By AWR Hawkins
Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- A March 11th 2014 letter to the LA Times' editor takes on the argument that the Second Amendment only protects the kinds of guns in existence at its ratification by showing this would also mean the First Amendment only protects the kinds of speech of its day.
The debate was launched by a March 6th letter in which Whittier, California resident David Bortin wrote:
The real question is not what the 18th century framers meant by “militia” but what they meant by “arms.” Obviously they meant nothing like the subject of modern-day international arms limitation treaties. Let's face it: They didn't even mean AK-47s. What they had in mind were flintlock muskets and blunderbusses, and perhaps the crude handguns in use in 1792.
Responding to this on March 11th, Los Angeles resident Robert Emerson wrote:
It's an interesting position to suggest the 2nd Amendment should only protect the right to bear the arms in use when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Following this logic, the protections provided by the 1st Amendment must be similarly restricted to the technology of the time. Speech using radio or television or a blogger's commentary or the Internet would NOT be protected by the 1st Amendment, since “what they had in mind” were quill pens, hand presses and unamplified voices.
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.
His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.
If you have questions or comments, email him at [email protected] You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.