Exactly. Just like how they deny me my first amendment right to show my displeasure at toll hikes by blowing up the bridge.
Exactly. Just like how they deny me my first amendment right to show my displeasure at toll hikes by blowing up the bridge.If I can't purchase a fully functional abrams tank, then my rights are being infringed.
I don't give a shit what our founders believed; societies change.
I think our current laws are generally ok.
Although I wouldn't be butt hurt if the democratically elected officials decided to add some more restriction.
It will be quite a long time until they completely take away personal protection firearms, which is all I care about.
a. The right to have guns the functional equivalent to what was around when they wrote the constitution, i.e. some flintlock musket or its equivalent
trumphed again by russia.
I beg to differ. I read early American history books for fun. And yes, I agree the founding fathers were likely more intelligent than me (you as well).You are another one ignorant of history. And btw, our founders were far more intelligent than you.
Understood. The early principals were great, but even they couldn't have envisioned our world as it is 200 years later, hence, our amendments.What they set down was a set of principles that can be applied as we progress. Those principles were meant to keep our government in check as our country evolved.
I do care, that's why I specifically said I cared about personal protection firearms. Militias are cool and all, but I want personal protection as well, and believe that was intended by "right to bear arms".And just because the government restricting something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you shouldn't care.
Thanks a lot for the kind words but it is still (a) and you will find the reasons for that too if you look closely!Than you're an idiot, ignorant of history and the writings of the founders. And you have zero reading comprehension skills as other posters have explained precisely why it's B.
I'm pretty sure they meant all weapons. I doubt they though about weapons like we have to day being possible. The whole point of the second amendment was to prevent the government from overpowering its citizens. (if citizens can't form their own militia to fight the government, freedom can be taken away if the government becomes corrupt)
I beg to differ. I read early American history books for fun. And yes, I agree the founding fathers were likely more intelligent than me (you as well).
Understood. The early principals were great, but even they couldn't have envisioned our world as it is 200 years later, hence, our amendments.
I do care, that's why I specifically said I cared about personal protection firearms. Militias are cool and all, but I want personal protection as well, and believe that was intended by "right to bear arms".
Thanks a lot for the kind words but it is still (a) and you will find the reasons for that too if you look closely!
Operation of tanks would be an interesting 2nd Amendment case. The 2nd clearly recognizes a right to keep a tank. "Bear" in this case could be interpreted to allow operating the tank. However, operating a tank on public roads would almost certainly damage the roads. In my mind, the question would be, "Does the state interest in having un-smashed roads override the people's 2nd Amendment right to operate tanks?"If I can't purchase a fully functional abrams tank, then my rights are being infringed.
Operation of tanks would be an interesting 2nd Amendment case. The 2nd clearly recognizes a right to keep a tank. "Bear" in this case could be interpreted to allow operating the tank. However, operating a tank on public roads would almost certainly damage the roads. In my mind, the question would be, "Does the state interest in having un-smashed roads override the people's 2nd Amendment right to operate tanks?"
Driving on the public roadways is a privilege, true. However, would the exercise of a 2nd Amendment right to operate a tank raise that privilege to a right or would there be a compelling state interest in abridging that right in the interest of road preservation. Much like zoning restrictions must yield to religious expression in some cases.Driving on the road wouldn't be allowed. It doesn't meet the specifications for visibility, indicators, weight, etc. Plus driving is a privilege not a right. However, if you had a lot of land to drive it on, I don't see why not. People do own tanks and drive them on their own land. Though they are not armed. I want an armed one. You know, for target practice.