[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i want my own nuke. i believe that if i can't have my own then only criminals will own nukes.

but pat may have had a good argument earlier in pointing out the constitution was written in the era of muskets. before rifling. much less hand grenades.

i wouldn't argue a plain reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. it's disingenuous to suggest the inferred right of privacy (which is the linchpin of roe v. wade and appears nowhere in the constitution) and at the same time say the 2nd amendment doesn't protect my right to own weapons.

but even scalia and other proponents of "original meaning" recognize that framers of the constitution wouldn't want me to have an anti-aircraft weapon.

so the right is limited. you can't have an outright ban. but strict limits aren't out of the question (constitutionally).

i'd argue a well educated 18th century mind would find the idea of individual ownership of even semi-automatic weapons wasn't what they had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

there were rifles, and companies of riflemen in the the revolutionary war. rifles took longer to load, but were more accurate at longer ranges. i have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the framers of the constitution didn't foresee advances in weaponry. but they did foresee the need and ability of people to have and maintain their rights. by all means, if you don't want to exercise yours, don't-but i'd appreciate if you leave your hands off of my rights, regardless of whether you agree with my having them. i certainly have done nothing to warrant losing them. in all my arguments on this thread and elsewhere, keep in mind i haven't advocated anyone losing anything-while others have advocated taking them away. i won't feel safer if i lose them, and can't conceive that anyone else would. how anyone can argue that the constitution is inviolate, while arguing portions of that same document should be removed or done away with i don't know.