Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's reasonable -- and in keeping with the original intent of the framers -- to say that you have a right to bear infantry arms if you are actually serving in the infantry -- the National Guard, say, or some kind militia.
|
That's a separate question: Whether the introductory clause has any relevance. As I understand the limited precedent on the subject, the answer is that it does. That is, "Arms" are only those weapons that a well-regulated militia might have or use. But that's a different limitation that a technological one.
If the Massachusetts National Guard things it proper to defend the Commonwealth with Gatling guns, then I'm sure John Kerry would have a right to go out and buy the prettiest, nicest, most expensive one he could find. Of course, chances are that Taxachusetts would think muskets are still the best way to defend itself, so not to worry.
