Mungo
Regular Member
imported post
The 2nd Amendment is less about self defense and more about protection from an oppressive government, both domestic or foreign.
With all the advancements in weaponry in the last 80 years, does it make sense that U.S. citizens would be having to fight so hard to retain the right to own such relatively primitive weapons as today's handguns and long arms?
Let's say for instance, as it was over two hundred years ago, if my neighborhood had to band together to fend off such an oppressive government, even if every household were "willing" to do so, and they are armed with say "legal" semi automatic AR-15s. How effective could they possibly be against the weaponry of today's government militaries?
It just seems kind of odd that here in 2009 the question of owning such "relatively" ineffective firearms is the forefront. I'm not saying each household should own an array of Patriot missiles, but at the same time, given the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, owning basic firearms should be uncontested.
Of course, I will have to admit, I was raised where owning firearms is more a responsibility of a household rather than a mere right to do so.
For instance, "arms" is not limited to firearms. Is the 1958 "Switchblade Act" not in violation of the 2nd amendment? Is the 1934 "Federal Firearms Act", severely regulating and effectively outlawing the ownership of machine guns not in violation of the 2nd amendment?
In the very least, every household should have the quintessential shotgun hanging over the fireplace mantel. Why is it such a question and controversy?
The 2nd Amendment is less about self defense and more about protection from an oppressive government, both domestic or foreign.
With all the advancements in weaponry in the last 80 years, does it make sense that U.S. citizens would be having to fight so hard to retain the right to own such relatively primitive weapons as today's handguns and long arms?
Let's say for instance, as it was over two hundred years ago, if my neighborhood had to band together to fend off such an oppressive government, even if every household were "willing" to do so, and they are armed with say "legal" semi automatic AR-15s. How effective could they possibly be against the weaponry of today's government militaries?
It just seems kind of odd that here in 2009 the question of owning such "relatively" ineffective firearms is the forefront. I'm not saying each household should own an array of Patriot missiles, but at the same time, given the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, owning basic firearms should be uncontested.
Of course, I will have to admit, I was raised where owning firearms is more a responsibility of a household rather than a mere right to do so.
For instance, "arms" is not limited to firearms. Is the 1958 "Switchblade Act" not in violation of the 2nd amendment? Is the 1934 "Federal Firearms Act", severely regulating and effectively outlawing the ownership of machine guns not in violation of the 2nd amendment?
In the very least, every household should have the quintessential shotgun hanging over the fireplace mantel. Why is it such a question and controversy?