• MomoTimeToDie
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m being facetious with the guy saying that weapons that would be valuable in civil defense should be fair game. Because should it actually come down to a matter of civil defense, you can bet your ass that truck mounted .50 calibers and larger anti-anor and anti-vehicle weapons are on the table.

        • MomoTimeToDie
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The 2nd amendment was about rifles

          Then why was “arms”, a fundamentally broad term that obviously encompasses far more than just rifles, used, specifically alongside “shall not be infringed”? If the goal were just for every man to be able to own a single rifle, would they have not written it as such?

            • MomoTimeToDie
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              At the time arms meant the weapon you carried

              Source on this?

                • MomoTimeToDie
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No it isn’t. I want an actual source, not just some random article with the equivalent of “dude, trust me” as it’s source. Beyond that, the article doesn’t make the claim you’re making, which is that the 2nd amendment excludes some weapons. Just that it definitely does include modern select fire rifles and handguns.