person be free to stockpile whatever biological agents s/he feels are necessary for the protection of freedom?