jchambers
Banned
- 5,282
- 2,025
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
There's gonna be a day when they make handguns that shoot bombs and ppl will cite the 2nd amendment then too.According to this strange interpretation, if I start a militia then I should be able to have fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. without any infringement. This is necessary to the security of a free state.Or maybe the First Amendment only applies to militias as well. That would seem to be the case, considering this interpretation of the wording. It certainly is a black and white impenetrable law. I'd like to see how people would react to stricter regulations on freedom of speech. You can argue for stricter gun regulations, but don't pretend that the Constitution doesn't clearly state that the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights is not a handbook for militias. It enumerates specific rights that cannot be infringed upon by the government.
If it's so clear cut how did this happen:
"In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita..." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military."
Even in its most liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (Heller 200, the Supreme Court still stated: "... the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
Unless you're claiming you have a better understanding of Constitutional Law than the Supreme Court does, I'm going to disagree with you on all this.
They already make those and the government uses them to kill hundreds of people every day.
There's going to be a day when words on the internet cause someone to be killed, and people will cite the First Amendment then too. Why don't we let the government completely regulate the internet? Hell, why don't we require people to have registrations to say certain things? If the 2nd can be regulated, why not the first?
Last edited: