Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Zon
That's a very interesting observation. Aside from the obvious, steak knives and baseball bats, suddenly I realized the absurdity of limiting the primary thrust of the 2nd amendment to just the 2nd amendment only; regards the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear _______ (fill in blank with any object) shall not be infringed.

How many objects are there which would not be protected by a maximally-interpreted Second Amendment? Distilled alcohol may of course be used to make firebombs (surely firebombs predat Molotov). Most objects could be used to strike people. Making water into a striking weapon would have taken a few months (wait for winter) but it could certainly have been used as a weapon once frozen. Even a bag full of wet noodles could have been used as a weapon by stuffing the noodles quickly into the victim's mouth so as to cause choking.

105 posted on 03/20/2007 7:43:56 PM PDT by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: supercat

Yes. My point was that it shouldn't be or isn't necessary for an object to be designated a weapon in order for the right of the people to keep an bear that object not to be infringed. That in part, is what the 9th and 10th amendments essentially say.


115 posted on 03/20/2007 8:16:46 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson