It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Mike215
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.
Two things to remember here. First the 2nd wasnt looking at the weapon but the right of groups of men to bear them under certain conditions and thus "to keep" unto thier own persons was then concomitant.
Also apparent is the reality, as far as the tactical value of the weapons called "arms",that they were certainly talking about current firearm technology. Demanding that the people cannot keep assult arms is the same as demanding they fight with weapons made for hunting game, much of which show little advance since 1776. Taking away a tactical equivalency in personal arms from the people is a clear degree of subjugation considering what it would mean if the people in the modern era had to present themselves on the field with shotguns and modern muzzel loaders. A court that was "jealous for the right of the people" would never allow an assult weapons ban. But a court seeking to define the state position as paramount would.