Sorry, gun grabbers, but it’s an historically ignorant argument.
That’s probably why Piers Morgan uses is.
And amusingly, as Cooke points out, the implications of this argument is that it would justify civilians having select-fire weapons, since that’s what the military has.
Funny how the people who can find all sorts of “emanations from penumbras” when it comes to their causes (especially when sexual in nature) but argue for a strict 1789 reading of the parts of the document they don’t like.
Well, when the 1st amendment was written, “press” meant hand set type, so clearly the 1st amendment does not apply to the internet. Or photocopiers. Or typewriters.
Speaking of the 1st amendment. I’m no expert but I don’t believe there was a Mormon Church in the 1700’s so does that mean they don’t have religious freedom? Well seeing as how most leftist hate churches anyway I suppose they would think this is a win win.
Slight derail, but in line with Ryan’s comment: The First Amendment is at least partly about religious freedom. How does that square with a religion that directly contradicts the 1st? Yes, I am talking about Islam. In several places in the Koran, it is said that a Muslim who leaves Islam should be killed. They’re not too hot on freedom of the press, either.
IMHO, the First Amendment itself needs amending to address this issue. Precisely how, I’m not sure. And BTW, for me this is academic; I’m a Brit.
And how exactly, as a Brit, are you harmed, slowed, disenfranchised, cheapened, made poorer, made hungrier, made more naked, etc, etc, etc, by OUR 1st Amendment as it is written?
You say you don’t know ‘how’ it should be changed, but you fail to state WHY it needs changing.
The first amendment prevents the government from directly banning a religion. It does not prevent banning overtly antisocial activities that happen to be tenants or practices of a religion. That reasonably includes preaching violation of the law being charged with incitement to crime.
It’s totally hilarious when they use television or the Internet to make that argument. Complete immunity to irony.
Forget 3D printed plastic guns. Bazookas baby!
When the Constitution was ratified, there was no Abortion either.
Tell the woman in the picture that and watch her head explode.
Alexander Hamilton’s observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people’s militias ability to be a match for a standing army: ” . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”