Again....But it's never the guns!

[Shell B]

The government also has tanks and nuclear weapons. Should we have those, too?

What makes a tank dangerous, Tara? The guns. Furthermore, people can own tanks and do. And . . . the government is not supposed to have nuclear weapons. Try again.

Also, worth considering, the second amendment was written a long time ago.

Not nearly as long ago as some people like to make it out. Your great grandparent could have been around for that if you were quite old; it is that recent. It's not the fucking Magna Carta.

The guns they had then were primitave muskets, not semi-automatic assault rifles. It's worth considering what the framers would have said if such destructive weapons existed then.

Oh, yes, primitive weapons that could set fire to towns and destroy them, tear through the sides of buildings and kill people just easily as your assault rifles. Pfft. Seriously, if you think a gun is any more destructive than gas, swords, cannons, etc., you are yet another victim of history lesson failure. The Civil War. Read about it.

But if we're looking at the constitution, let's take a better look at the second amendment, shall we?

Haha. Yes, let's do.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let me put that into plain English. "Because militia is necessary to the security of this country, the right to bear arms will remain indefinitely." It does not say it has to be for militia.

Now, before we go trying to figure out what the framers of the Constitution would feel about "destructive" weapons, let's remember that they charged each other head on among cannon fire across fields back then. Let's also try to remember what they said about weapons and rebellion in their own words. I mean, we're on the internet as we speak. Google is right there for anyone to use.