Every state has restricted ownership of advanced weapons since the Constitution was written, and before.
214 mrsmith
______________________________________
Doesn't make it right. Of course, they also were not states really until they actually adopted the constitution as the law of the land... THEN they got statehood.
218 -Chad-
______________________________________
mrsmith wrote: Then amend the Constitution or move to a nation that requires people be allowed to own any and every weapon they may want... machine guns, bazookas, jet fighters, nukes, chemical bombs.
______________________________________
Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad.
As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
______________________________________
Well said JR.
I am curious though on how you see the 'States right', - claimed by Calif, - to prohibit assault weapons.
As Chad mentioned above, territories of the US, prior to statehood, did not have a right to infringe upon the 2nd.
Mrsmith claims they did, as do many Keyes supporters. How say you?
It says our rights "shall not be infringed." Appears to me that the second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms from being infringed upon by any government.