Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not if you don't want to pretend to be a wingnut. I've just never understood why the gunnies think the Second Amendment -- construed as they suggest -- doesn't confer a right to bear arms like Gatling guns and flamethrowers. Curiously, most of them don't want to go there.
|
My guess is some of them do. I can't see as reasonable an interpretation of the 2d amendment that holds weapons that were not in existence in 1789 do not constitute "Arms" within the amendment's terms. Television, radio, and the internet all seem to come within the term "speech" in the first amendment, despite their not existing in 1789.
As with most constitutional rights, the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. Perhaps more extensive regulation of gatling guns is reasonable.
etfs
