Originally Posted by LawScholar
This isn't mentioned enough. The Founding Fathers were not some solid block of the same opinions. In fact the Constitution as drafted did not even HAVE a bill of rights, they threw it in at the last minute to appease the Antifederalists.
"Shall not be infringed" without anything else is an argument as devoid of reason and logic as "Guns kill people".
I don't consider being okay with heavier regulations on full-auto and explosives "used to the oppression", I consider it well-reasoned restriction just like background checks. Yeah, if we must go there, I trust my neighbors with AR-15s and Glocks, but not with Stingers and RPG-7s. People are pretty darn stupid these days, they can't control their waistlines or balance a checkbook. At a certain point we have to step back from the hard line and realize the total absurdity of privately owned nukes and 155mm artillery.
The problem with "well reasoned" is by whose standards? And are those standards unilaterally accepted? See this is the problem I have with "well reasoned" and "common sense", those two prose are subjective to the author and discount the audience in many cases.