Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I didn't say it had to be a government-ordered standing army, but it does have to be well regulated. You sitting on your front porch polishing a shotgun is not well regulated.
|
If I knew how to shoot and clean that shotgun, march in formation and fight in small fireteam size groups, yes, I was well regulated. That is exactly what the founders were talking about because that is what they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Granted. You were completely accurate in that the 2nd amendment's authors did not implicitly intend us to carry missiles because they didn't know what a missile was.
By this logic, you no longer have the right to free speech except orally and in a newspaper. Government can forbid radio, TV, and the internet (including TFP) from saying anything it wants, because the founders didn't specifically mean speech via electronic medium.
The right to free travel only exists on horseback, horse-drawn carriage, or on foot. Park your car, you have no constitutional right to drive it anywhere.
They didn't know what an air force was either, so it's perfectly OK for the government to require you to quarter military aviators in your home.
Shall we keep dissecting it in this way, or can we agree that "right to bear arms" does not only refer to pistols and swiss army knives?
|
your attempt to use the 'negative rights' theory was expected. When faced with two choices of positive rights or negative rights, the authoritarians usually go negative rights.
tell me, where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say that these rights are limited by technology or the times? nowhere, but I do know where it says that the rights held by the people are in no way, shape, or form dictated by technology or the times.