Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
Settle down.... in case you failed to see my point, I was being a bit sarcastic. I am all in favor of the second ammendment, but I do agree with bans on certain kinds of guns, like the semi-automatic assult rifles for example.
The NRA always states that the second ammendment is absolute. But if you take the second ammendment in the context that the founding fathers meant it, the purpose was for civilians to be able to protect themselves against government abuse, i.e. the government's military. They were thinking in the context of the American revolution and how civilians fought against the British, and they did not want to take away the right of civilians to do that in the future.
At the time, guns were the most powerful weapon used in war. So keeping that in mind, it would make sense to allow civilians to use the same powerful weapons that the military does. The problem with this line of thinking is that the founding fathers could have never guessed how destructive future weapons would become in the future. A criminal with a one-shot musket in the 18th century could only cause so much damange. But take a criminal today and give him an assult riffle, and you have a scene like what took place at Virginia Tech. Times change, and so should laws when the old law no longer makes sense.
|
What do you mean settle down??? What if a guy wants to marry his dog and buy it a gun???
The argument that the 2nd Amendment was written with black powder muzzle loaders in mind is the one that most anti-gun advocates rely on, stating exactly what you did. The problem is that The Constitution is not an absolute blueprint for every possible situation. It is up to courts to interpret it and apply it to the situation at hand, taking into account the framer's intent as well as the realities of present day. If we accept the argument that we should go with what was written and considered at the time then we'd lose some very important rights that have been interpreted by the courts.
For example, the 8th Amendment only prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". What does that mean??? What was "cruel and unusual" in the days the Amendment was written? Did they anticipate that lethal injection would be argued as "cruel and unusual"? What about whether it was "cruel and unusual" to execute child rapists? That was never anticipated by the framers.
If you're bored, search for case law on search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. It will blow your mind how many judicial decisions there have been and continue to be on the 4th Amendment.
My point is simply that the argument that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to today because of it's original context is logic that would eviscerate many other Constitutional rights and you can't pick and choose which Amendments you believe in.