(February 10, 2016 at 7:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Brian, your logic was that muskets were acceptable, but that semi-auto rifles shouldn't be, right, because they didn't exist then, right?
Edit: I think I imputed someone else's logic to you. My apologies.
I stand by my point that our rights are restricted to the technology extant at the time the BoR was written.
No they are not. If they were we would not have any changing technology. We'd be stuck with newspapers and muskets.
Speech needs a medium to move through, newspapers were all they had back then, and the sound of their voices. Muskets were all they had back then, but they technolog has changed since then in the ways we use both our voices and guns.
You sound like Mitt Romney in the debate over military spending when Obama responded, "We also have fewer horses".
The Bill Of Rights is a law, and laws are regulations and all regulations have to adjust with changing technology.
Just like when the first cars were built many roads were nothing but dirt, and many had no speed limits, but as road paving improved and car speeds got faster, we started institutionalizing speed limits. And while travel is still legal, you cant today ride a horse and buggy on the 495 DC beltway. Nor could you drive a military tank on it either. Neither of those regulations make travel illegal, much less anti car.
