Originally Posted by Ruggles
No offense but that is way to simplistic. The weapons systems of then are not the weapon system of now. Drive down to the local megamart store, look around and tell me you want all of those folks with free access to some RPG7s, SA7s, maybe a surplus T-60, or some nice chemical weapions...or how about your neighbor storing a half dozen 500lb bombs in his garage?
Also the militia of the 1700s were on par with the military arms of the day as the musket and cannon were much more basic weapons than today. That type of balance between the civilian and military of today is simple not achievable. Using it as a point of debate is simply outdated IMO.
It really isn't all that outdated. The 2nd amendment was created to protect the people from a tyrannical government. It was intended so the general a population would be able to fight off a threatening government...like Britain. Just because the weapon systems then were very basic doesn't mean it becomes invalid now. IF we ever had to fight the federal government we would essentially be at a disadvantage because they are allowed to own things we are not. The bottom line is, the government does not trust individuals with such massive fire power. It is sad we have gotten here, especially since in the big scheme of things, this is not that big of a deal. (I.e. cars kill more people than guns, so do doctors, so do a lot of things)