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

[Mad Scientist]

...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!

 

[JustTheFacts]

...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!

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

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!

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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.

 

[eflatminor]

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

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.

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.

 

[SSDD]

"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

 

[JustTheFacts]

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.

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.

 

[Missourian]

Does the First Amendment only apply to the manual printing press, hand written letters and in person communications?

 

[ReallyMeow]

Cant post links yet, look up machine gun on wikipedia:

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge.

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