If 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect AK-47s, 1st Amendment Doesn’t Protect Modern Media

By AWR Hawkins

Pink AK-47
If 2nd Amendment Doesn't Protect AK-47s, 1st Amendment Doesn't Protect Modern Media
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

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.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at [email protected]

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.

  • 7 thoughts on “If 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect AK-47s, 1st Amendment Doesn’t Protect Modern Media

    1. The simple fact that the majority of Americans do not understand that they in fact CAN purchase and OWN full automatic firearms, silencers and even explosives, provided they fill out and “submit” (SIC) the proper paperwork and pay the fines… er, I mean funds to process these documents. Full auto firearms are an excellent hedge against inflation as the prices for many of these firearms outpace the price of gold!

    2. Judge Napolitano says it best…if We the People do not have the right to possess automatic weapons how do we “loan” that authority to the government? Government derives it’s power with our permission, not the other way around.

    3. Paul, with all due respect, adding the phrase “within reason” is at the core of our current gun control problems. Who decides what is within reason? In 1934, the federal government decided that automatic weapons, short barrel rifles and shotguns, and suppressors were not within reason. Connecticut officials recently decided that anything that they could classify as an “assault weapon” as well as standard capacity magazines are not within reason. New York officials came to the same decision, as well as deciding that magazines holding more than seven rounds are not within reason. In Washington D.C., having a spent shell casing in your vehicle is not within reason.

      Our right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. The second amendment doesn’t say anything about only infringing a little, as long as it is within reason.

    4. As the “Progressive’s” anti-2nd Amendment arguments become more bizarre, so does everything else they’re doing to “transform” America.

    5. I think that all arms should be protected by the 2nd amendment otherwise none of them should be not even the ones that the police and military have, so all of the modern firearms should be protected, and people should be allowed to have within reason any type of modern firearm they want.

    6. Here is the Supreme Court from the 2008 Heller decision, now the Law of the Land:

      “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.”

      This case is required reading for all calling themselves American:

      Only thing worse than a person that can’t read is one that won’t read.

    7. As I wrote in a paper 20 years ago the authors intend that the arms be equivalent to what the enemy would have including one to own a cannon if they wanted to.

      There should not be any limitations on law abiding citizens to own fully automatic weapons or other ty

    Leave a Comment 7 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *