That is not unusual or restricted to firearms. For example, what constitutional guarantee do we have of freedom of the news on TV and radio. We have constitutional guarantees of freedom of Th's PRESS but t
Tv doesn't use presses..... Nor do we on FR The courts have changed the meaning of “press” to mean all media.
Regarding the “who” issues, I believe certain people, criminals included, give up certain rights (voting, firearms possession, etc) long after any jail sentence has run it's course.
I realize that is not the absolutist Position many here advocate, but it is my personal belief.
Leftist talking point. Or are you seriously saying that the FF's, whose ships sprouted ranks of CANNONS couldn't have foreseen larger weapons? We used Coehorn mortars, 16lbs Howitzers, and a variety of other field artillery in our War for Independence. To say they couldn't have envisioned field artillery in the hands of private citizens is either a stunning display of wanton ignorance or an outright lie.
I realize that is not the absolutist Position many here advocate, but it is my personal belief.
Well, it certainly isn't a "Constitutional" or "conservative" belief... You got that part right.
The term "press" in freedom of the press was a colloquialism that described individuals that distributed the news. It included individuals that hand printed broadsheets and those that used printing presses. It does not mean a physical printing press. Nor does it only mean those that use a physical printing press. The term "press" in the constitution literally meant all known media distribution methods and it means the same thing today.
The constitution is not dependent on any ones opinion or personal belief. It means what it says and only what it says. Without the constitution as the foundation for our civil society, it is only a matter of time before we have a tyranny. The founders lived through a tyranny and fought against it. Against all odds they won. They created a government, via the constitution, that was ruled by the people. That was restrained by limited powers from imposing tyranny.
Today we have people that argue against the constitution such as yourself. I don't know what your motives are and they aren't important. I know what ignoring the constitution leads to and tyranny is a far greater evil than all the hypothetical bogey men you use to lend credence to your argument.
That's generally correct as a statement of the condition of the law, but not totally correct. Many states fairly easily rehabilitate convicts as to voting; and all also have means to rehabilitate as to keeping and bearing arms.
However, you, being well versed in the law (and I am too, FWIW), may know the history. The first I know of, of a felon being perpetually deprived of the right to keep and bear arms is in law less than 80 years old. From time to time, I've looked for the "longstanding" prohibition on felons who have served their time, from keeping and bearing arms. I come up blank. I believe Clayton Cramer has researched this as well.
Anyway, the modern authority for your proposition is clear enough, but I wonder if you know the history of this - or is "longstanding prohibition" another example of the courts making things up?
-- The potential destructive power of modern weapons such as a howitzer or M60 create real world problems even the most intelligent and astute founding fathers could not have foreseen --
Not so. See canon. If muzzle-loaded, still legal for unregulated private ownership. Same for sawed off shotgun, see blunderbuss.
They likely did not foresee the mayhem possibilities associated with gasoline.