9th Circuit Ruling

[Haaheo okole puka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haaheo okole puka

Hereontheprimaledge.

Those words were not scribed under the definition of modern usage. They were scribed under the definition of their meaning at the time.

---

I'm not an expert of the English language circa late 1700's. But let's say (for the sake of a spirited argument) that your definition is true.

During the late 1700's it was also true the weapons used were limited to single shot muskets and the like. So if the English language of that time provides our definition for the phrase "well regulated," isn't it just as important that the technology of the time guide our usage of what types of guns can be used under the 2nd Amendment? That is, if we want to adhere to a strict interpretation of both grammar and gun usage by the founding fathers when they wrote the Amendment?

---

You are correct and there are limitations placed on the type of firearms that are accepted as arms in the case of the second amendment. The reasoning behind why more modern firearms are accepted is also addressed in some court opinions. There are also allowances for the progression of these arms.

The second amendment did not secure a right to tote around cannons, mortars, hand grenades, other heavy ordinance etc. It was formed to protect the individual right to protection of State, self protection, hunting, and even to ward off rogue government if need be (lets hope it never comes to that need for us). The battle of Athens in 1946 is an example of recent protection against tyrannical government.


~Proud A-hole