Search
Calendar
Help
24 October 2011, 18:00
The argument in the US is regarding the *intent* of the 2nd amendment.
When the founding fathers wrote it there was no such thing as a 50 cal fully automatic machine gun. Did they intent for the general public to be able to own these? Did they intend to accept the large loss of life that results from citizens owning automatic weapons?
The pro-gun people claim they have the rite (under the 2nd amendment) to have any weapon.
The anti-gun people claim that only people who need guns (for hunting, vermin control etc) should have them and that they should be restricted in their human-lethality (restricted magazine size etc)
We don't really know just how broad the "rite to bear arms" brush was intended to be.
When the founding fathers wrote it there was no such thing as a 50 cal fully automatic machine gun. Did they intent for the general public to be able to own these? Did they intend to accept the large loss of life that results from citizens owning automatic weapons?
The pro-gun people claim they have the rite (under the 2nd amendment) to have any weapon.
The anti-gun people claim that only people who need guns (for hunting, vermin control etc) should have them and that they should be restricted in their human-lethality (restricted magazine size etc)
We don't really know just how broad the "rite to bear arms" brush was intended to be.
Doctor Prepper: What's the worst that could happen?