Originally posted by bl4ke360
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I think the 2A was sure to future proof it since they said Bear Arms and not Muskets or we would have had the same "rights" our Canadian neighbors
I just wish they added that no firearm type should be regulated like those stupid "Assault" Weapons bans.
The second amendment is implicit in its language to that end. It says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". By virtue of that
all-inclusive word, it is not restrictive in any way. ANY gun law which makes ANY type of weapon illegal is an infringement of the second amendment.
What if a few thousand years from now a new weapon is developed that has the power to destroy entire solar systems? Would you feel comfortable
allowing everyone to possess one of these? You have to keep in mind the original intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to allow for citizens to
protect themselves, not to give them the ability to commit mass genocide.
Do you really think the average person would be able to afford such a weapon? And do you feel comfortable with our GOVERNMENT having such a weapon?
No. No one should ever have such a weapon. What law exactly is going to prevent the American government from having such weapons?
Infact, look at todays arsenals. Look at the price of a nuclear bomb. At the price they are at, it doesn't matter if they're legal. You could bribe
officials to make sure you could have it for way less than the price of the nuke.
Infact, I don't think the American government should have nukes. Yeah, lets ban them from them. Yeah, that's gonna work