Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
It was in a different thread awhile back. And only people who don't understand the true intention of the 2nd Amendment (or I guess don't care about it) would think it moronic.
It's good to know that you know what the "true intention" of the 2nd Amendment was.
You're insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was made so that people could overthrow their government. I say that is a silly argument because a new government would not put a provision in it to allow its people to overthrow it. The Civil War showed that the US never had any intention of allowing its citizens to do so.
Rather, if you have any understanding of military history, the specific wording of the Amendment is important:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Militias were the primary form of home defense back in the day. They were well-regulated. They trained to protect citizens from incursions from Native American tribes, and in the case of the Revolutionary War, invasions from foreign countries. Even during the Civil War, regulated militias played a huge part in the armies of both sides, and during time of war were put under command of the US Army. Think of these militias as the National Guard of their time.
In my experience, pro-gun people are always quick to quote the second half of the Amendment, but always seem to forget the first half.
Additionally, we passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, allowing black men to vote. Then the 19th Amendment 50 years later, allowing women to vote. This shows that, yes, we can
revisit Amendments that have outlived their usefulness. The argument can be made as well that the framers of the Constitution could not have had any clue to the technological advances that would eventually take place with regard to gun manufacturing...hell, even using the word "manufacturing" as relates to guns in the 18th Century is a big-ass stretch.
That conservative fishwrap the New York Post said it pretty well the other day:
"Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?
That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?
We say: Yes."