Quote:
Originally Posted by Elephant Walk
The citizens must be armed to defend itself against the government. That means if a citizen has the means to do it, they should be able to purchase what ever gun the government owns.
|
Not to go all black helicopters, but that's the kind of thinking I was considering.
If the 2nd amendment is an individual concern, I'm more willing to accept some common sense limitations on individuals who are nuts, felons, etc. (Yay, Heller.)
But if it's a collective-militia based right, then how was the 1994 federal assault rifle ban constitutional?
I think for most people who go back and look at "here's why the framers did this," the 2nd is not just a reflection of concern about the British; it's a concern about any government the people find oppressive. And if the 2nd amendment is about taking martial action, how can the federal gov't, limit weapons at the state level?
Does anyone remember how this was resolved in debate?