(August 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes all they had to work with at the time were the most powerful and deadly hand held weapons ever devised. Maybe they should have specified bows and arrows. Not like this shit is written in stone. Throw it up for review if we want to change it right?
Red herring and you know it. I am speaking to the usage of weaponry of that time frame and the multifaceted nature of such -- most non-city dwelling families could be expected to own a hunting rifle. As Britain invested in the economies of it's colonies, the fledgling States had enough of an economic engine to keep relatively up to date with regards to weaponry.
However, I reiterate, that the usage, form factor, capabilities and mass production of weapons has far outstripped the original environment in which the Right to Bear Arms was envisioned.
Now, I'm not being anti-firearm as I am being pro-context. And the context is certainly different between then and now.
And yes, perhaps it is time to review it. However, noting the muddled court rulings over time, a clear policy looks elusive.
