Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 2 years ago

If your argument is: they didn't have Assault Rifles when they wrote 2nd Amendment, so those shouldn't be protected...WELL they didn't have?

TV or internet when they wrote 1st Amendment so why should THOSE be protected either?

21 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Ouch that kinda logic is so true it hurts,,,,,,,yeah the liberal left uses freedom of speech to make threats on TV, radio and theaters, Bush assassination movies, Trump be-heading play all as freedom of speech but the right to keep and bear arms is only for muskets.

    Michael Moore “Storm Republican Offices”

    Kathy Griffin ‘Beheads’ Trump in Graphic Photo

    Madonna – “I’ve thought a lot about blowing up the White House.”

    Snoop Dogg “Shoots” Trump in the Head in Music Video

    Robert De Niro: “I’d Like to Punch Him in the Face”

    Joss Whedon: “I Want a Rhino to F*ck Paul Ryan to Death”

    Shakespeare in the Park Stabs ‘Trump’ to Death in Performance of ‘Julius Caesar’

    David Simon: “Pick Up a G*ddamn Brick” if Trump Fires Robert Mueller

    Mickey Rourke Threatens to Beat Trump with Baseball Bat: “He Can Suck My F*cking D*ck”

    Actress Lea DeLaria Threatens to ‘Take Out’ Republicans and Independents with Baseball Bat after Trump Win

    Rapper YG Threatens Trump with “F*ck Donald Trump” Song

    Marilyn Manson Kills ‘Trump’ in Music Video

    Rapper Everlast Warns Trump: “I Will Punch You in Your F*cking Face”

    Larry Wilmore Jokes About Suffocating Trump with ‘Pillow They Used to Kill Scalia’

    Stephen Colbert’s Late Show Puts Stephen Miller’s Head on a Spike

    Sarah Silverman Suggests Military Could Help Overthrow Trump

    Shakespeare in the Park's Caesar-Style Trump Assassination Isn't PC Enough for Conservatives

    https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/shakespeare-park-a...

    Bush Assassination Film

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojWOWyHWj6M

    Youtube thumbnail

  • 2 years ago

    They did not have assault rifles or many of the weapons that are available today which is the reason they weren't included in the wording of the second amendment. The 2nd amendment was written mentioning the right to bear arms. This right is/or should be guaranteed to Americans. Arms in the 2nd meant whatever was available and that was the meaning implied. Times change, firearms change but the basic concept of the wording does not.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 2 years ago

    >WELL they didn't have....

    Penis cakes!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Marduk
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    You are correct, a person talking on TV is not a person talking next to you. Whereas an AR-15 is just like a musket.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 years ago

    It is a logical argument. Back then you could exercise free speech by talking to a group, writing something in the paper or getting something printed up in a pamphlet and giving those out. You could not go and hit practically every single person all at the same time. So yes, the internet is equal to an AR15. If you are going to say modern guns are not covered under the Second Amendment then the Internet is not covered under the First.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    The real argument is about money

    The gun crazies don't have the money to successfully wage war against the combined forces of the US military and law enforcement establishments.

    How much do you think that it would cost to buy and arm a used F-4 Phantom and then keep it the air for an hour.

    When the Second Amendment was written there was no difference between civilian and military weapons

    That was then this is now

    • ...Show all comments
    • Lv 7
      2 years agoReport

      I understand that
      But I also understand that the majority of the American people will not support your cause
      Which means that you have a problem that you don't have a solution for

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 2 years ago

    BAD analogy. REALLY bad. Because you're forgetting one very important thing: radio. They didn't have radio when they wrote the first amendment. But there are only a limited number of frequencies available for radio. So you cannot use the first amendment to broadcast freely on radio.

    We could also go on about how no right is absolute. For instance freedom of speech doesn't protect you from libel or slander not does it allow you to falsely shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to perform human sacrifices, etc. Likewise I think we all can agree that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to own tactical nukes. There must be some kind of restriction. There are limits to your rights.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 years ago

    The musket WAS an assault weapon in 1776. The main difference was there were no liberals polluting the colonies.

    • 2 years agoReport

      Spawned from Jews.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 2 years ago

    And in what way did tv, internet, or even radio, make freedom of speech "dangerous"? It freely presents ideas to the public that you don't agree with? Oh no.

    Do you forget how as soon as Trump took office he was trying and wanting to stifle free speech? Okay then.

    At best, I will give you the nasty segments of the internet that warp people into extremists, school shooters, white supremacists, MRAs, etc. They are proof that the right to free speech should not be abused. Nor should gun ownership...

  • jimm
    Lv 7
    2 years ago

    Exactly. But liberals would love to constrict the right to defend yourself. Liberals want to government to come in and take over this country but we will not let that happen

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.