Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Jim Bob fell into a time machine with an AR 2000 with a 150 ammo clip. He lands into the room where the 2nd amendment is being discussed. I am
almost certain that the 2nd amendment would look different today if that happened.
I don't necessarily agree. Arms in general are weapons that a single person can carry and operate. This could be up for debate but fits with what we
are talking about.
The reason I do not agree with your scenario is that throughout American history “citizens” have always had what was equal to or even better than
what the standing army had, so as guns got better both the regular army and regulated militia have had access to any type of “arms” available,
well except for today.
Now looking at the framers intent that “arms” provide the right for personal protection AND protection from tyranny one could assume that a
regulated militia should have equal rights to what a hypothetical tyrannical Government would have, otherwise that hypothetical tyrannical Government
(Nazi Germany as example) could and would just ban whatever they saw as a threat.
Like you said, these guys are thinking muskets or something like it and everyone should have some to protect against those dang Indians and if the
King decides to change his mind or the Rothchild's hire Blackwater.
Nobody today can claim that the founding fathers, if they saw the arms today, would still write the 2nd amendment as it reads now. It is really
retarded to think that seeing 200 years into the future would not effect a person....the 3/5ths of a person would not be included for
Whether we are talking about an AR full auto with a 30 round clip or a musket the nature of the two are the same, single person protection. You are
debating efficiency and nothing more. If I went back in time and plopped down 10 cases of ARs with ammo in front of the framers they would say “boys
get your new guns”.
So you have hit on a point here in that you suggest weapons today are just too lethal to have in the hands of citizens and I would say show me the
data. I say show me the data because the data says otherwise. With 9000 murders each year with guns there are less than 50 of those murders from ARs
and less than 400 from all rifles. Hell more people are killed with hammers than ARs. This means your whole argument is based on some unseen
potential, not reality. The reality is that the smallest weapon with the least number of bullets and shortest range does the vast majority to all the
So once again the role of the gun has not changed one iota since the musket....
Why hasn't it been dealt with sooner? It hasn't been worth the effort. Just wait until Laser Rifles are introduced!
or better yet, a hand gun laser.......yayyyyyyy........Could you see the founding fathers being cool with everyone owning a laser pistol that has an 8
hour continuous fire clip capacity?
You are a smart guy and this is a slippery slope fallacy, just as I can say that they will limit all guns except for muskets…
Your logic is also a little skewed in you keep suggesting some overpowered weapon as a AR would be in the 1700s or a ray gun with mass destruction
capabilities, so let’s look at that here. The musket was not overpowered in the 1700s just as the Winchester wasn’t in the 1800 and as the AR is
not today, and nor will the ray gun most likely be like in 200 years. The reason is technology keeps up with these weapons too and so the weapon is
just right for its time.
As example with Aurora, the guy had an arsenal and was very limited in what he could do with it due to the technology that got the police there in
minutes to stop him; if there were people with concealed weapons in the theater too he might have done a lot less too. In 200 years I would bet
technology will continue to do as it has always done and keep up with ray guns too.
How about owning our own armed drones to patrol our property?
I could and would debate whether this is "arms" and so protected, I see this more like our framers would view a canon.
The founding fathers, in my mind, would say......."hey people, we did the best we could for our times, even then we couldn't agree on almost anything.
Stop treating us like divine prophets. We ripped stuff off from Martin Luther and other greats from history, so we are flattered that you include
us, but wake up and deal with the times your in."
You see this is your true debate....whether the constitution is a living document or not. I view it as a not, unless done through an Amendment. So
let’s say 90% of America want to change the 2nd through an Amendment then I would say go ahead, but until that Amendment happens the words are set
edit on 19-3-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)