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.
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.--Mia T
... You are... trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire argument... [is] invalid.--tarheelswamprat
The point of my original argument is that 'regulation' is not necessarily the enemy of the 2nd amendment, that 'regulation' can in fact save the 2nd amendment as well as kill it.
I formulated the Founders'-underlying-intent premise originally as a hypothetical. That said, I believe the premise is, in fact, true. Show me why it is not.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary..."
Simple grammar disagrees with you.
How exactly does the word "regulate" modify "arms" and not "militia" in the text of Second Amendment? It is part of a subordinate clause. "The right... shall not be infringed" is the meat of the Amendment... and that says nothing about regulating that right or that all-important tool.