First and Second Ammendments - Original Intent

[ronstafari]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently... couldn't find anything using the search function.

We often see the anti-gun argument that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the emergence of machine guns, semi-autos, etc when they created the 2A. The argument is that since the technology did not exist at the time, these weapons were not intended to be protected by the 2A.

Why is this same line of reasoning (as incorrect as I believe it to be) ever applied by the left to their beloved media? The framers of the Constitution certainly did not foresee the current pervasiveness of the media into every aspect of modern life. Using the same anti-gn logic, couldn't it be said that modern media is not protected by the 1A and therefore may be limited by Federal and State governments in "the best interest of the public"?

Thoughts?

[Untamed1972]

The SCOTUS just recently in the Caetano ruling, quite clearly and unambiguously put rest the stupid "modern weapons aren't protected by the 2A" argument.

Modern weapons are protected just like modern forms of communication are.

[njineermike]

My response has always been that if the framers only intended the 2A to apply flintlocks, not semi auto firearms, then the 1A only applies to words written with a quill and parchment, not printed or electronic media.

The looks I get after that are priceless.

[lowracer]

The SCOTUS just recently in the Caetano ruling, quite clearly and unambiguously put rest the stupid "modern weapons aren't protected by the 2A" argument.

Modern weapons are protected just like modern forms of communication are.

+1

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-gives-boost-stun-gun-owners-n542566

-Mark

[ronstafari]

The SCOTUS just recently in the Caetano ruling, quite clearly and unambiguously put rest the stupid "modern weapons aren't protected by the 2A" argument.

Modern weapons are protected just like modern forms of communication are.

Great, guess I somehow missed this. It brings up a question though... if the RKBA applies to "all instruments that constitute bearable arms", does this mean that we here in CA now have a new basis on which to challenge the roster, SBR ban, etc?

[Untamed1972]

Great, guess I somehow missed this. It brings up a question though... if the RKBA applies to "all instruments that constitute bearable arms", does this mean that we here in CA now have a new basis on which to challenge the roster, SBR ban, etc?

Theorectically yes we do have a basis. But in reality.....so long as the courts are willing to continue to ignore infringements or engage in outright dishonesty to reach the rulings it wants.....then we will continue to be screwed.

[rootuser]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently... couldn't find anything using the search function.

We often see the anti-gun argument that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the emergence of machine guns, semi-autos, etc when they created the 2A. The argument is that since the technology did not exist at the time, these weapons were not intended to be protected by the 2A.

Why is this same line of reasoning (as incorrect as I believe it to be) ever applied by the left to their beloved media? The framers of the Constitution certainly did not foresee the current pervasiveness of the media into every aspect of modern life. Using the same anti-gn logic, couldn't it be said that modern media is not protected by the 1A and therefore may be limited by Federal and State governments in "the best interest of the public"?

Thoughts?

You have stumbled upon the lie that both the right and the left tails of the parties tell you to exert their brand of control and politics over you.

The Constitution and the framers didn't HAVE to take into account any advancements in tech. They wrote the document such that advancements did not matter. Your rights are fundamental, and the government restrictions are also fundamental.

It is clear the framers meant for there to be some laws and curbs on both the 1A and 2A, regardless of the times. The Constitution is timeless in that way.

The thoughts that "Oh if they didn't understand machine guns then they didn't understand the internet" while most likely true, are not relevant. Freedom of the press, for example, is defined today, partially as citizen journalists (despite what DiFi wants). The framers could have never envisioned everyone running around with cell phones, but they didn't have to. Freedom of the press endures. Black Lives matter, citizen policing etc have all benefited from freedom of the press.

The same goes for the 2A. The "commonly in use" phrase applies in Heller for example but it could apply to any amendment.

There are those that believe the document does not change with the times. Which means of course, machine guns and the internet are specifically not covered by the constitution. Then there are those who conveniently changed their definitions (unfortunately Scalia was victim here) to "Original intent". Which means, freedom of the press means freedom of the press, regardless of the method or the "who is the press" question at any given moment. Then there are those further still that believe the entire document should be re-written at constitutional conventions or changed constantly as the times change to adapt. Typical bell curve, with the head and tail being the extreme and the vast majority of opinion falling into the middle.

[Noble Cause]

Its an idiots journey to assume our founders where unaware weapons
technology would improve.... some examples that existed before the
Bill of Rights was written, and undoubtedly known by our founders,
since congress actually considered ordering the Belton Flintlock:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

The Belton Flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads,
invented by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania resident Joseph Belton some time
prior to 1777. The design was offered by Belton to the newly formed
Continental Congress in 1777, and a number of examples were commissioned
and tested.[1]

Then we have ....

Puckle Gun, circa 1718.
Notice the replaceable magazines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

I will let Mr Crowder explain the rest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CquUBWHU2_s

Noble

[Jimi Jah]

It says what it means and means what it says. The rest is BS.

[strongpoint]

Why is isn't this same line of reasoning (as incorrect as I believe it to be) ever applied by the left to their beloved media?

FTFY

It isn't applied to media by people who understand constitutional law.

The principle is well-established and understood to apply to the entire document (for instance, digital media are included in the "persons, houses, papers, and effects" protected by the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure).

[bwell]

The public has a right to the same arms as the military possess.

Regardless of technological advancements.

You cannot tell me there was no such thing as imagination at the time of writing.

The reality is, possession of rightfully owned property is not a crime if there is no injured party nor victim.

Machine guns are simply not dangerous in the hands of the public.

All crimes require one thing: An action.

A human being makes that decision.

An object itself does not warrant for a man to stripped of his life and liberty.

It goes back to: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

A 8" vs 16" barrel on a rifle is not going to change a damn thing in terms of public safety.

A weapon is a weapon, regardless if it's full auto, semi, black, scary-looking, has a sharp blade, uses modern technology like the taser, etc.

Again, this all goes back to $$$$$$.

You pay the gov cash and suddenly you get the rights to own this or that.

None of this is in the best interest of the public.

It's all in the best interest of the government.

[audiophil2]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently... couldn't find anything using the search function.

We often see the anti-gun argument that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the emergence of machine guns, semi-autos, etc when they created the 2A. The argument is that since the technology did not exist at the time, these weapons were not intended to be protected by the 2A.

Why is this same line of reasoning (as incorrect as I believe it to be) ever applied by the left to their beloved media? The framers of the Constitution certainly did not foresee the current pervasiveness of the media into every aspect of modern life. Using the same anti-gn logic, couldn't it be said that modern media is not protected by the 1A and therefore may be limited by Federal and State governments in "the best interest of the public"?

Thoughts?

The 2A has zero to do with flintlocks or hunting. It's single intention was to prevent the government from being a tyrant over its people. The only way to do that is with weapons capable of defeating the government. Even with our current restrictions we can still do it. One day we will not be able to anymore.

The only way the government has been able to get away with anything it does is by dumbing down and paying off the voters. Even free speech has been severely attacked and restricted but how many people spend time thinking about those loses?

[ROMEOHOTEL]

Theorectically yes we do have a basis. But in reality.....so long as the courts are willing to continue to ignore infringements or engage in outright dishonesty to reach the rulings it wants.....then we will continue to be screwed.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

PUBLIUS in Federal #47