[jki275]

When you write your reply on parchment with elderberry ink, seal it with wax, and have it delivered by pony express we can have a discussion on the limitations you are proposing on the first amendment with your long debunked argument.

Also there were repeating rifles, cartridge based rifles, and citizens owned artillery pieces and war ships in the era in which the Constitution was written.

You should read Heller - Justice Scalia wrote a great deal about your argument and why it is absurd.

[llukas]

False equivalence. First amendment understanding evolved since 1789 [1]. Protecting speech of corporations was unthinkable in 1789.

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/constant-evolution-first-...

[jki275]

It has to a very small degree.

But not to the point of banning speech.

[llukas]

There were entire areas unknown in 1789 - incorporating them is basically writing law again (see example below). Reliable fully automatic weapons that can do up to 1000rpm belong to same category.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1044/communications...

"The 1934 act designated broadcasters as speakers — thus granting them First Amendment rights — but the broadcast media were also treated as possessing a somewhat lesser claim to First Amendment protections than the print media. The Supreme Court’s decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) upheld the principle that the scarcity of frequencies put broadcasters under public obligations to present multiple viewpoints, which therefore served as limits on their First Amendment rights."

[jki275]

Civilians owned cannon, artillery pieces and warships in the revolutionary war time frame.

A machine gun is nothing compared to a strategic asset. If we want to go back to that model, which is what you argue for, I'm getting a Davy Crockett for my front yard, an Iowa class BB for my dock, and a squadron of F22s and F35s.

Who cares about an M16 at that point.

You're arguing something that simply isn't so.