LogFAQs > #896970697

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	"take the guns first, go through due process second."
Syntheticon 03/01/18 1:37:28 AM #8:	Rasmoh posted... Syntheticon posted... We need to decide if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides or revise it entirely to suit modern requirements. Well regulated at the time meant up-to-date and properly maintained. And there were also much more efficient arms available at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment than the same tired musket argument that ignoramuses like to stroll out. Not to mention owning artillery and battleships at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting was A-OK. But that's exactly the issue-we need to agree if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides. Pro gun people say it gives them carte blanche to own any gun they want, with as few restrictions and oversight as possible so they ignore the literal "well regulated militia" part and anti-gun people argue that the spirit of the law with the comparison to older vs newer style weapons isn't being followed. At the very least, it needs to be updated to use less exploitable language. There's not much point arguing about the issue if we can't even agree what the issue is-it's called an amendment for a reason so it needs updating ASAP. --- Mod me? You don't even know me! <cite>Syntheticon posted [p:896970697] in "take... [t:76368889]...</cite> <quote><cite>Rasmoh posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Syntheticon posted...</cite> <quote>We need to decide if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides or revise it entirely to suit modern requirements.</quote> Well regulated at the time meant up-to-date and properly maintained. And there were also much more efficient arms available at the time of the drafting of the 2nd amendment than the same tired musket argument that ignoramuses like to stroll out. Not to mention owning artillery and battleships at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting was A-OK.</quote> But that's exactly the issue-we need to agree if we're going to follow the letter or the spirit of the law in all situations, on both sides. Pro gun people say it gives them carte blanche to own any gun they want, with as few restrictions and oversight as possible so they ignore the literal "well regulated militia" part and anti-gun people argue that the spirit of the law with the comparison to older vs newer style weapons isn't being followed. At the very least, it needs to be updated to use less exploitable language. There's not much point arguing about the issue if we can't even agree what the issue is-it's called an amendment for a reason so it needs updating ASAP. --- Mod me? You don't even know me!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1