[QUOTE=Fiddle Peghead]
Mustn’t you also give credence to the idea that the founding fathers would support limiting the right to bear arms if they were alive today and saw how much said arms have changed?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure they would allow for the possibility, which is why they provided a process to amend the Constitution.
Regards,
Shodan
Whatever laws we have put in place since the 1800’s they have not anywhere near matched the evolution of firearms over that time, not to mention the number of arms so many people want to have and do have and the vast amounts of ammunition people have. The laws may have changed minimally, the arms have changed monumentally.
I’m not sure which side you’re on, but I agree. 
The laws have changed substantially since 1934. Firearms have not.
I bet the guy wouldn’t have missed with one of these.
But consider the thought process behind why so many governments engaged in censorship both before and after the Bill of Rights included freedom of the press; it might go something like this:
“The press must be subservient to the ruling authority. Otherwise all manner of sedition and blasphemy might be espoused, the rabble exhorted to riot and rebellion, the morals of the youth corrupted, and the lawful authority slandered and called into doubt.”
Governments, which by definition are about control, will automatically and unconsciously ever seek more control; and that includes control of speech and information. To whatever extent the free flow of information impedes or contradicts the government’s goals, a free press will always need protecting from the government. If you don’t accept freedom of speech and of the press as a fundamental principle, then you could make the following argument:
“Yes, the Founders talked about freedom of the press, but remember what that meant at the time. They were talking about handbills being circulated and distributed. They couldn’t have foreseen demagogues being able to reach millions of people at a time. They couldn’t have foreseen cable porn in every home. They couldn’t have foreseen Internet anonymizers that allow terrorists across the planet to secretly conspire. In short, they couldn’t have foreseen how dangerous a free press would be today. We need to adopt to modern realities.”
The Second Amendment isn’t about some particular hardware. It’s about the premise of whether government should have a monopoly on possessing weapons or not. You want gun control? Propose a gun control plan that applies equally to the government, and then get back to me.
Firearms are supposed to be dangerous. That is a feature, not a bug. The analogy is good because both are rights secured by the Constitution. But the idea that communication equipment cannot be dangerous is simply false. It allows criminals to better plan their activities, and even set off bombs. It allows disaffected groups to communicate across great distances and amplify their anger which can lead to violence.
Now, that is an excellent example of a false analogy. Unless, of course you can point to the section of the constitution concerning flush toilets.
While I firmly believe that the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, the way to change it is through the amendment process. If anything, I think the FF would be shocked that we utilize that process so infrequently.
Some people will watch that video and think “The government must save us. We need to enact more laws.”
Other people will think “Why didn’t anybody shoot him?”
I expect those that want others to provide for their safety will never see eye to eye with those who just want to be allowed to provide for their own.
Someone will probably produce a version in which everyone whips out a flintlock pistol and trains them on the guy before he can shoot. 
But its not a simple comparison of two things on earth. Its a comparison of the instruments of the first amendment to instruments of the second amendment.
Modern media is far more powerful that it used to be. Advertisers and despots alike both know that it can be used as a form of mass mind control. Guys like Rupert Murdoch push a more conservative message through his vast media empire tapping into the basest instincts of our nature and makes billions doing it. The Koch brothers and other billionaires manage to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and single handedly financing presidential candidates.
We free hundreds if not thousands of felons that we KNOW are guilty in an effort to preserve elements of the 4th and 5th amendments.
The only thing the anti-gun side has is a special pleading that the second amendment is not like the other amendments and ought to be held to different standards. Standards that allow us to ignore it almost entirely.
The first revolver was invented in 1816, Colonel Colt started making his revolvers in 1836. We had some significant improvements in WWI but nothing really game changing since then as far as I can tell. Guns are low tech. Modern sewing machines are more complicated than modern guns. In fact, according to some people, some of the best guns ever made were made by a sewing machine company.
There was a much higher incidence of gun ownership in the 1860s (or even the 1960’s) than there is today and while gun technology has virtually stood still and ownership has dropped, gun regulation has steadily increased.
Guns haven’t changed, society has and if society wants a different relationship with guns, then they need to amend the constitution to allow for that.
+1 for emphasis. Too many of the arguments from the anti-gun side amount to “but guns are intended to kill people so they’re different” (as if the founding fathers didn’t realize that guns could kill people).
I used to think this way. I figured the cops can protect us and if a trained police officer can’t protect me then what chance do I have. Then I realized that cops can’t (or won’t) always help you and they will almost certainly not be standing there when you need them most. As they say, when seconds count, cops are only minutes away.
This ad presents a lie. Gun laws have changed, repeatedly. It pretends they haven’t. It’s false and disingenuous.
I would like to see this magic AR-15. Does it have a name?
The PERSON who killed all the children at Sandy Hook had a name. He was Adam Lanza. He wanted to kill the children. He used a gun. he could have used fire or made explosives or simply driven over them and then gone on to another school to repeat the process. He is the reason the children are dead. If after every murder we take away the tools used it will not stop the next event. It may actually have the opposite effect. Bombs may simply take the place of guns. Do we then take away nails and common chemicals?
Lanza should have been a candidate for a state mental institution. This is what the commercial should have been about. Helping the mentally ill. When I was young we didn’t have these kinds of shootings. We also had fenced in Mental Hospitals that have since been shut down. Is there a connection? I personally am aware of a handful of mentally ill adults who are wandering the country with no supervision. They may or may not be on their medication. Their parents fear another Gabrielle Giffords event.
Huh. So you can’t hide behind the exercise of rights as per the bill of rights to justify committing acts of harm on people?
Alright, I’m convinced. I think we should make shooting people with guns except in certain extreme circumstances illegal.
This argument is comically stupid. You compare the act of committing crimes and other malicious acts with simply owning guns.
Various chemicals in different sorts of gunpowder are corrosive to metal and can be neutralized by ammonia.
Anyway, the idea that the revolution in mass communications pales in comparison to the revolution in firearm technology is actually completely fucking ridiculous. Firearms haven’t really advanced much in 300 years. Yes, they fire faster - that’s about it. You can fire maybe 45 rounds a minute instead of 3. But it’s still basically the same thing - one dude points a boomstick at something and flings a projectile at it. It’s kind of remarkable how little they’ve advanced when you consider how much technology in general has advanced and how quickly weapons technology tends to advance.
On the other hand, mass communications have been revolutionized by orders of magnitude over and over again. You used to have to send messages across the world on months-long journies that would only arrive most of the time. Only a very few people had the ability to print and distribute books and other written materials. In the modern world, we can download DVDs in 5 minutes and play video games with people on the other side of the world. A gazillion people have a blog. There are billions of photos posted to facebook every month.
If the founding fathers saw a modern assault rifle, they’d say “oh, well that’s a pretty remarkable weapon” - if the founding fathers saw internet porn, their fucking heads would explode.