While it is a well reasoned argument I think it fails on the fact that the writers of the constitution did not in fact include any language setting the standard of the weapon as being discriminating. It is also a fact that they did not prohibit any type of weapon , even though non discriminating weapons did exist at that time Ie: trap guns, spring guns, canons w/ grape,chain and other types of loose shot.
A better argument would be that even though it is constitutional to own such weapons, society can have a compelling and overiding reason to ban such weapons, ie based on the magnatude of the damage inflicted. your arguments are very weak when it comes to machine guns,Machine pistols,Small explosive device,Satchel charge, Antitank rocket, Booby traps, land mines, all of these are currently used as standard weapons of war and as such should clearly allowed under the constitution. The deciding factor on using any of these weapons is still the same as to when we use any deadly weapon, was it a reasonable use?
posted on 04/18/2002 10:10:06 AM PDT
While it is a well reasoned argument I think it fails on the fact that the writers of the constitution did not in fact include any language setting the standard of the weapon as being discriminating.
Thats as may be, but are you of the opinion that your rights triumph anothers rights?
To put it more succinctly: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
Your arguments are very weak when it comes to machine guns,Machine pistols,Small explosive device
Not at all. Since they are somewhat less discriminating, I would establish some rules as pertaining to their use: No use when your backdrop is that of a crowded area; an idiot-check to make sure you are not effing nuts, and that is about it. Kinda like Brady Bill for Machine Guns only, and the repeal of the (in my opinion unconstitutional) 1934 National Firearms Act.
"A better argument would be that even though it is constitutional to own such weapons,"
Sorry,can't agree with that. The MAIN purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure the country would have a ready-armed and trained militia to defend her in time of war. This mean the militiaman/draftee is expected to show up with appropiate weapons of the common infantry soldier. This does not include "crew-served weapons". Please note that while people are and were free to own ships,the gooberment has the right to commander the ships and crew in time of war. While it is true that owning such weapons may not be a INDIVIDUAL right,there is nothing saying owning them isn't a community right. Groups of people certainly had the clear right to band together and buy cannons,ships with cannons,etc,etc,etc.
Other than that,I agree with your post.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson