Quote:
Originally posted by widebody911
Ah, so handguns are out then?
|
Nope; the Amendment says "...keep and bear arms..." -- "bear" implies "carry."
I'd argue that when you get into arms that cannot be "carried" by an individual you are pressing the limits of arms the Founders were thinking of when creating the 2nd Amendment.
Of course it is not the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment that "gives" anybody any rights -- which I suspect is the direction of your argument. What the Founding Fathers had in mind when writing the Constitution is superceded by more fundamental arguments about individual rights.
If a person has a right to his/her own life, it logically follows that they also should have the right to own tools that can protect that life. Firearms are extremely efficient tools one can use, with minimal training and practice, to defend against attacks against one's life, property and liberty. Without self-defense tools, those who are physically weaker are at a distinct disadvantage if attacked by a criminal. (Criminologist have conducted studies involving interviews of criminals and have found that criminals normally choose their victims very carefully; they look for those they expect to be able to physically overpower.)
When you are looking at types of weapons that should be legal and those that should be prohibited from individual ownership, I believe that one should take into consideration the usefulness in personal defense of the weapon. Today, especially when considering the importing laws on firearms, "sporting purposes" is more important than "self-defense" uses.
I think the more fundamental issue in the gun debate is that many who are "against guns" are also against the idea of people having a "right to self-defense" -- which always leaves me wondering what sort of mad world such people desire to live in?