8th
I think we should respect the *strict* interpretation of the constitution. It says we shall have the right to “bear arms”. “Arms” is a very vague term.
So, either… …stop guessing what they meant by “arms” and let us bear whatever arms we want… guns, bombs, nuclear missiles, F-15 Tomcat fighter jets, shoulder launched rockets, land mines. (This is clearly an absurd option. There’s no way our founding fathers envisioned these kinds of weapons.)
…or, take them at their meaning of the time. Let anyone have a muzzle loading, single shot musket or pistol. What? You can’t get more than 1 shot per minute? What a shame.
a comment on Gotham Gal’s post on gun control
(via fred-wilson)
A very, very bad idea, either way. I assume Gotham Gal and Fred aren’t really proposing a totalist view of “arms.” It’s what they call a reductio ad absurdum.
The only serious proposal is that we interpret arms as they existed when the second amendment was passed. If that sounds sensible to you, consider how it would apply to other amendments. Let’s start with the first one. Should “freedom of the press” be confined to late eighteenth century printing methods? Bye-bye internet, modern newspapers, television, radio, every book on Amazon. What? You can’t get your point of view across except through a locally distributed, hand printed paper? What a shame.
Do the guarantees of religious freedoms apply only to then existing religions?
You can see where this ends up. You don’t really want to argue for this interpretation of the Constitution.
(via johncarney)
