You might want to research what guns were in existence at the time. It wasn’t just muskets. In addition, they were aware that weapons were constantly improving, they saw it happening in their own times.
1 Like
You seem to be unaware that there are time honored rules to determine the true meaning of our Constitution.
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
If they had ARs during the Revolution, you feel they would have used them?
1 Like
It says “arms.” The “arms” of the 1700s aren’t the “arms” of today. The founding fathers didn’t have the foresight to know what would be available 200 years later. We do. Saying every “arm” should be legal because of a document from two centuries ago when the “arms” in question weren’t around is dumb. I said it again. Saying anything else is an infallible approach to the constitution and framers. Selective or not.
It doesn’t say “arms of the 1700s”
It says “arms”
Is the AR 15 an arm?
3 Likes
There are plenty of regulations on speech that have evolved with technology and the country.
Name 3
1 Like
What was the Founder’s intentions regarding the keeping and bearing of arms?
An example of our Founder’s intentions is found in Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776.
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
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.
Who knows? Would they have then included or excluded them in the constitution?
Radio licenses
Broadcast TV licenses
Protest and rally permits
Advisory labeling
1 Like
You know. Would you?
1 Like
Business
Business
Collective
Business
1 Like
When was the constitution written? Does it say “all arms to perpetuity?” If a group of politicians wrote a constitution today do people think the definitions and technology used wouldn’t change in the next 200 years? People think the definitions and technology of today would be the same as in the 2200’s and be treated the same? That’s what people are arguing when saying “arms” of the 1700s and “arms” of the 2000s should be treated the same.
It says “arms”. That’s it.
Is the AR15 an arm?
So now the constitution is to be interpreted as to what would happen if a modern technology were transported 250 years back in time and what people believe they would have done with it?
No thanks.
Still deflecting I see. Now, why not respond to THIS POST which actually focuses on our Constitution and the founders intentions?
It wasn’t an “arm” when the constitution was written because it didn’t exist.
Is it an arm?
No, it was a hypothetical. I don’t need anything to be “interpreted”, you do.
What is the use of a hypothetical when discussing the constitution if interpretations aren’t needed?
1 Like
