Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alloy
i am confident that they meant weapons at least equal to the threat.
|
Might agree here. However, since I believe the threat to we civilians lie within the confines of current civilian criminal activity then the current arms currently in common use are suffcient to meet that threat and therefore pass the test you propose the 2A founders imagined. Invasion by foreign armies (virtually unlikely since we possess nuclear arms) would be opposed by our professional standing Army and resistance to tyranny opposed by the vote so I guess the NFA stands.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Is the argument that the lethality of weapon, in general, is not a reasonable basis for restriction?
|
Absolutely Glenn, unless we digress into the inane argument that a shovel is just as lethal as a .50 cal machinegun, lethality and dangerousness of the weapon is a reasonable basis for restriction. We routinely restrict and regulate things such as explosives and the 2A provides no cover for military arms IMO. The reason that the military uses these arms is because they are designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly or to attack other weapons systems such as tanks or aircraft.