oldtimer Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 would it be cricket to have a cricket bat in the car? What about a fraternity paddle? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 24 minutes ago, oldtimer said: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm Here ya go jeff, original intent explained. I read it enough to get the flavor of it, and yes, it's well-stated. I have no issue with that. It seems very reasonable and accurate to me. I fully-understand the sentiment of the times, but they were dealing with muskets at the time. Things changed. There has certainly been no contention by anyone that the Constitution, with its original intent and all, was guaranteed to withstand the test of eternity. There is an amendment process built right in. I agree, a more democratic approach might have been to follow the amendment process in order to permit modern regulations, but IMO, one way or another, we were destined to have regulations over weaponry. Even back then, they weren't genius enough to think of everything. Right out of the starting gate, it was a constant struggle to define the new government's powers. McCullough vs. Maryland, for example, was an early one, and it was pretty constant after that. Even with an intent to allow no restrictions on arms of any kind whatsoever, I am sure we would have evolved quickly to a set of regulations, such as prohibitions on large quantities of gun powder in multi-family residences, etc. That's just basic, public safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Probably let this run longer than it should. I'll have the other mods look at it and if they decide otherwise we'll open it back up. No Brian, it wasn't your cricket reference, lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts