Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Does anyone else find it rather shocking that there is an entire law that flat-out prohibits an entire class of modern small arms, period? It was always my understanding that excuses for the constitutionality of things like the NFA were based in part on the argument that "control" is okay, but that universal prohibition would be going too far. I think even a small child could point out today that surface-to-air missiles are an integral part of any modern day military. Rendering them difficult to possess through taxes, or regulation, or high cost barriers to manufacturing is one thing, but legislating that the United States government is the only entity on the planet allowed to purchase and use them strikes pretty deeply.
Many people have made the point that the protections of the 2nd are quite flimsy insofar that small quantities of shoulder-fired weaponry pose relatively little threat to a modern military. I guess they were right. The 2nd Amendment as it was envisioned is truly dead. All it is now is a permit to play with toys-just so long as they're not too effective of toys.
Many people have made the point that the protections of the 2nd are quite flimsy insofar that small quantities of shoulder-fired weaponry pose relatively little threat to a modern military. I guess they were right. The 2nd Amendment as it was envisioned is truly dead. All it is now is a permit to play with toys-just so long as they're not too effective of toys.