On 12/7/15 9:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 20:38:37 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:59:42 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

The flaw is that the federal gun laws were written in 1934 and 1968.
Virtually every other federal "gun law" is an amendment to those two
statutes.
In 1934 the guns had pretty much every feature they have their panties
in a wad about now.


I think you missed the point. It isn't literalism.

It is "liberalism", in other words it doesn't have to be true.

When they present a lie as a life lesson, the lesson is these people
are full of ****.

Perhaps they are saying the 2d amendment (not the current gun laws)
was written in another time, but so was the 1st. Do you really want
your freedom of speech limited because the founding fathers could
never have contemplated the internet?


Your analogy is silly.

Why?

Both were intended to be concepts that would apply to future
technology. Saying the 2d amendment only appliers to muskets is as
silly as saying the 1st amendment only applies to printing presses and
the spoken word within earshot of the speaker. That is certainly the
only technology they were familiar with.

In fact at the time the 2d amendment was written, it did not say
"Muskets". They did not say it did not apply to a cannon with grape
shot or Congreve rockets.

In fact it was the creeping federalism of the 60s that actually passed
the first laws banning any kind of weapon. NFA34 was a tax,
incidentally, the same as drug laws before the same era of LBJ/Nixon.

Prior to that, it was believed a federal gun ban or a drug ban,
required a constitutional amendment. (like the 18th)
Congress could pass a tax like NFA34 or the Marijuana tax of 1937 and
then make the tax stamp hard to get.



"Congress shall make no law" is a hell of a lot stronger. than anything
in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment obviously allows the feds
or jurisdictions to decide what firearms shall not be available, as the
recent decision of the Supreme Court not to take on a local law against
"assault weapons" demonstrates.

Certainly there are statements you do not have the liberty to make and
expect First Amendment protection, but, generally speaking, a news
outlet can report what it wants the way it wants. That sort of
protection is not offered to firearms advocates.

The "technology" aspect that you bring up is not relevant to speech
because it remains speech, no matter how it is delivered. It should be
relevant to firearms, though.