05-17-2017, 02:35 PM
(05-16-2017, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(05-16-2017, 10:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:(05-16-2017, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(05-16-2017, 05:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows. In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt.
The original intent, and the wording of the text, was all sorts of arms, not just the few sorts of arms that you are fond of. You are projecting your daydreams on the Constitution rather than reading what the Constitution actually says.
Yes, you are describing your ideal world. That's harmless. I'd be much more careful about not confusing your blue daydreams with the history of the United States of America. I'd be aware that red leaning people have daydreams too, daydreams much more compatible with the laws of the land.
Since you mentioned history, let's look at the state of the world when the Bill of Rights was written. The world was still in the Agricultural Age, and the prospect of an industrial future with the advances it would create weren't even contemplated. It's hard to argue that this amendment was intended to support technology no one could even dream about at the time.
By the late 1700s concepts such as self contained rounds, repeating / semiautomatic operation, etc, existed but were at that point unproven and not practical to implement due to the limitations of parts / dimensional controls / manufacturing processes. But it didn't take long after that - a mere 60 years.
... which makes my point. Why would anyone existing in an era that had run for the entire breadth of known history assume that this would miraculously change in the immediate future ... or ever?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.