[Joe 6-pack]

"Does anyone suppose that the folks writing the 2nd Amendment in the late 18th century envisioned the type of "arms" we have available today in the 21st century? And...if they could have, do you suppose the 2nd Amendment would have read exactly the same way?"

To be intellectually consistent, you would have to ask the same question about the First Amendment protections given to the press and ask if the founders could have envisioned radio, tv, the blogosphere, etc. Would the first amendment have read the same way?

In short answer to your original question, yes. I fervantly believe they would have written it that way, and furthermore, if they had foreseen the degree of doubt and ambiguity many would cast upon its intent, they would have probably worded it far more strongly in support of the individual. I say this not out of a strong emotional reaction toward the issue, but simply because of one very simple extrapolation of our founding fathers' logic: We (Americans) were intended to be governed by our own consent. One CANNOT, by definition, consent to anything unless on reserves and retains the ability to dissent, and this is the entire premise of the Second Amendment.

[LilDarlin]

Good arguement and well constructed.
Be kind of fun for a group of US citizens to draft an original amendment today on - oh say...religious freedoms - that would make sense to or have any relevance for folks in the 23rd century; a measly 200+ years away.

[rahbert]

That is an important point. This forum is the equivalent
of an "assault weapon" compared to the public square of
yore.

I used to believe similarly to the author of the piece until I realized this exact same inconsistency.