View Single Post
Old January 7, 2013, 01:58 PM   #66
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 755
I've ended my debate with my "friend", and stated what I believe the 2A stands for.

The following is my interpretation and how it applies to modern firearms along with a lovely young lady stating what she believes the 2A also states.

Kimio Wrote:

A rather short video, but she covers what I believe the 2nd Amendment means.

The 2A is pretty straight forward IMHO. It never stated that "You may only arm yourself with a sword" or "Muskets are the only thing that constitutes arms"

The definition of "Arms" is very clear as well.

Arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun

1 Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

2 Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.

Synonyms
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament

People will interpret this however they want to, but I believe that the 2A applies to "Arms" that would make it feasible for the civilian populace to have the ability, if deemed necessary to resist and perhaps overthrow a corrupt government.

That being the case, it would apply to modern weaponry, as it did back in the day when the Musket was the pinnacle of weapons technology. Thus the citizens of the US have the god given right to own and bare arms that are at least of equal effectiveness as the Military that serves the government that ultimately serves the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=mDZHgGfLCfg


Friend Wrote:
Only thing up in the air about the second amendment imo is that the founding fathers were picturing muskets when the said arms.

not this

Arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun

1 Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".

2 Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries

"Arms" have advanced so far out of the realm of balls of lead that more or less go in the direction of an enemy when you put explosives behind them in a tube that we can't be sure the founding fathers wouldn't have modified the second amendment if they had been able to see stuff like M60 machine guns or tanks.

I definitely think the concept of the second amendment is a valid thing to debate over and I don't pretend to know the real world effects of legalizing more or banning more because laws and regulation pretty much never have enough factors accounted for to get any kind of scientific result... but I don't think it makes sense to side step the debate in favor of just going on the opinion of what some guys 200 years ago thought; who had never even seen anything so much as a minie ball when they wrote it. It'd be like looking to leonardo davinci's notebook as the ultimate authority on helicopter design.


Thoughts? I see this argument brought up many times, stating that the 2A is outdated considering the advancements in technology, that the 2A had Musket's in mind. Quite frankly, I think it's pretty preposterous to think that our founding fathers would lack the foresight to know that technology would change, as would the way of war, hence why they didn't write "The 2A grants every many to wield a sword, or musket" only, they state that every US citizen has the right to "ARM" themselves, that being whatever is available and most efficient given the time.

Just my interpretation of course.
Kimio is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03727 seconds with 7 queries