View Single Post
Old March 26, 2012, 12:57 AM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,558
still don't imagine they would have accepted this.
I disagree. I think they would have embraced it. They had just finished fighting a war with the most technologically advanced army at the time. They had some advancements that worked to their advantage in small arms and the logistics of rearming an entire army, but I doubt they would have the citizens use sticks and rocks against firearms of any kind. 2A doesn't specifically name firearms in the wording, it just said "arms." By your own freedom of interpretation we could argue that this just means we can have a spear for hunting, bows and projectile weapons are unnecessary. Our ancestors did it thousands of years ago, we can do it now too. (taking "primitive" hunting season a bit too primitive? ) The idea of arms was for the defense of the state as 2A states. 2A is about the people being able to defend their way of life. And I see it as a fail safe in case the stuff really gets blown out that fan when our own military doesn't quite have what it takes to keep foreign enemies off our shores.
- Jon
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs .45 ACP? The answer is .429
WeedWacker is offline  
Page generated in 0.05453 seconds with 7 queries