• 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.