|
Those who argue that the framers 'could not possibly have imagined the current weaponry' are missing the entire point of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The founders experienced 'first hand' the heavy handedness of a standing army and KNEW that ONLY free citizens had freedom and liberty as an interest at heart. Standing armies could most certainly be held to orders that abridged that freedom and liberty and it was the framers OBVIOUS intent to ensure that free citizens, who were NOT part of standing armies, federal or state, were armed with equal weaponry to that of any standing army so that free people could fight to remain free.
All arguments about owning WMD's are really idiotic arguments because the government would be cutting their own throat if they were to use WMDs against the civilian population.
The notion that 'well-regulated militia' meant national guard bears zero fruit, considering no such thing existed at the time, and knowing the fears of standing armies from the founders, could the 2nd ever be construed to think that there actually had to be written a 'right' that standing armies controlled by a central government needed to be ensured a right to keep and bear arms, is absolutely unfounded and ludicrous. it borders insanity.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|