Lander wrote:Oh and tomdarch, the framers couldn't have imagined tv or the internet either. But freedom of speech is still protected within those media. Rights are eternal and universal. They're not determined by current technology.
Seriously? You typed that out and didn't see how weak that argument is? OK, i'll spell it out.
The whole "gun whiner" argument is all about one very narrow type of technology. The First Amendment doesn't protect any particular type of technology, only speech, religion, "press" (meaning journalism), assembly and petition of the government. In comparison, it seems preposterous to argue that the Second Amendment protects one particular type of technology.
It would suck if the US government outlawed the technology of radio, television or the internet. But as far as I know, as long as it was a non-biased, total ban, you'd have a hard time arguing that the First Amendment protects the technological means of transmission of speech. In fact, broadcast tv and radio (along with the frequencies that all satellite and wireless systems use) is heavily regulated by the government. Case in point: the feds are outlawing analog tv broadcasts early next year. There's no real First Amendment argument about the ban on that particular technology (analog tv broadcasts). See? The First Amendment is technology "agnostic".
Ah, but when we get to the Second Amendment, everyone is very focused on guns, firearms - one very specific type of technology. Everyone's very bent out of shape about "the gubments gunna take my guns away!" On a certain level, "So what?" Just as there are many means of speech, there are many types of "arms." What's so special about guns? If the US really goes fascist (or for many fantasists "Communist"), your four guns aren't going to mean shit against the US military.
If the government tried to get rid of the internet, it would suck and I would argue against it for a variety of policy reasons, but a blanket ban on the technology wouldn't be a violation of the First Amendment, per se. I'd still have books and newspapers and posters and flyers and graffiti and the phone and radio and television and even the good old "soapbox in Speaker's park."
So why only guns? Wouldn't the right to have a machete, baseball bat, taser and pepper spray constitute "bearing arms"? But, you say, the founders clearly were thinking of guns when they wrote the Second Amendment - a big knife won't cut it! Pepper spray? No way! The founders were clearly protecting my right to have a .... Exactly - they were thinking of a single-shot, muzzle-loading, flint based gun. They didn't mean a sling shot, and at the same time, they weren't thinking of a Glock. If a baseball bat is not enough to constitute "bearing arms", then why is a semi-automatic handgun not too much?
Again, we're back to this silly technology argument. The First Amendment is technology "agnostic," so why do we think that the Second Amendment gives us the right to the latest and greatest killing technology?
Another problem: "It's a great day for freedom!" No, not really. The freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition, when exercised, don't kill people. You exercising your right to speech doesn't take away my right to speech. We may yell over each other, but we're still exercising our right to speak. Every day, people "exercise" their "eternal right" to "bear arms" and people die. When someone is shot and killed, their rights are, let's say, er, "limited".
But, you say, it's the right to "bear arms" not the right to kill people!
What if people had the right to possess guns which could not fire, then they would have their precious "arms" but doing so would not impinge on the rights of others. Sounds silly, right? The Second Amendment is meaningless without the actual ability to take a gun, aim it, fire off a round and kill someone. Would the NRA be ok with only allowing "rubber bullets"? No, of course not. What about guns with real ammo, but no firing mechanism? That misses the point, you say! Take away any part of that deadly sequence and the "gun whiners" throw their hands up in disgust.
You can't compare the "creative" rights protected under the First Amendment, with the "destructive" reality of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment.
If the Second Amendment is about the right to defend yourself and your home, doesn't it seem crazy to argue that it's all about a projectile weapon that can kill far from the "person" or home?
(All of this leaves out the crucial issue of the "well regulated militia" clause. Why was it there, if they simply meant to allow everyone to run around with a concealed Glock? The First Amendment doesn't have that sort of qualifying clause (except to limit the People to "peaceably assemble"), so why did they include the clause in the Second Amendment?)
