That takes guts. Kudos and welcome to the fray! ;^)
'Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms.' What are 'arms' anyway??
Well, there's the Founders' intended meaning, and there's the current meaning offered by the Supremes (or, more accurately, the older interpretation that is promoted by default, since they rarely will hear gun cases). The definition I agreee with is "those weapons carried by the common footsoldiers of the time." The point of the 2nd is that the population must be allowed to take on their government's military, if it had to. With a 100-to-1 numerical advantage (along with the advantages of anonymity and not being massed in any single location), we'll be a clear winner if we have the same weaponry as the opposing infantry.
Does this mean that we can, say, warehouse handheld missiles, or nuclear weapons? It seems to me that technology, alone, requires constant review and proscription, i.e., regulation, when necessary. And technology is but one example.
I must respectfully disagree. Since the military's tech improves every year, ours must, too. Some think that the "soldier-carried weapon" definition should include the limitation that the weapons be non-random as possible, which elimiinates even suit-case nukes from potential inclusion into the argument. (A rifle can only shoot one person at a time, but a grenade or nuke is a danger to innocent bystanders, and cannot be controlled by the user once the "trigger" is pulled.) I'm not sure that I'd agree, since shotguns are slightly more random with their spread pattern... but shotguns have been crucial for military actions and for home defense for a very long time.
As for Giuliani's statement , no gotcha there, in my view. His statement is plain, a given and even, I daresay, pro-Second Amendment.
His statement shows a better handling of the population's current (and misguided) understanding of the Second Amendment... but it isn't as "pro-" as it should be. One intriguing notion he brings to my mind: since the needs of urban areas are so different from suburban and rural areas, maybe it would be appropriate to have difference laws based on population density, rather than geography. (Of course, this has absolutely zero Constitutional basis, but it seems like a more pointed solution to the current problems.)
Gun regulation, like all regulation, must be consistent with the Constitution and all of its amendments, i.e., laws must be constitutional.
True, but the Second Amendment talks about the regulation of the militia, not of arms.
People are now twisting the plain meaning of Giuliani's statement to serve their political ends.
Does this surprise anyone here? Are there any politics junkies who don't do this, even on FR?
Thank you. :)
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).
Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.
This assertion is simply, flatly untrue.
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time). Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today.
So is this one.
You are both trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire arguments are invalid.