Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
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.
|
You're twisting my words, I have said nothing about 'powerful' weapons.
I spoke merely of weapons of precision as opposed to weapons which cannot be controlled or directed and that kill indiscriminately. Those are two very different topics, do not confuse them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
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.
|
I think it's safe to say that catapulting corpses infected with common and naturally occurring illnesses is a bit different than the exotic man-made or refined strains of extremely weird and deadly shit that scientists have cooked up in modern labs
So yes, modern germ/chemical warfare would have been inconceivable to them. The framers of our constitution were no doubt brilliant men, but I don't think they could easily predict 150+ years of scientific "advancement" into a field which did not even exist during their lifetimes.