Closest I’ve come to a Garand was the ones we drilled with in Boot Camp in 1973. Plugged, non-functional. Can’t afford one through CMP now! 
The context of “the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed” is precisely the same today as it was in 1791. That statement stands on its own as clearly as it ever has, irrespective of any social or structural changes that have taken place in our country. At most, the argument that the Militia is no longer necessary for a free state can be used as the impetus to modify that clause through the amendment process, but it cannot be summarily ignored on that basis.
3 Likes
Are you prepared to curtail the First Amendment rights as it pertains to TV and Radio, Twitter, Face Book and other forms of non manual printing press communication that didn’t exist in 1791 either?
1 Like
I got mine through the CMP as soon as I got old enough to be exempt from the match requirement. The problem now is that they rarely get field and service grade rifles in stock. Mostly they have junk that aren’t very desirable or premium grade rifles that are fairly expensive. The world is running out of them.
We already do.
Child Pornography is illegal
Didn’t answer my question, but nice tap dancing…
That’s an illegal activity with said technology… much like shooting someone with a modern rifle is illegal.
It’s not a restriction on the technology itself.
How about we require all social media accounts to be registered to a persons real name, and implement a $200 tax on all online accounts? After all, social media accounts were not around in 1791, and therefore not covered under the 1st amendment.
2 Likes
It’s a limit on free speech.
It restricts how that technology can be used. It cannot be used to traffick child Pornography.
It’s no more a limit on free speech than Murder is a limit on firearms. It’s the same logical misstep as the “fire” in a theater argument.
2 Likes
The government told me citizen that they cannot traffick in child Pornography. Regardless of the medium.
That is a limit on 1A.
The government also told us what kinds of arms we can have. We can’t have everything.
That is a limit on 2A.
Sorry. Not even in the same logical realm as each other.
One is a restriction on an activity that harms another person, regardless of how it’s transmitted.
The other is a restriction on the technology, regardless of activity.
They are literally polar opposite ends of the spectrum.
Yes, 1A restriction.
Yes, so why do conservatives complain that Assault rifles are being banned? It’s just a technology, right?
Freedom of speech is unrestricted. Harm to others not so much.
3 Likes
“Harm” is subjective.
Are you suggesting that using children to make pornography does not harm them?
It usually does… that doesn’t mean it isn’t subjective.
Automatic weapons were developed in their lifetimes and of course they knew weapons tech and society would both advance.
If anything we live in a more dangerous world today than we did then and thus the need for self defense is even greater than it was in the colonial era and shortly after the birth of the nation.
2 Likes
The only limits on free speech are when that speech causes harm to another unlawfully.
Mere possession of a firearm harms no one no matter what kind of firearm it is.
3 Likes
Ridiculous. They knew we would “advance” they did not know what we would advance into
Since it’s measurable it isn’t subjective.
