[TheForge] OT, but I Just have to ask...

[Andrew Vida]

Perhaps more to the point, if one reads through the various writings of 
the time, such as the Federalist Papers, it is clear that principles of 
just and sound government were not tied to the peculiarities of a given 
era's state of technological capabilities.  Were that so, then it would 
follow that the entire constitution could be readily deemed null and 
void.  There was no electricity in 1776, save lightning and static from 
furs on cold winter nights; there were no computers, or cars, or trains, 
or aircraft...  we could find a million reasons to claim that this 
provision or that provision of the constitution is no longer valid.  It 
is absurd on its face, yet there are people that will make, with a very 
straight face, the sort of assertion that Bruce has made about 
flintlock's and horse-drawn black powder cannon.  The reasoning seems 
valid to those who accept it, methinks, precisely because many of them 
are so unconfortable with the idea of firearms (or weapons of any sort) 
in private hands.  We could go on and on about the psychology behind 
this, but I'll spare us all.  Anyone interested in discussing it, I'm 
happy to do so with you offlist.

Ralph Douglass wrote:
> Bruce Freeman wrote:
> 
>>Or, technically no.
>>
>>Since the Constitution became the law of the land in 1789 (?), ONLY
>>arms that existed then would apply.  Flintlock and matchlock
>>muzzle-loaders.  Maybe a cannon drawn by horses.  Bows, crossbows, no
>>composite materials or compound actions...
>>
>>Two can play the semantics game.
> 
> This is true. But I ask where exactly does it say in the Constition that
> only the things at the time of the signing or ratification are allowed?
> Otherwise we have about 37 states too many.
> 
> Ralph