The founding fathers didnt envision Twitter, so should the 1A not cover advancements in technology?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112326)

So...you're saying that the 2nd Amendment authors contemplated this extremely rare gun that nobody had actually heard of?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112322)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112396)

Does the 2A only apply to the typical civilian?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112412)

the author, a liar like you, attempts to elide the obvious implication that any value in their argument derives from "2A =/= modern day firearms" with this:

"In itself, that isn't an argument for banning everything other than muskets. Technology evolves. It makes no more sense to say an AR-15 isn't protected by the Second Amendment than it does to say that computers or ballpoint pens aren't protected by the First.

But evolving technology does call for evolving regulation. And, in practice, the implementation of the Second Amendment has never been strictly "absolute." Most gun owners accept that civilians typically can't own fully automatic rifles or tanks or nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the "arms" of the Second Amendment has evolved over the years, subject to shifts in political and legal norms."

of course, this observation, when couched in the context of an article about how the 2A, when drafted, didn't cover modern day firearms, is precisely about ostending to a "weakness" in the 2A absolutist position by pointing out that ARs aren't muskets. it cannot mean anything EXCEPT that, otherwise the entire argument is a non sequitur.

and that's fine. it, frankly, IS an infirmity of the 2A absolutist position. firearms aren't what they used to be. but just say that, rat fuck, rather than lying about it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112546)

The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112301)

You are once again confusing "the 2nd Amendment was written when muskets were popular" for "the 2nd Amendment only protects muskets," which are two completely different statements. I'm not sure how I can possibly dumb this down any further for you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112306)

(Disregarding privately owned cannons here)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112312)

Jesus fucking christ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112356)

*married gay bigdick tranny pissing next to little girl in gender-nonexclusive urinal*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112707)

DC v. Heller

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112310)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112408)

Serious question: do you have brain damage?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112660)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/the-men-who-wrote-the-2nd-amendment-would-never-recognize-an-ar-15/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e6356680d0ba

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112500)

-lisped the disingenuous shitlib

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112514)

"WE'RE just making an interesting and historically accurate observation about the state of firearms technology in late 18th century America--which just coincidentally happens to have arisen within the larger context of a political debate over the proper scope of protections afforded to individual firearms owners under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1788). YOU'RE the ones trying to spin this simple observation into some sort of 'argument' about the proper scope of the 2nd Amendment. Ridiculous! Can't people be allowed to interject simple observations into debates anymore without being accused of making 'arguments'?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112680)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3984638&forum_id=2#36112760)