|
It's been a decade, and we're locked and loaded. Look out, Bambi.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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
|
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. Other forms of "reasonable regulation" would seem to have less basis in what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking about.
Most gunnies disagree with your view, and my application of it.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 09-10-2004 at 04:14 PM..
|
Threaded Mode