Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRy
Honestly, that's what pisses me off about the pro gun people. If you think owning a rifle will protect you from the government, then you're an idiot.
With the way military technology is these days, the right to "arm" yourselves with guns won't mean ****.
Worst interpretation of the constitution ever.
That's a perfect example of "made sense 200+ years ago, but does not apply today." Kind of like the wire act applying to online gambling, to be honest.
I'm not saying gun rights activists don't have a point with "the right to carry doesn't make things more dangerous" it's just that what the founding fathers meant has absolutely nothing to do with what goes on today.
When the bill of rights was drafted, I think "arms" basically meant rifles and pistols, which were the pinnacle of weaponry at the time. I think if the same men were asked point blank "exactly what types of weapons should citizens be able to own?," the answer would be "any type of weapon that is available."
There are obviously problems with that, in this day when we have bombs that can level cities. But the idea behind the 2nd amendment was to provide the people with a means of defense from tyrannical government, meaning they should be able to own those weapons which could make them competitive in a battle, given they could even the numbers.
Anyway, what we're allowed now would be like allowing spears in their time, and in my mind is clearly not what the forefathers intended. I don't know what their solution would be today, with fighter jets and nuclear subs and laser satellites and whatever, but they would want measures in place to protect the people from a situation where President Obama wants to be King Obama. He could probably do it, if the military didn't all defect.
Anyway, I'm not sure what your point was. I guess you're in favor of more gun control, but that goes against what the forefathers intended, in my interpretation at least.