5 ms·
There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challeng
by kurthr 6y ago
There's an interesting constitutional issue there... which is that the right to bear arms is not the right to buy ammunition. That is made all the more challenging for an originalist, because metalic cartridges with percussion caps were not invented for almost a hundred years after the Bill of Rights.
If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged? Is it merely that you as a fully unprepared militiaman are inconvenienced? Does that mean that if you're late for a TV interview, zoom meeting, or tweetstorm you're free to drive through traffic lights in pursuit of the 1st amendment?
- jeffdavis 6y ago"If black powder and shot for a muzzle loader are available, has your right been abridged?" Your idea has been deemed dangerous by the internet police, and your ISP connection will be cancelled. Don't worry, you are still free to write a letter to your local newspaper, so your rights have not been infringed. Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit. Demanding cell tower records is considered a "search" and twitter is "the press".
- perl4ever 6y ago"Our rights are naturally extended with technological advances in the same spirit" It seems to me that very frequently, people declare something to be completely different just because it uses new technology. And then people argue if it really is different or not. There's never an airtight proof of who is right. A saying that I think I may have first seen on HN is something about quantity having a quality all its own. E.g. maybe at some point from a musket to a rifle to a machine gun to a bazooka to a nuke, there is a line to be drawn.
- banads 6y ago>“though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.” -George Orwell
- selimthegrim 6y agoBear arms is usually understood as being read with keep, as in in keep-and-bear arms.
- IncRnd 6y agoIt means to carry firearms, whether you keep them or not. Both rights are being codified in keep-and-bear.
- int_19h 6y agoApplying the same logic to 1A, we could say that the freedom of the press is not infringed - you can have as many as you want! - but it doesn't say anything about ink. Or laser and offset printers, for that matter. In practice, the courts take dim view on such arguments, and if some element is required to practically exercise a right, it is usually protected under that right.
- kurthr 6y agoSee, I actually agree... it's the originalists who have a problem. If you want to talk about the press, and having rights abridged by not having ink then you better actually be in the business of printing (or maybe a potential member of a well regulated militia?). Waiting periods have been deemed perfectly constitutional so it's a lot harder to argue that those so horrifically unprepared and unwilling to wait for their mail order ammo (yep that's legal!) to be delivered are really having rights infringed more than my free speech is being infringed by being forced to wear a shirt and shoes (or even pants) to be served food.
- int_19h 6y agoMail order ammo is only legal until the state says it's illegal - CA did just that. My understanding of your original premise was that there are no venues available.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- IncRnd 6y agoThe Amendments do not grant rights but protect them.