I think it's pointless to assume the intentions of lawmakers from 100s of years ago... I wouldn't have played your game if I knew you were gonna be a pain in the ass about it. On to a real topic please, this one is meaningless.You;re right... you're imagining something and presenting it as if it makes a point.I'm not making that case.But cell phones and cable news... well, no, that's different.You're the one that brought up the intentions of the founding fathers. Considering the available weapons and the state of the union at the time of their law making is absolutely validYour imagination does not mean this is true, nor does it make any sort of relevant point.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER