- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,485
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
But I don't like being drawn into an argument about trying to prove a thing is protected because it was in existence at the time of the founding, and then having that later become the precedent.
Exactly.Bingo! In my humble opinion, one of the most intensely stupid arguments against the 2A is that "it didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights". mkay, let's discuss the 1A, shall we? The typewriter, Morse code, Internet porn, cable TV, the telegraph, Mormonism, photography, airmail, stupid performance art, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fortune cookie notes, ham radio, et al., all postdate 1A and they are all protected forms of expression.
Bingo! In my humble opinion, one of the most intensely stupid arguments against the 2A is that "it didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights". mkay, let's discuss the 1A, shall we? The typewriter, Morse code, Internet porn, cable TV, the telegraph, Mormonism, photography, airmail, stupid performance art, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fortune cookie notes, ham radio, et al., all postdate 1A and they are all protected forms of expression.