The issue I, and many others, have is, when that amendment was written 250 years ago, ‘Arms’ were so drastically different, similar to ‘Arms’ of today in only the most rudimentary forms.
A muzzle loading rifle and a modern pistol are just barely the same thing…
Our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government if necessary. Forewarned is forearmed.
JWK
In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, China, and Venezuela, the people are disarmed.
part of the second amendment.
Allan
Only effective in which mass destruction tool got used.
Shootings continue. Eliminate another possible tool, and those who are bent on shooting up crowds will simply use something else available to them.
When the amendment was passed, individuals owned canons and war ships.
Yep.
Side note - This Flag Means Death - very funny show about a man who builds himself a pirate ship…
Hard to murder kids in a class room with a war ship though. Or do a drive by shooting with a cannon.
Things change.
So what? It has nothing to do with your original post.
You mean like TV, radio, electric printing presses, computers? Barely the same as standing at the town square.
The idea that the Constitution is an infallible all-encompassing document is hilarious. The same as when people claim religious texts are. It’s a “perfect” document which has needed 27 amendments, had a civil war fought over it, and allowed slavery.
The argument that because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say “abortion,” it can’t be considered a right is silly. Maybe someone can list all the medical procedures expressly listed by the Constitution so we know which are protected? Since there aren’t any, does that mean every medical procedure can be banned at the whims of lawmakers? There’s nothing in the Constitution about cancer treatment, or emergency appendectomies or dialysis. If a state wanted to ban those for whatever reason, would that be OK? Could a state run by Jehovah’s Witnesses ban all blood transfusions since it violates their religious beliefs? If Christian Scientists ran a state, could they ban all medical procedures? Nothing in the Constitution says they can’t since no medical procedures are specifically listed. No different than banning abortion for religious beliefs.
As has already been discussed, abortion happened during the time of the Founding Fathers. It’s been a part of human history as long as there have been humans. Puritans allowed it until quickening which is between 15-20 weeks and it was allowed under British Common Law. The belief that abortion is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” is a joke. It wasn’t an issue until Victorian “sensibilities” stepped in and physicians looking to regulate the competition out of jobs made it one. It would have made things easy if the infallible Founding Fathers would have defined personhood in their sacred text. Oops.
So, the argument is there is no right to an abortion since it was not expressly stated in the Constitution. The “not rooted in tradition and history” stance is completely false, but that’s easy to show. However, no medical procedures are expressly listed in the Constitution, abortion was legal when the Constitution was written and was part of Common Law at the time. If you’re going justify not having a right to a medical procedure by its omission from the Constitution, then you don’t have the right to any medical procedure since none are listed.
On the other hand, you have people wanting the definition of “arms” in Colonial America to encompass all firearms which have been developed over the last almost 250 years. Was an AR-15 legal in the late 1700’s? It wasn’t around then, so it’s a dumb question. Did the Founding Fathers know what an AR-15 was or would be capable of? Equally dumb to think they did. I know people love to think they had unquestionable foresight when it works with their agenda.
So, on one hand you have people saying a medical procedure isn’t protected because it wasn’t expressly stated in the Constitution. Even though that medical procedure was known, performed and legal at the time it was written. On the other hand you have people saying all firearms are legal even though they weren’t expressly stated in the Constitution and were not around for hundreds of years after it was written.
In the end these findings are people making up things they want and using the Constitution as an excuse.
Yeah.
and we have tons of regulations on all of those things. In fact, we require licenses.
yep.
1234567
What is hilarious is you suggesting that anyone thinks that.
Sure they do. People on here. Perfect document. Founding Father worship. Textualism and originalism.
The gifs and images are as insightful and eloquent as ever.
Which were pretty much analogous to todays air craft carrier, being the ultimate warship of its time.
No, we just know there is only one way to change it, well two.
Yeah, that was some casual ■■■■■■■■ right there. The Court is now fully a Republican super legislature. Thomas is soliciting lawsuits.
Then carry a muzzle loading rifle.
Analogous in relative size, but not comparative capabilities.
Just like a muzzle loading rifle and an AR.
