good ole boy
Registered: Mar 2011
08-31-12 01:52 PM
Quote from stoic:
Why do you think the Founding Fathers felt it essential to have the 2nd Amendment?
Because they wanted the states to have the ability to raise civilian militias, which had formed the backbone of the army of
the day. This neccessity in the early Republic has clearly been superceded by a standing national army. However, the 2nd amendment still exists and under a constitutional Republic, we must continue to recognize this right. However, it is silly to contend that the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd amendment to primarily preserve a personal right to own guns for thier personal reasons.
You may not agree with my interpretation of the 2nd amendment but if we do agree then this original intent of the amendment has been rendered obsolete by the America's standing armed forces.
The constitution in its original articles declared its purpose, one among many, as providing for the safety and welfare of the people. One can argue that guns help provide safety for some, and one can argue they help threaten the welfare of others.
As firearm technology advances so should common sense.
The "right to bear arms" in 1789 meant a rifle that could be shot once per minute, or a single shot pistol with an accuracy of 10 feet. No one lugged around a cannon back then, or worried about it. But arms today are diffferent, are compact, extraordinarily effective, have very different capabilities, and include non ballistic weapons of varying kill radii: grenades, bombs, chemical weapons, and ballistic arms like fully automatic magazine loading assualt rifles designed for warfare.
We can argue all day that people kill people not guns, but
a killer with a 1789 firearm is a lot less dangerous than a killer with an modern assault rifle. And if limiting a killer to a personal defense weapon means relinquishing my right to own an assault rifle, I would have to consider that proposal seriously