I had one idiot in another site tell me that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give me the right to own a large capacity magazine or and autoloader .22....
He says when the 2nd Amendment was written, there were only muzzle loaders and THAT is all we can legally have...*LOL*
Can you believe some of these people??????
First amendment, therefore, doesn’t apply to any technology newer than a quill pen and parchment paper.
“there were only muzzle loaders and THAT is all we can legally have”
Then freedom of the press only applies to 18th century printing technology.
Or, take another tack. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it was protecting (note, protecting not granting) our right to own exactly the same weapons as our military had at that point. So it could be construed as to protect our right to be armed equally as the military...
If that’s true then freedom of the press only applies too hand-operated, sheet fed, vertical letterpress printers.
He says when the 2nd Amendment was written, there were only muzzle loaders and THAT is all we can legally have...
So his opinion doesn’t count, because when the 1st Amendment was written there were only type-presses.
Edumacated by liberal doctrines in our public skewls.
That is the same idiotic argument made by “conservative” George Will. I have despised him ever since he said that years ago.
“Can you believe some of these people??????”
Yepper, and I want newspapers to be sold on street corners by wayward poor waifs, No radio, No tv —Just like in the OLDEN DAYS ....funny how so called progressives seem RETRO when it suits their BS ideas...
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
Asmakes plain, the Second Amendment is to be understood only as a floor under our rights. The Framers did not specifically envision all the inventions which lay in the future; no one could. But they trusted progress - they were real progressives - and the default meaning of their system is that it takes a constitutional amendment - in accordance with Article V - to make individual use of an invention extraconstitutional.
- Amendment 9:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Using that same logic, “freedom of the press” applies only to newspapers since there was no TV, radio, internet at that time.
It says "...shall not be infringed." That is absolute. I have a right to my MIRVed ICBM. There are practical limits on the enjoyment of this right, however, like expense. That is really the only limit. The only people who can be construed to be denied the RtKaBA Constitutionally are imprisoned convicts under the slave labor provision.
If guns were not barred even to ex cons there would be no difference on the street. The laws are against what some perverse people might do with their 'arms.' Possession is entirely up to the individual whether there are laws against it or not. All that felony possession laws accomplish is to give prosecutors one more charge to lay on an arrestee. Perhaps that is useful but it is unConstitutional.
Warships were privately owned back then.
Cannons included.
That’s a common point gun grabbers make. But rest assured, if they are successful at whittling us down to muzzle loaders they will take them also. I have a collection of them, with the .58 caliber firing a 600 grain projectile that will literally take someone’s head off. Even a 50 cal round ball rifle is extremely deadly. Point is, any and all guns will be confiscated.
“..there were only muzzle loaders and THAT is all we can legally have...*
Well - and cannon.
(I’m sure someone already pointed that out.)
They killed alot of Brits with those “muzzle loaders”.