LogFAQs > #969031322

Dark_Spiret posted...

with that so would many other things technically too of which many people on the right are also against

I'm having a little trouble following, but you are correct to point out that the 2nd amendment is talking about militias and not hunting. You're also correct to point out that the text ambiguously allows "arms" (at least I think that's what you're saying) which would have required interpretation even back in 1791. It's unlikely the idea was ever to allow private citizens to own military frigates, for example.

In today's world it absolutely requires interpretation. It's silly to think a private citizen could own an nuclear or chemical weapon, but in theory the 2nd amendment allows that just as much as it would a gun. Point being: absolutism makes no sense and a line must be drawn. Everyone agrees hunting is allowed, even if the right likes to pretend the left opposes it. Everyone agrees nuclear weapons aren't allowed.

I would debate where the line is, but frankly the US missed its chance to clarify this (should have done so around the Civil War). Now that guns are everywhere anyways...what difference does it make? We are going to have to learn why this is a bad idea the hard way (and why reality matters more than an awfully-written, 200-yr-old sentence).