On 12/19/2014 2:02 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
They also failed to foresee that hand-held weapons would become so powerful.
Are you sure that more powerful hand-held weapons would change their minds about the
need to keep a balance of power between the government and the citizens? I suspect it
would just reinforce the idea.
They foresaw a country without a standing army with an armed citizenry that could be
called upon to defend their states. So I think the straight forward interpretation of the
2nd amendment is that citizens have the right to the same arms that are commonly issued to
individual soldiers - which would be assault rifles. I think the U.S. government could
ban handguns - but not assault rifles. And this might go a long way toward reducing gun
homicides because as it is now almost all homicides are with handguns. Long guns account
for only a few percent - but they are the guns used by madmen in mass murders and so get
all the press.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
