Clearly another person who wants to try and re define the constitution to what they want it to say. I could argue that the framers did in fact mean assault weapons, since that was what the flintlocks at the time were. They never specified that the weapons were to be those forever defined by the technology of the day. And how many times are they going to use that tired self serving re definition of a well regulated militia? I can’t believe that they don’t see the risk of this argument being applied to our other enumerated rights.
There’s no right to not have 24/7 survelliance on you either-
since at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated, there were no drones, wiretaps,cell phones or email ...so by leftard ‘logic’, they don’t count.
I have a great idea! Let’s limit freedom of the press to old-style, hand-operated printing presses (of the type that were in existence at the time of the passing of the 1st Amendment)!
I am sure the framers did not mean to include today’s high-speed presses that can print far more falsehoods than the old-style presses could.
There are no more slaves in America, so we can repeal the 13th Amendment.