On muskets and printing presses…


Here we find yet another attempt to promote the old “The-2nd-Amendment-Only-Applies-to-Muskets” argument. An oldie but a goody.

The weapons with which Madison was familiar were essentially muskets, in addition to rudimentary pistols and rifles. A competent user could take a single wildly inaccurate shot, and then find himself rummaging around with a ram-rod (and a powder bag he had to tear with his teeth) for over a minute before being able to take another. There was no way an individual could maim two people before being subdued, let alone 32 as at Virginia Tech, or 26 in Sandy Hook Elementary – the site of what is now the deadliest school shooting in US history.

We have heard it all before. The Founders didn’t envision modern weaponry and, therefore, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to this technology.

Of course the same argument would apply to the 1st Amendment protections of the press, wouldn’t it? The Founders didn’t envision radio, television or the Internet and, therefore, the 1st Amendment protections associated with them do not apply. Only newspapers printed with manual, hand set presses can be used and newspapers must be delivered by horse power, sail boat or river barge. Beyond these 18th century limitations, constitutional protections of the press just don’t apply.

I doubt the “muskets only” crowd would agree, however.

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to On muskets and printing presses…

  1. notamobster says:

    I’m all for going back to muskets only…just as soon as my government does. Another brilliant refinement, sir! It obviously doesn’t apply to the 4th Amendment, either. They never envisioned being able to store information electronically. (I think the feds have actually used this one.)

  2. Greg B says:

    Funny anecdote.
    In 7th grade, I was required to take a shop class. The class I ended up in was print shop. We actually had to set type, letter by letter.
    Now, the presses were motor driven, so I guess the Founders would have frowned on that. πŸ˜‰

  3. Uke says:

    The Founders never would have envisioned Iowa, so the constitution probably doesn’t apply to Iowa at all.


  4. R.D. Walker says:

    The Founders didn’t envision Scientology so the 1st Amendment protection for religion doesn’t apply.

    The Founders didn’t envision gay marriage so it certainly cannot be protected by the Constitution.

    We know the Founders didn’t believe that abortion was constitutionally protected.

    We could go on and on…

  5. BaconNeggs says:

    I got to admit once upon a time I used to fall for a lot of these MSM arguments about Firearms. However, thanks to listening to you guys here, I now have a much better understanding of Firearms and can appreciate just how stupid much of the anti-gun arguments are.

    I think the ignoramus in the MSM push the belief that by itself full-auto rapid fire firearm makes a weapon and killing infinitely more deadly than a semi-auto. When I hear the media outcry against “assault weapons” and see the long guns in question, I recall the recent post about …the evil looking black stock gun versus the nice n friendly wood stock gun… and have to laugh at the ignorance.

    If only dumb folks can get it through their thick skulls, that taking away natural individual rights to own firearms to defend and protect themselves, mean we can soon return to those good ole happy days, when the lion and the lamb lived happily in the field and every one and every thing was sweetness and light.

    This Christmas many people will buy video games (such as Grand Theft Auto) for their children, that involves car-jacking and shooting and killing for fun and not make the connection that games like these devalues a child respect for life.

    Never mind assault weapons ban, the real issue is moral decay. Still, having said that, its only a tiny percentage of people who appear to have underlying mental health problems who seem unable to draw the line between reality and fantasy and act out these deadly games in real life.

  6. Jim22 says:

    This reminds me of the twitter confrontation last week between Piers Morgan and Carol Roth.


    Morgan alleged that, β€œThe 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles,”

    Roth fought for the right to self-defense. Morgan retorted with, “Where in the second amendment does it mention self-defense?”

    Roth retorted, “Right next to where it mentions ‘Muskets’.