(July 17, 2018 at 5:34 pm)Aegon Wrote: But it's all about historical relativity. Regardless of what the writers meant then, it's imperative to ensure that the document remains relevant. Going by the literal reading of the Second Amendment is asinine today, for precisely the reason I provided: guns have changed. If you read the Constitution, it has to be through the lens of the current day, otherwise you're enforcing 1789 law in 2018. Which is stupid.
It's not just the guns that have changed. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the USA did not have a standing national army and did not envision acquiring one. That's changed a bit, and it affects the justifications for the amendment.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
