Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Or you are because you don't have a clue what he was saying.
He wasn't saying that the 2nd amendment just covers muskets. He was saying that it covers all firearms in common use. 200 years ago that covered muskets and pistols and canons and swords and such. Today that means pistols, and semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s and any other common fire arm.
Where I disagree is that I think that the 2nd amendment was clear: there are no restrictions at all. They could have easily said "only commonly used firearms" but it didn't. And it doesn't just mean the militia like you were saying. I quoted that the supreme court agreed with that:
He wasn't saying that the 2nd amendment just covers muskets. He was saying that it covers all firearms in common use. 200 years ago that covered muskets and pistols and canons and swords and such. Today that means pistols, and semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s and any other common fire arm.
Where I disagree is that I think that the 2nd amendment was clear: there are no restrictions at all. They could have easily said "only commonly used firearms" but it didn't. And it doesn't just mean the militia like you were saying. I quoted that the supreme court agreed with that:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Comment