04-22-2009, 10:39 PM
|
#31 (permalink)
|
|
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,024
Drives: too slow
Rep Power: 3596
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by frost
A couple common arguments:
1. When the right to bear arms was established, arms were rifles where you had to load black powder carried in bags and stuff it. There were also no cars.
Thoughts?
|
Nothing has really changed in this regard, imho. First off, semi-automatic arms were known to the authors of the bill of rights, even though they weren't in use at the time. There are letters where they discuss advancements in arms, including the first "gatling-gun" type devices.
Secondarily, from a "defend yourself from tyranny/invasion" standpoint, one can make the argument that if you're going to defend yourself from government tyranny and/or foreign invasion, then the moving standard should be "whatever small arms the military uses at any given time". This brings us around to:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by m4a1mustang
The threat of having to defend oneself against ones government was a much more real possibility back then, as well.
|
It's still a real possibility even now. Look at the kind of resistance fighters in the urban areas of Afghanistan and Iraq (or for that matter, Vietnam) put up against our invasion/occupation. These are, for the most part, dirt poor people using decades-old AK-47's that are barely even functional anymore, and home-made bombs. A citizenry in the US, armed with what's commonly available at US gunshows, and easily repel even our own military in an urban tyranny/invasion scenario for quite a while. Long enough and hard enough to make them rethink things, in any case.
|
|
|
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
