Quote:
Originally Posted by Tileman
Technological advancement of firearms is the primary source the anti-gun people as evidence to combat the 2nd amendment.
It pains me that no case ever brought before the supreme court has asked for a decision to confirm that *Any and ALL types of weaponry in existance at the time the constitution was ratified shall never be subject of a ban, fees, taxation or any legislation passed onto it*........
A supreme court that would say that would end 99% of all anti-gun legislation. They continue to push for taking the firearms that are exactly what the 2nd amendment protects. They are not passing legislation on taking someones ICBM!
|
The problem with this Tile is that the anti gunners would argue there were only smooth bore muzzleloaders in existance at the time the constitution was ratified. I have five guns that wouldn't fit that description. If we are going to say that can we also say the 1st amendment only protects speech bellowed in public or the written word composed on a rudimentary printing press or hand lettered with a quill pen? No internet, no emails, no radio, no television