imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
A while ago, there was a thread asking specifically if dirty bombs should be covered by the Second Amendment. The more general gist of the discussion was what weapons are covered, and perhaps why they should be included. The thread disappeared for a reason yet to be announced by moderators, so I figured I would attempt another one.
Some believe that handguns are not included. Others believe that weapons of mass destruction should be legal for possession (and perhaps carry). Most believe that the limit lies somewhere in between. Keeping in mind that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the populace to keep a check on government, that fact seems to add some credibility to the less-restriction argument. Yet the fact that the most advanced weapon our Founding Fathers had was a musket seems to support an idea that they couldn't have imagined the destruction of the weapons we have today. Also thrown into the debate is the issue that in the early 20th century, weapons were banned from civilian ownership (i.e. the sawed-off shotgun) because they served no military purpose, yet in the late 20th century to the present, weapons are being banned for not serving any sporting purpose (i.e. through the "assault weapon" bans). Naturally, public safety versus freedom is a valuble part of this debate.
For reference, the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (As passed by the House and Senate)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (As distributed to the states and then ratified by them)
So to again state the question: For how destructive of a weapon does the Second Amendment allow?
A while ago, there was a thread asking specifically if dirty bombs should be covered by the Second Amendment. The more general gist of the discussion was what weapons are covered, and perhaps why they should be included. The thread disappeared for a reason yet to be announced by moderators, so I figured I would attempt another one.
Some believe that handguns are not included. Others believe that weapons of mass destruction should be legal for possession (and perhaps carry). Most believe that the limit lies somewhere in between. Keeping in mind that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the populace to keep a check on government, that fact seems to add some credibility to the less-restriction argument. Yet the fact that the most advanced weapon our Founding Fathers had was a musket seems to support an idea that they couldn't have imagined the destruction of the weapons we have today. Also thrown into the debate is the issue that in the early 20th century, weapons were banned from civilian ownership (i.e. the sawed-off shotgun) because they served no military purpose, yet in the late 20th century to the present, weapons are being banned for not serving any sporting purpose (i.e. through the "assault weapon" bans). Naturally, public safety versus freedom is a valuble part of this debate.
For reference, the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (As passed by the House and Senate)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (As distributed to the states and then ratified by them)
So to again state the question: For how destructive of a weapon does the Second Amendment allow?