Plata Plomo y Sangre
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:49:41 +0000
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Tactical Leg Sweep
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Keltoi Samurai
yes, weapons. at the time, that meant muskets, as muskets were what the people were understood to be allowed to keep, and also happened to be the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware.
so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?
so, from that, it's pretty safe to infer that in a world where the pinnacle of man-portable military-grade hardware is the musket, then by putting muskets in the hands of civilians shows a clear intent to give them access to the pinnacle of man-portable military grade hardware, correct?
No, it meant "weapons" then also. If it meant muskets, it would have stated muskets. Not to mention they were inferior weapons to rifles, unless mass produced thanks to a musket's better rate of fire and lower cost. The reason it stated "arms" was to be deliberately broad.
However, if one wishes to observe the modern circumstances under which a real, contemporary militia would operate? I'd argue those "arms" need to include artillery, air support, armour and anti-armour capability. Private citizen militias are clearly not allowed to own these items. Do you think they should be able to?
SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is not contingent upon service in a militia, if that's what you're getting.
Thanks for the information. Not being an American I'm not always clued in with what your Supreme Court has ruled on all matters. The gun debate is very downplayed here (mainly because such a debate is not at all desired by the British government).
No problem. I actually wasn't aware of the ruling myself until one of these debates and I stumbled upon it.