Let's consider the 2nd ammendment debate?

  1. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    For those so 2nd ammendment rights oriented, perhaps we should go back to the original document? Lose all the changes over the years and just follow what so  many are debating! DId our founding fathers really want it changed? And if so, what changes would they have approved? If changes to the document were their intent, perhaps gun restrictions would be something they would have favored? Of course, that's up for opinion and interpretation. Similar to the current debate. Up to opinion and interpretation. It's easy for either side to interpret the document that best favors their views. What are your thoughts? Be nice!

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Arms: weapons of offense or armor of defense. Keep and bear equals own and carry. So, it's pretty clear what they meant, they meant what they said.

      Reading concurrent documents further solidifies the point... It's not about hunting.

  2. movingout profile image60
    movingoutposted 3 years ago

    No it's not hunting. It was for an armed militia to check slaves for ammo and arms. To keep the slaves from uprising mostly in the south.. Again, it's open to interpretation.