“Your argument for restricting modern firearms because the Founders never imagined them is easily disposed of garbage. “
—
I HAD no argument for anything-—I was just commenting on what our forefathers probably had envisioned..
Lighten up!
.
.
“I HAD no argument for anything-—I was just commenting on what our forefathers probably had envisioned.”
Lighten up!”
“The Framers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams a jam-packed airport,stadium,or mall.”
That, in turn, was YOUR response to thesharkboy’s statement in #21 that:
“If the Second Amendment had only been more clear about keeping and bearing arms, then all this confusion could be avoided. Darn it.”
___________________________
How else should one view your statement, but as an argument for gun restrictions? You responded to a statement that said that there should be NO restrictions (or “infringement”) upon our 2nd Amendment rights, with a statement that ONLY anti-gun people make, with is “the Founders could never have imagined X.” That is, by necessity, an argument for interpreting the Constitution as a “living” document (which the anti-gun Leftists like to do), rather than based upon the original meaning of its text (as generally pro-gun Originalists like to do).
I hope that you understand why I reacted as I did - because your statement was, in context, entirely consistent with the typical anti-gun argument that the Left has been presenting for decades, no matter what your initial intention may have been.