- Messages
- 3,954
- Reactions
- 9,167
Umm no?
Maybe you have not read the Second Amendment?
Maybe you have not read the debates of it in the first Congress?
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."
Note that the word is "Arms", that it is capitalized and that it is not "firearms" or "side arms" or "personal arms" - it is "Arms", which encompasses a wider definition than just guns. It means knives, guns (of any type or size), cannon, grenades (yes, they had them then) and basically anything that can be used to fight a war with. And it is war that the Founding Fathers meant to support - a war against their own government:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster
The Founding Fathers did not want a 'standing army' so they provided for a 'militia'. They did not want a standing army because they had been subject to the abuse of the British Army which was used to oppress the people (and also take away their arms).
The first and primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people a balance of power against that of the government should it turn to tyranny and/or should the people need to rebel against unjust laws. To that end, the people must be able to bear the same "Arms" the government has - at this point in time, not just semi-automatic, but fully automatic and any other "Arms" the military has.
@The Heretic et al for chrissake people reply #28 was 100% sarcastic.