Quote:
Originally Posted by dougjb
(Post 1825807)
I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).
By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.
|
Similarly, I support the first amendment:
1. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only means of written communication was by printing single-sheets individually following hand-setting type.
2. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only way to 'peaceably assemble' was in person.
3. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only way to petition the government was to get hand-written signatures on pieces of paper hand-carried from one person to the next.
1a. So, let's get rid of off-set printing, lithograph printing, computers, fax machines, email, texting, social media, etc.
2a. So, let's get rid of telephones that enable teleconferencing, and computers that enable 'zoom'-meeting, etc.
3a. So, let's get rid of (again) any of that fancy-schmancy new-fangled communication equipment that makes collecting signatures more efficient.
I've seen this suggestion before (citizens can own a blunderbuss only) and it's just as silly as 1, 2, 3, 1a, 2a, 3a above. There's a difference between a principle and the instantiation of a principle. But, many people prefer keeping things simple beyond the point of being ridiculous.
