Fast forward to 3:03:
"Obviously, those would have to be the kind of arms in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed; the musket, the wheelock, the flintlock, the 13th century Chinese hand cannon. Stuff like that!"
Yes, "stuff like that" all right. And when the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", it's talking strictly about things like speaking, whispering, shouting, yelling, printing pamphlets and newspapers, and other things in use in 1791. The Internet, television, radio, motion pictures, even the telegraph? Fair game!
I'd like to think Keith doesn't really mean this, although it's doubtful since it seems to be making a case that it's okay to restrict guns today because today's guns are so much more advanced. It would be insane to interpret the Second Amendment as saying we can't keep people from obtaining nuclear weapons. But regardless of whether he means it, rest assured the Right will hammer him for it.
The question is, did the Founding Fathers intend the Second Amendment to prohibit restrictions on common ownership of guns, regardless of whether that was for the purpose of raising a militia? I hope to answer that question in Truth Court, if not this weekend, at some point in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment