View single post by Big Garea Fan
 Posted: Sat Dec 15th, 2012 02:07 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2783
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.




From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
The verbiage that stands out to me is "well regulated militia". Since when does anybody who walks into a gun store qualify as a "well regulated militia"? Additionally, the "right to bear arms" seems to be important for the "security of a free state". So, since it appears that they are "well regulated" and "necessary to the security of a free state", can gun owners be placed first in line to serve in a war (since they are all "well regulated" and "necessary" and stuff)?