View Single Post
Old December 30, 2012, 02:50 PM   #67
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment
OBJECTION:

There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...


Quote:
Carl,
Your objection was put to bed in the Heller opinion. We've won that battle.
Yup, Heller pretty much put the "doesn't cover modern technology" argument in the junkyard along with "collective right". Here's the exact quote from page 8 of the decision:

Quote:
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.
natman is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05402 seconds with 7 queries