re: "No Amendment is absolute."

quote:

---

The founding fathers did not fathom personal machine guns or semiautomatic guns, high capacity guns, etc.

---

The founding fathers obviously agreed we could bear arms. The word "arms" is certainly not absolute.

It is true, the founding fathers did not fathom "gooberment" or personal machine guns or semiautomatic guns, high capacity guns, etc.

Which is why the word arms was used. Whatever gooberment uses the people can use.

quote:

---

Every amendment is absolute or none of them are. Yes I'm aware that Congress can change them but don't see that happening anytime soon

---

This is your own personal (and incorrect) interpretation. Rejecting reality doesn't change reality.

quote:

---

Let’s allow everyone “protect” themselves with bazookas, grenades, and what the heck, maybe a cruise missile. The founding fathers did not fathom personal machine guns or semiautomatic guns, high capacity guns, etc. Armies fought with muskets which fired a few times per minute.

---

I think that the Founding Fathers envisioned a tiny standing army and participation in the militia by a huge percentage of the adult male population. I also think that they expected those militia members to be able to provide their own personal weapons. An M4-variant is the modern equivalent of that 18th-century musket.

As I read the Amendment, the Founders also intended that the federal government would have no authority to prevent ANY citizen from the owning the weapons that he would need for militia service, regardless of whether the citizen was an active participant in the militia.

quote:

---

I think that the Founding Fathers envisioned a tiny standing army and participation in the militia by a huge percentage of the adult male population. I also think that they expected those militia members to be able to provide their own personal weapons. An M4-variant is the modern equivalent of that 18th-century musket.

As I read the Amendment, the Founders also intended that the federal government would have no authority to prevent ANY citizen from the owning the weapons that he would need for militia service, regardless of whether the citizen was an active participant in the militia

---

this is my uneducated non-lawyer take on it as well.

quote:

---

This is still a limit on free speech. Can I say whatever the frick I want with whatever intent I choose, whenever I choose to say it?

If I cannot do so unequivocally under any circumstance imaginable without repercussion from the government, then my freedom of speech is in fact limited.

---

You are pretending that any time speech is involved in, or incidental to, a crime, that the absolutist doctrine is invoked. This is the worst defense of relativism and limitations I've ever seen. And it's a pretty poor attempt at trying to box people into a corner. I suppose next you're going to tell me that laws against armed robbery are also a limitation on speech because you may be inclined to say, "this is a stick up!".

When you resort to perjury, knowing the two most important elements are materiality and intent, and claim that is a statute somehow designed as a limitation on speech...you're telling me you have no argument.

There's a reason perjury convictions don't happen when people speak lies but believe they are saying the truth. The SCOTUS has specifically addressed this type of situation, because if that happened, then we would definitely have a limitation / chilling, because people would be petrified to open their mouths at all.

I did find it interesting that you invoke absolutist language to attack absolutism. Made me laugh.

I'm starting to wonder if this is a troll.

quote:

---

You can’t have a thermonuclear weapon as a private citizen

---

Argument made by imbeciles. What part of a nuclear weapon is considered "ordinary military equipment"?

quote:

---

As another example, a SAW (which obviously did not exist in the 18th century) would not have been "arms" as the term was used at the time.

---

No, the SAW is not a crew-served weapon and certainly fits the OME definition of arms. Since most crew-served systems are common in weapon platoons of current infantry I would say they fit the definition of "arms" as OME too now.

quote:

---

No, the SAW is not a crew-served weapon

---

I did not say otherwise. But it strikes me as the type of weapon that would’ve been provided by the sponsor of the militia, rather than by the individual infantryman of the 18th century.

quote:

---

It isn’t. You can’t have a thermonuclear weapon as a private citizen and pretending like you don’t understand why is a bad look

---

the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with nukes tf you blabbering about