From the article:
However, there is another historical element to the Second Amendment that is never discussed in the gun control debate: the nature of “arms” in the 18th century. When the Constitution was written, there were only three different kinds of “arms”: muskets, pistols, and rifles. Muskets, the weapon of choice for the colonists and the British during the American Revolution, were single shot, muzzle loaded weapons that were very inaccurate and had a slow rate of fire. The pistols of this era were also single shot weapons with spotty accuracy and a slow rate of fire. Rifles, while more accurate than the former two weapons, had an even slower rate of fire and were typically relegated to hunting expeditions.
All three of these weapons were used to perform feasible tasks in their day and age. Cities and towns were sparsely protected by any official army or police force, so they were a good tool for self defense. Grocery stores weren’t around yet, so hunting was a necessity for many people if they wanted to eat. However, none of the aforementioned weapons could turn any single, unstable individual into a killing machine. They couldn’t fire off dozens of highly accurate rounds in a span of a few seconds. They couldn’t be reloaded in seconds. They couldn’t be tweaked and remolded in ways that made them even more deadly.
Our 21st century weaponry was inconceivable to the Founding Fathers. Their concept of guns and a full-fledged national military were vastly different from the concepts that we now recognize. Therefore, it’s unwise to accept the current wording of the Second Amendment as applicable in 2012.
This isn’t a shocking or unpatriotic thing to say. Contrary to the common position touted by many Conservative pundits, the U.S. Constitution is not an untouchable, insoluble document. The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution so that new amendments could be added on and older ones could be repealed, and they did this for a reason. They, unlike their pseudo contemporaries, recognized that as times change, it’s occasionally necessary to alter the Constitution to reflect new universal standards. Remember, this document once endorsed the concept of slavery, barred women from voting, and forbid the commercial distribution of alcohol. All of those unsavory elements of the Constitution were eventually nullified.
= new reply since forum marked as read
