So, following the same logic, words sent vial internet would not be protected speech - only words written by hand on paper, and the spoken word. Idiots.
So they get us debating about technological minutia and thereby avoid having to explain away the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause clearly indicates that part (but, according to the Federalist Papers, all) of the need for specifically enumerating the right to keep and bear arms was the need for a "properly regulated" militia. "Properly regulated" in the 18th Century had nothing to do with rules and regulations and EVERYTHING to do with proper function. Since no military organization could possibly function properly if equipped with vastly inferior weaponry, clearly the founders would have considered limiting the RKBA to weapons available at the time of the drafting to be a serious and unacceptable infringement. I cannot but believe that the founders would have viewed the NFA as a serious violation of the Constitution. THAT is what we need to be debating and not nit-noy arguments over technology.
Don't forget the Puckle Gun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
ReplyDeleteThey had grenade launchers. Musket with a cup for the grenade on the end of a short barrel that could launch a grenade 50 to 100 yards.
ReplyDeleteSo, following the same logic, words sent vial internet would not be protected speech - only words written by hand on paper, and the spoken word. Idiots.
ReplyDeleteSo they get us debating about technological minutia and thereby avoid having to explain away the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause clearly indicates that part (but, according to the Federalist Papers, all) of the need for specifically enumerating the right to keep and bear arms was the need for a "properly regulated" militia. "Properly regulated" in the 18th Century had nothing to do with rules and regulations and EVERYTHING to do with proper function. Since no military organization could possibly function properly if equipped with vastly inferior weaponry, clearly the founders would have considered limiting the RKBA to weapons available at the time of the drafting to be a serious and unacceptable infringement. I cannot but believe that the founders would have viewed the NFA as a serious violation of the Constitution. THAT is what we need to be debating and not nit-noy arguments over technology.
ReplyDelete