posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:45 AM
I am going to post something, an educated answer, that is going to blow most of you away.
I am a little tired of this same general argument. " you gun guys think that the second amendment should allow you to have rockets, tanks, nuclear
weapons, etc." it's a and ignorant argument and both pro and anti second amendment people get it wrong.
About 15 years, as a political science major, I took a full class called, " guns and the constitution ". It examined gun laws, court cases, and the
2nd amendment and its development.
There was much discussion during the constitutional convention on exactly how the second would work. I am not ( at the moment ) going to break down
the whole thing as I want to focus on one of the key words selected for the amendment. And that is the word "arms".
During the vernacular of the day, the word arms referred to that weaponry that was, 1) used by an individual, such as a rifle, pistol, or sword. And
2) were used as the standard weapon of the armed forces infantryman. Muskets were already becoming out classed by the new rifles (incidentally, prior
to and during the war the English weren't too concerned about the colonists having muskets, but they WERE concerned about the technological leap to
rifles and is one of the weapons they were looking to seize at Lexington and Concord, on this later).
Anyways, there was another term that there was serious discussion about using in the 2nd amendment. That term is "ordnance". In the vernacular of
the day ordnance referred to mortars, cannons, and other crew served (not individual)weapons. While the founders wanted the people to have individual
personal arms equivalent to the armed forces, they did not see a need for them to own crew served weapons. This is important because prior to the
constitution many colonies/states allowed that. Incidentally, many states didn't restrict these weapons after the second was ratified, and even today
it's not actually illegal to own an operating tank or cannon in some states...but it's not nesecarily a right protected by the Constitution and is
usually highly restricted and/or monitored.
Now, if we take this line of thought as the original intent and extrapolate that to today, it means that the intent of the second amendment allows the
people to own equivalent military grade individual arms like an AR-15. but it would not nesecarily protect the right to own weapons like artillery,
tanks, nuclear weapons, etc.. Both the Miller and Heller Supreme Court cases used the argument that the 2nd protects weapons that have a militia
When the British Army marched on Lexington and concord it was to seize rifles and cannon that were being amassed. And this is what started the
revolution. Knowing what they were planning,and fearing never being able to fight back should the english continue to rule by increasing tyranny, the
colonists knew they had to protect those weapons, particularly the personal equivalent arms (the rifles).
So in a nutshell the 2nd totally protects your right to an AR15. But does not protect your right to a nuclear weapon, or rocket launcher, or whatever
stupid analogy some are throwing out there.
If the government goes today to seize those personal arms (semi auto) rifles, they are repeating what the British did. Will the result be the
same???? A justified insurrection????