Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances fr…
Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances from muzzle-loaders to AR-15s, why not apply the same rationale to all arms?
I agree. Or even nuclear arms? The point is that what we have is a law written for a different time period. What if it had been written much earlier and had read, every man has a right to wear a sword?
Devil's advocate question: Why does the term "arms" in the amendment need to refer specifically to guns? Wouldn't a strict textual reading of the amendment give me the right (as long as I'm a well-regulated militia) to posses a rocket launcher, landmines, F-22, aircraft carrier, etc? If we're going to ignore the technological advances from muzzle-loaders to AR-15s, why not apply the same rationale to all arms?
I agree. Or even nuclear arms? The point is that what we have is a law written for a different time period. What if it had been written much earlier and had read, every man has a right to wear a sword?