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.
P.S. I think you mean 'unsound,' (not 'invalid'). --Mia T
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.--the Congressional Record, as posted by SJackson
The Congressional Record appears to support my premise.
meant to include you. Sorry.
Presuming you mean that rights granted to the individual under the 2nd amendment can be regulated, of course, all our rights, speech, assembly, can be regulated. That thing in the OK Corral was about wearing guns in town. A not uncommon restriction and to my knowledge never litigated in those days.
Rudy passes the issue off to the states, as in I did what I did in an urban enviornment, and it's not a Federal problem. Appealing to some. But unlike abortion, there is a clear Constitutional issue involved here. Shall not be infringed. Rudy feels that state regulation based on the size, or visual profile of firearms is not a restriction. Even when applied retroactively, as it that rifle looks nasty, think I'll pick it up. In my view that fails the infringement test.
For what it's worth, the quote is from Elbridge Gerry, later VP under Madison, who attended the Constitutional Convention, and voted against it. Didn't prevent him from serving in the House.