View Single Post
  #4  
Old 12-19-2012, 5:42 PM
Extra411 Extra411 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think it depends a lot on how the term "arms" is defined, what does it cover, and what the spirit of the amendment indicates. For example, should "explosives" be included under "arms"?

Obviously, I believe there's some flexibility there. And ultimately this flexibility is what is allowing the push for the restriction of the so-called "assault weapons".

I usually respond with the answer that I believe the second amendment refers to small arms that can be carried on a person, and does not guarantee the right to explosives. However, I understand that this definition is still certainly subjective and open to discussion.

Unfortunately, with the media's demonizing of "assault weapons", the entirety of semi-automatics is under attack. I see no way of getting out of this without a supreme court ruling on exactly what does "arms" entail, and where do you draw the line.

Personally, a more irritating statement that I hear all the time from the opposition is the "2A was written by people with muskets over 200 years ago, it does not apply to the modern world."
Reply With Quote