If You Believe The 2nd Amendment Only Allows Ownership of Flintlock Rifles...

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Mad Scientist, Jan 13, 2013.

  1. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,934
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    ...because that's what you think the Founding Fathers meant because that's all they had.

    Then shouldn't you also believe the 1st Amendment only applies to Public Speaking and Printing Presses? Because that's all they had at the time.

    To be consistent, you'd have to be AGAINST Freedom of Speech on TV, Radio and the Internet wouldn't you? The Founding Fathers weren't talking about that when they penned the 1st Amendment.

    If WE THE PEOPLE can't have Modern, Updated, Higher Firepower weapons for Self Defense and Hunting, then WE THE PEOPLE shouldn't have the Modern, Updated, Higher Speed modes of Communication either am I right?

    To be really consistent, we should all live as if it's 1787 and only the Military and Gov't should be allowed to live in modern times. That's what the Founding Fathers would have wanted right?

    Discuss. In a Civil manner and above all don't raise your voice! :D
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. JustTheFacts
    Offline

    JustTheFacts BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +57
    also, if we followed that line or reasoning we would have to conclude that the COTUS couldn't possibly cover wiretaps or sobriety checkpoints when it comes to the fourth either.
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,934
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    Very good! But as I said in my OP, the US Gov't should be allowed to have Modern Technology such as Satellites and Drones to Spy on us with because apparently, to some people, the 2nd Amendment only applies to Flintlock Rifle ownership and Hunting.

    The Founding Fathers never envisioned Armed Flying Drones, Supersonic Fighter Aircraft and Nuclear Weapons either.

    So perhaps the US Military should go back to using only Flintlock Rifles as well? "Oh but the US would be over run by a Tyrannical, Foreign Invading Army Overnight if they did that!" you say?

    Absolutely they would! That's why YOU AND I need modern, updated weapons to keep Tyrannical GOVERNMENTS from OPPRESSING and CONQUERING "We the People" as well! :D
     
  4. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    The Second Amendment means that citizens can only have flintlock rifles when the police and mililtary can only have flintlock rifles. There was no difference between what the army had and what the citizens had. If we were to seriously follow the founding fathers, the citizens would be able to have any weapon available to the government.
     
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,932
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,868
    Obviously that doesn’t comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

    Just as it’s understood that there are legitimate restrictions and regulations on rights enshrined by the First Amendment, so too are there legitimate restrictions on rights enshrined by the Second Amendment.
     
  6. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,229
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    The 1st amendment ensures no words can be banned, but laws can restrict using words in the course of an action that interferes with the rights of others, such as the often cited example of yelling fire in a movie theater. By your own reasoning, you cannot ban anything related to firearms, only how they're used.

    Works for me.
     
  7. SSDD
    Online

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,871
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,507
    "The militia of these free commonwealths,
    entitled and accustomed to their arms,
    when compared with any possible army,
    must be tremendous and irresistible.
    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
    Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
    each man against his own bosom.
    Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
    Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
    are the birth-right of an American ...
    the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
    of either the federal or state governments,
    but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
    in the hands of the people."

    Trench Coxe
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. JustTheFacts
    Offline

    JustTheFacts BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    681
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +57


    Apologies but thats not right ..

    If we actually followed the cotus we would in facthave no standing army. We wouod have a navy though.

    But that brings up a whole nother kettle of fish. Personally I believe a draft in times of a declared war is constitutional in order that we might have a temporary army.
    .never happen though. The army is here to stay. Conatitutional or not.

    And let me add the phrase provide for the common defense gives those who disagree with me on this a damned good argument so I adnit I may be totally wrong.
     
  9. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    Does the First Amendment only apply to the manual printing press, hand written letters and in person communications?
     
  10. ReallyMeow
    Offline

    ReallyMeow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    239
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +18
    Cant post links yet, look up machine gun on wikipedia:

    There we go, fully automatic weapons 1777. Lets stop trying to meet at a false middle ground on this issue.
     

Share This Page