"Constitution didn't have ARs in mind w/2A"

Is this the best argument people can come up with when trying to prove a point against 2A? I hear it often.

2 Likes

IMO it had exactly the AR in mind.

21 Likes

It does seem possible they didn’t think of a lot of things at the time, that if they all magically came back right now - they might have a re-think?

They didn’t mention anything about not letting violent felons have guns, did they? Yet we now all universally agree not to let violent felons have guns.

So, if they missed the boat on that, what else didn’t get considered? They weren’t gods.

3 Likes

Who cares what those slave owners thought in the 1700s?

Its time for change

2 Likes

The government didnt have nukes back then either. Fair play.

2 Likes

Not at common as “Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle!!”
To which my follow up questions is always “Why not?”

They never have an answer.

2 Likes

Yes, but cannons existed then, and private citizens weren’t prohibited from owning cannons

8 Likes

So now the government gets to decide what I do and do not need?

3 Likes

Says you and a minority. Gun laws don’t work.

4 Likes

Yeah let’s start with your first amendment right.

6 Likes

The Constitution is not a document that limits rights that every citizen of the United States is born with. The Document limits Federal government’s infringement of enumerated rights and reserves the rest to the people and the States. The 2A, in my humble opinion, allows a citizen to own weapons used by any standing military that could possibly attempt wrench power from the people.

19 Likes

except for the fact the muskets the colonists had were in MANY instances better weapons of war than the brits, since their rifles were “old” tech at the time.

not to mention people who were rich enough had their own cannons and war ships. see letters of marquees

1 Like

they didnt think about radio , tv , phone, or internet. does that mean those medium dont have 1a protections?

6 Likes

The Bill of Rights in general was clearly intended as an absolute and strict prohibition on the national government. It had zero effect on state governments; state governments were free to regulate arms, speech, religion, searches, etc., to the extent their own state constitutions allowed.

So yes, the 2A prohibited the national government from banning ownership of cannons, tanks, nuclear arms, bombs, etc. It did not prevent the states from prohibiting these things.

2 Likes

Isn’t that what I said? I put Federal government in my word salad. The Oklahoma constitution is pretty pro gun ownership.

1 Like

Which is why those slave owners built in an amendment process.

I love when idiots try to make legal arguments. It’s what makes going to traffic court enjoyable.

2 Likes

as you mentioned, most if not all states had a 2a BEFORE the country did. Its moot anyway, since McDonald

In all fairness they also didn’t have the internet in mind when they gave us free speech, they weren’t think about scientology when they gave us freedom of religion they didn’t Invision stopping traffic when they gave us freedom of assembly…sooooo maybe we need to rethink all of those as well

2 Likes

The best are license revocation hearings in front of the DPS “board”.

1 Like