Quote:
Originally Posted by AmateurFlix
for the same reason that the general public - and the world's militaries - should not be permitted to possess germ warfare capabilities.
those type of weapons kill indiscriminately.
when our nation was founded weapons technology was limited mainly to projectile weapons (yes, armor piercing ones in some cases, if the gun was big enough) and cutting instruments, so we can assume those are the type of arms they were referring to, weapons that a person is able to control and direct towards a particular target. modern firearms may look a bit different, however they function based on essentially the same principles as used back then.
the nightmare that is germ warfare and nuclear annihilation was inconceivable at that time, and is of little practical use in a battle of any nature on land that one intends to occupy after using it. it serves no purpose in the interest of preserving the republic against a rebel government and would provide no benefit in peacetime.
now please quit trying to be a smart ass  |
The funny thing is, the same argument you made about why more powerful weapons should not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment is the same argument Washington D.C. made about handguns.
And this isn't part of the discussion, but germ warfare wasn't inconceivable. It's been used since ancient times when one side would catapult dead people infected with bubonic plague onto the other sides territory during battle. It even took place on our own land when Indians would poison lakes with sick, dead, animal hides. British soldiers near the time of our independence would hand blankets ridden with small pox over to the Native Americans. None of this was inconceivable, especially since many of the writers of our Constitution has dealt with close family members being infected with smallpox.