It's not that hard. The founders intended that the citizens could be armed, and actively encouraged it. But the weapons of the day didn't include WMD. Would they have intended that the 2nd include your right to create and own chemical and biological weapons? A nuke is probably out of your capability, but it if you could buy one from N. Korea, is that fine with the Founders?
What did they intend, indeed? Machine guns weren't invented yet. They certainly wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves with guns. But machine guns and WMDs aren't easily classified as defensive weapons.
If you're arguing that no line should ever be drawn, I disagree. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme. Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be.
Nicely done.
You are absolutely right...the Founders never even thought of the ball point pen, internet, printing press, typewriter, radio, tv, movies, etc...as freedom of speech...so lets restrict those too!
...this is too easy...
"But machine guns and WMDs aren't easily classified as defensive weapons."
SO how are "machine guns" comparable to nukes or WMDs? Thats always been a silly comparison.
"There are no absolute rights in the Constitution because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme. Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be."
Sure, but the key point is that the power rests with the people and not the government.
From Wikipedia:
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training where a scare crow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it."
That is the argument you have used. No one here has ever suggested that people should be allowed to possess WMDs. But it makes a wonderful straw man to beat up on, since our real arguments are too strong to attack. All we're saying is that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own any type of small arms. In Iraq, BTW, the line is drawn (by our military) so that people can have AK-47s, but not RPG launchers.
The last place I saw the "let's accuse pro-gunners of wanting people to have WMDs" argument used was on www.democraticunderground.com. You owe all the pro-gun people on this thread an apology. How would you like it if someone accused you of wanting to put all gun owners in concentration camps? It wouldn't feel so good, would it?
Following that logic, television, radio and the internet do not fall under the first ammendment.
Please note that there were no limits placed on the weapons. Remember, "the people" could own not only handguns, rifles, muskets, and shotguns, but artillery, something that a lot of gun banners seem to forget.
You mentioned that machineguns hadn't been invented yet. Well, neither were radio, television, nor the Internet. Should they be covered by the first amendment?
More importantly, your assertion that "machineguns... aren't easily classified as defensive weapons." You couldn't be farther from the truth. First off, until the advent of submachineguns and "assault rifles," most "machineguns" were crew served weapons, designed to be fired from a solid mount in some sort of emplacement. The most common use for machineguns during WWI was as a defensive weapon. To put it bluntly, those big, heavy water cooled brownings were a real bitch to move. Sure, they could be mounted on vehicles and then used as an offensive weapon, but when fired from an emplacement, they are strictly defensive in nature.
Mark
An M-16 is barely state-of-the-art as individual battle arms go.
They hyperbole of Nuclear weapons or other WMDs in private hands (the equivalent of a Ship of the Line in colonial times) does not change the fact that currently permissable arms without special permit and fees, are well behind the curve of the average infantry battle rifle today. Some weapons, by their economic demands become primarily the equipment of governments--private individuals can neither afford to feed nor maintain them.
Shows what you know. Machine guns - particularly heavy machine guns are much more defensive weapons than offensive (unless mounted on a vehicle)
"But the weapons of the day didn't include WMD. Would they have intended that the 2nd include your right to create and own chemical and biological weapons? A nuke is probably out of your capability, but it if you could buy one from N. Korea, is that fine with the Founders?"
You are sounding more and more like the antis.
"What did they intend, indeed? Machine guns weren't invented yet. They certainly wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves with guns. But machine guns and WMDs aren't easily classified as defensive weapons."
Following that logic then semi-autos and bolt actions would fall into the same catagory. So lets classify them with machine guns.
"If you're arguing that no line should ever be drawn, I disagree. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution because the rights conflict with others when taken to the extreme. Somewhere that line is drawn, and people will always argue where it should be."
So who defines the lines, people that claim that such and such was not not around when they wrote the 2nd so they should be banned. See above for the issue that would happen. Same for taking rights from "criminals" and people with mental issues. Who defines those?
Actually they were. Production & logistics just wasn't convenient yet.
Cannons were. Cannons are WMD's of the time.
Cannons were owned privately and there was no indication from the Founders that they wanted those restricted.