Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
Walter, if you are going to post in your own thread, then take some time and put forward a better argument.
The founding fathers had no intention of being vague. They deliberately left a lot of things unsaid, and precedent was supposed to clarify issues that had not come up before, rather than to reinterpret what is clearly written in the constitution. Additionally I am drunk and am going to have to continue this when I am capable of formulating words and such...
|
Did I miss appletini night?
Perhaps vague was a bad choice of words. Perhaps Im in political concession mode as its necessary to pass my finals. Goddamned hippie school...
Im aware that the founding fathers were experienced in the dealings of a tyrannical government and I have read the Federalist Papers. Im assuming this is some of the precedent youre referring to? But in deliberately leaving things unsaid, I would suggest that they were acknowledging that they could not predict the future.
In other words, they left room for interpretation as to what constitutes "well-armed". The founding fathers could not have forseen the advent of atomic weapons, SOFLAM's and GBU's, SA-7's, Mk-19's or the Death Star. Im merely suggesting that there is a limit to what kind of weaponry should be made available to the general public.
Automatic weapons, 50 cals, high cap mags, etc all seem reasonable to me.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 10 : 56 : 14-----
Oh, and if you ever call me out like that again, I will literally set you on fire. I've done it once, dont make me do it again.