Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
I disagree, it's not that the founders didn't care so much, as Pan said, they did not anticipate it. Nor did they have to or should they have had to. I agree that there is certainly room for restriction, especially considering the development of modern weaponry. However, I also agree that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms and that that right is there to protect those individuals from their government should tyranny emerge. Problem is, in the modern world, the kind of arms necessary towards that end are unacceptable in the hands of individuals. What SCOTUS really needs to address here, and I hope they do, is what level of restriction on arms is acceptable under the Constitution.
|
so, what you're saying is that is that the 2nd Amendment is so that people can protect themselves against tyranny, but to do so would require that the people have weapons equal to the government, and that even the founders, most notably george washington and thomas jefferson, agreed that the people should be equally as armed as the government, but they couldn't and shouldn't have imagined machine guns and therefore it shouldn't apply anymore?
__________________
"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."
|