- haloplayer2kill
- |
- Senior Heroic Member
So i have noticed that some people opposed to the 2nd Amendment, say that the founding fathers were only thinking about one-shot, musket/rifle weapons, when they wanted the common man to be able to own a firearm.
And that because guns have become more advanced/dangerous, that the amendment should be changed/abolished, because the reality of present day guns is not the same as it was in the 18th century.
However, couldn't it be said that the founding fathers were aware of the possible future existence of more advanced firearms? And expected the 2nd amendment to support those future guns as well?
After all, even in the 18th century, guns had advanced from previous designs. In the 1700's they had flintlock weapons, an advancement from the Matchlock and Wheellock firearms.
Also it would be pretty stupid to think that the founding fathers thought gun tech would remain the same throughout the future of USA/Mankind.
Remember that the entire Constitution was made in a way that could last a long time, even through changes in society/technology.
So once again, do you think that the advancement of firearms somehow makes the 2nd amendment less valid?
[Edited on 12.16.2012 2:01 PM PST]