Joined
·
35 Posts
Keeping in mind that the 2nd Amendment says "arms," which is a considerably broader term than "guns"...
I have several friends who insist the 2nd Amendment means they should be allowed to have any weapon they want and can afford, up to and including nuclear bombs, since the Founders' intent was for "We the People" to be capable of overthrowing the government and that kind of weaponry is what it would take.
I get that, but at the same time, I highly doubt the Founders foresaw nukes, or that they would support just any old crackpot being able to get hold of that kind of destructive power.
And yet, this does seem like an area where the "slippery slope" line of reasoning seems reasonable. If citizens can't have certain categories of modern military arms, then where does the line get drawn?
I'd be interested in other perspectives on this, since I'm personally not sure where I stand (although I grant it's largely academic at this point.)
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
I have several friends who insist the 2nd Amendment means they should be allowed to have any weapon they want and can afford, up to and including nuclear bombs, since the Founders' intent was for "We the People" to be capable of overthrowing the government and that kind of weaponry is what it would take.
I get that, but at the same time, I highly doubt the Founders foresaw nukes, or that they would support just any old crackpot being able to get hold of that kind of destructive power.
And yet, this does seem like an area where the "slippery slope" line of reasoning seems reasonable. If citizens can't have certain categories of modern military arms, then where does the line get drawn?
I'd be interested in other perspectives on this, since I'm personally not sure where I stand (although I grant it's largely academic at this point.)
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk