HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Civil Liberties (Group) » Strict Constructionists a...

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:30 PM

Strict Constructionists and the Second Amendment [View all]

So, in the spirit of strict constructionism, letís apply that to the Second Amendment. Individuals can stock up on all the muzzle loaders, crossbows, longbows, swords, pikes, and battle-axes they want, but any weapon more advanced than what was available in 1791 can be banned by local authorities. Furthermore, in keeping with that strict constructionist interpretation, violators can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sentenced to very lengthy prison terms.

Repeat offenders, at least at first, may unfortunately have to be hanged just to get the point across that We The People are serious about this. Recidivism would thus be low after awhile.

This way, the peopleís right to keep and bear arms is NOT infringed, and the peopleís right to send their kids to school or to the movies without fear of being mowed down by automatic weapons is likewise not infringed.

Whatís so unreasonable about that? Iím sure most of the Founding Fathers would approve.



Couldn't agree more. Flintlocks and bayonets and swords were what the Founding Fathers knew. Strict constructionism applies to the technology then available.

And no one is interpreting the Second Amendment as allowing citizens to carry bazookas, grenades, and rocket launchers while driving around in their Tank. So seems there must be some limits on how Americans can and cannot bear arms. Or maybe there isn't. Maybe that will be the new frontier, the next generation's protection.

16 replies, 8262 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread