It is true that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to protect the right to own modern day firearms (since such guns did not exist), just as they never intended to protect the right to talk privately on a telephone or to broadcast news on a television (since telephones and televisions did not exist either). To assert that Constitutional protections only extend to the technology in existence in 1791 would be to claim that the 1st Amendment only protects the right to write with quill pens and not with computers, and that the 4th Amendment only protects the right to freedom from unreasonable searches in log cabins and not in homes made from high-tech synthetics.
The Constitution does not protect particular physical objects, such as quill pens, muskets, or log cabins. Instead, the Constitution defines a relationship between individuals and the government that is applied to every new technology. For example, in United States v. Katz, the Court applied the privacy principle underlying the 4th Amendment to prohibit warrentless eavesdropping on telephone calls made from a public phone booth - even though telephones had not been invented at the time of the 4th Amendment. Likewise, the principle underlying freedom of the press - that an unfettered press is an important check on secretive and abusive governments - remains the same whether the press uses a Franklin press to produce a hundred copies of a pamphlet, or laser printed to produce a hundred thousand.
It is true that an individual who misuses a firearm today can shoot more people than could an individual misusing a musket 150 years ago. Yet if greater harm were sufficient cause to invalidate a right, there would be little left to the Bill of Rights.
Virtually every freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights causes some damage to society, such as reputations ruined by libelous newspapers, or criminals freed by procedural requirements. The authors of the Constitution knew that legislatures were inclined to focus too narrowly on short term harms: to think only about society's loss of security from criminals not caught because of search restrictions; and to forget the security gained by privacy and freedom from arbitrary searches. That is precisely why the framers created a Bill of Rights - to put a check on the tendency of legislatures to erode essential rights for short-term gains.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can't go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it.
The Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone has these rights even if they live in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied. In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won't protect them? Then is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, the right to fair trials...?
In other words, it's a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn't let them exercise them, or if Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms?
Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn't have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist? The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes; we would still have those rights. We're just being denied them. Because of that, it's the way we have to look at the Constitution.
Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there. Have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments? The 9th says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people. The 10th says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.
Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights. The Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver's licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment. If the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. A right is a right even if the government represses it.
Support the 2nd Amendment Right Muster and Education Day (2ARMED) -
http://www.usa2076.com/2armed
