[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:27:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:

She supports the entire amendment as intended by those who wrote it. You're making a common error of interpretation. There are issues of context, history and meaning that won't be obvious to 21st century eyes - and through a particular misguided bias. It doesn't say "people may possess arms only as members of a government militia" which is how many want to interpret it. Any argument you might against this has been made and is wrong and been officially declared as such by the SCOTUS.

That ruling was made under pressure from the gun lobby, and is not an
interpretation of the first part, it is flat out ignoring it. So less
of the bull**** please.

The initial intention of the second amendment was to preserve the ability
to have a revolution; that is, it exists to protect the right to form an
independent militia. As such, it really shouldn't apply at all to handguns,
which are of little military use,

Oh, c'mon. Randolph Scott demonstrated clearly that handguns were to be
used to shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand.

and it should instead protect your right
to own tanks, bomber aircraft, and nuclear weapons, which are the current
state of the art military hardware in much the way that guns were in 1789.

The thing is, modern military hardware can make asymmetric warfare very very
effective, and there are some good arguments why one might not want to allow
private ownership of nuclear weapons, for instance.

So we are kind of stuck in a difficult place that was never really forseen
by the founding fathers, and which people on both sides of the aisle today
persist in ignoring.
--scott


--
Les Cargill