[ - ] x0x7 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 21, 2022 23:10:04 ago (+1/-0)*
More than AR-15s. The word Arms means implements of war. That's what you are supposed to have protected access to. It doesn't say weapons. It doesn't say guns. It says broadly implements of war (aka arms).
You could maybe argue that nukes aren't included because they are not implements of contemporary war. But whatever has been used with relative frequency in the last 15 or so conflicts the world has seen that's what the second amendment was meant to cover.
So aircraft, surface to air missiles, claymores, armor penetrating shaped explosives, full automatic guns, high altitude drones, smart bombs, grenades, relevant communication systems. These are things the second amendment should cover. It's intended that the citizens at least legally have access to the means of a military.
You have to understand the classist aspects of the second amendment as well. In the Founding Father's understanding of the history preceding them free men were allowed to own weapons. Historically those who were not were peasants or thralls, while Lords would certainly would be permitted to own weapons and would be expected to own the latest of war technology. The experiment of the United States was to get rid of legal classes. You could still have economic classes but there would be not peasants, commoners, lords, or king. Essentially every man a lord, no man a king. And so in their philosophy of their new government, government would not be able to impose the conditions of being a peasant.
What’s happening in China right now is the same thing as happened in America a few months ago, and literally none of you did a thing with any of the AR15s you never shut up about. This has to be the longest running larp in history, the brits have taken out more of their corrupt politicians in the past decade with their pointless knives than yanks have in living memory.
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 21, 2022 23:10:04 ago (+1/-0)*
You could maybe argue that nukes aren't included because they are not implements of contemporary war. But whatever has been used with relative frequency in the last 15 or so conflicts the world has seen that's what the second amendment was meant to cover.
So aircraft, surface to air missiles, claymores, armor penetrating shaped explosives, full automatic guns, high altitude drones, smart bombs, grenades, relevant communication systems. These are things the second amendment should cover. It's intended that the citizens at least legally have access to the means of a military.
You have to understand the classist aspects of the second amendment as well. In the Founding Father's understanding of the history preceding them free men were allowed to own weapons. Historically those who were not were peasants or thralls, while Lords would certainly would be permitted to own weapons and would be expected to own the latest of war technology. The experiment of the United States was to get rid of legal classes. You could still have economic classes but there would be not peasants, commoners, lords, or king. Essentially every man a lord, no man a king. And so in their philosophy of their new government, government would not be able to impose the conditions of being a peasant.
[ + ] Fascinus
[ - ] Fascinus 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 21, 2022 21:07:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 22, 2022 04:11:12 ago (+0/-0)