[pauldenton]

People say the second amendment was made in the era of muskets so obviously an automatic rifle isn't what the founders were talking about While the first amendment was made in the era of newspapers, so obviously the right to speech doesn't extend to Telegrams, Radio, TV, or Digital communication

[kelnos]

It seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think "hmm, muskets, yeah, that's something everyone should have on hand", but then get sent forward to the 2000s, have modern firearms shown to them, and say "oh whoa, yeah, no way, that seems like a terrible idea".

It also seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think that freedom of speech and the press is a good idea, and then get sent forward to the 2000s, see all of our modern forms of communication and speech, and say, "yeah, that's just a reasonable evolution of things, and should be covered".

Obviously we'll never know; so far we can't do time travel, so we don't know what they'd think today. This is why I think this sort of reasoning about the constitution is kinda dumb. Even if we could divine what the Founders thought, frankly I don't think it's all that relevant. They are not exactly experts on how government should work. Yes, they did the best they could at the time, but with all the biases and issues of the time. As an example, they also thought that only white landowners should vote, but advocating for that today would get you smacked down pretty quickly.

And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.

[Amezarak]

It's worth mentioning that individuals could legally (and some did) own cannons and warships back then as well - it wasn't limited to muskets. The reference in the Constitution to "letters of marque and reprisal" refer to government licenses to attack and capture ships, ie a government license to be a pirate.

> And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.

It would not be reasonable to expect that. It's hard for most modern people to understand to what extent a gun was considered a necessary tool for non-urban people, which was a much larger proportion of the population.

The real problem we've run into is cultural. Americans used to run around with actual TOMMY GUNS without mass shootings. It's absolutely insane to think about how easily these people - many of them involved in criminal rings - could have killed hundreds of people if they had woke up one day and decided to. But they didn't.

Now we live in a broken and depraved culture and limiting gun access is about the only obvious tool we have to reduce the problem, or at least that symptom of it.

[JakeFromTexas]

Look up the relationship between mass adoption of SSRIs and mass shootings. It seems to me like there is clearly some relationship there.

[coldtea]

>Yes, they did the best they could at the time

I'd say even that is debatable.

Perhaps they did do the best THEY could, not the best that could be done even given the ideas already around at the time.

[coldtea]

Not sure what the relevance of the above is. As I already said, people who say either of those are making a bad disingenuous argument.

I'm not saying either of those though, and didn't in my comment you responded to. I said that people who say a "well regulated militia" is not the same as "random individual who likes guns" are making an argument exactly in the intended spirit of the constitution.

Nothing to do with a disingenuous argument about "gun technology then vs now" or "press means just printing presses or newspapers".

So, yeah, if those rednecks form a actual state-run or even citizen-run militia they could have their guns, nice modern guns, in the context of that militia and for the purposes of that militia (and with the proper precautions and rules like police or army has for its guns).

I don't see where the constitutional's expression, as written, allows them to just have whetever guns they like as private individuals, even less so guns for fun and entertainment.

I'd go one better: what some document from 4 centuries ago says, should have no absolute hold to what the law is in a country 4 centuries later. It was what they came up with at the time, to respond to the problems of the time, as they saw them in the viewpoints of the time. All of them are dead now, and the demographics and issues are absolutely not even close to being them same.

[hellojesus]

The document from 4 centuries ago outlined a process for its continual refactoring, and the process has often been used since its passage.

All we have to do is ammend the Constitution, and the entire 2A debate could easily be settled.