Him: An for all you people trying to protect the constitution, it was written when people used muskets. Not automatic weapons or powerful hand guns. It's called evolution. Either change with the times or sit in the back of the bus
Me: Yes, it was also written at a time during which writing was done with a quill pen, not computers or other machines, yet no one is arguing that the First Amendment no longer protects free speech. And it can be argued that at many times throughout history the pen has caused more damage than the firearm. In other words, the First Amendment HAS grown to accommodate changes to writing and other communications technology.
Guess what? The Second Amendment still accommodates technological changes in firearms technology; we are not limited to muskets.
Nice try, thank you for playing.
Him: that is the dumbest correlation I have heard. Are you comparing a 9 mm or an AK47 to an ink pen. Get real. Ink pens do not blow people's heads off. Or saw elementary students in half because someone had a bad day. It seems to me that the only people who want guns are the people not using them for the right reason anyway.
Me: Pens have begun wars. Pens have initiated riots. Pens have led to lynchings. The pen has arguably led to more deaths throughout history than have occurred in all of the mass shootings that have taken place in the US. If you are going to argue that the Second Amendment was written at a time when only muskets, pistols, and cannons were the available technology of the day, that the Constitution could not have anticipated the changes in firearms technology that have taken place and which, therefore, impacts on the exercise of the right, then to be intellectually consistent you must apply that same standard to other amendments that are affected by technological changes as well. The Constitution did not anticipate the rise of the computer, or the modern printing press, or the TV, or any of the other technologies that have made it possible for muslims to issue a fatwa in the mountains of Afghanistan that would result in the loss of 3,000 lives (more than have been lost in all of the mass shootings combined) in Manhattan on 911. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, we must obviously change or even eliminate the protections enumerated under the First Amendment because of the disastrous effects it has had on society. Like it or not, the parallel is valid.
BTW, you argument that the only people who want guns are those who are not using them for the right reason anyway is one of the most misinformed statements I have ever heard. There are over 80 million legal firearms owners in this country who have never committed a crime with their firearm. In fact, the gun violence study commissioned by Obama's executive action (with the goal of defending gun control) produced the following results:
***Suicide - not murder - is the number one kind of gun-related death in the US.
***Contrary to arguments put forward by gun control advocates, civilians use their firearms in lawful self defense AT LEAST as many times as they are used in the commission of a crime.
***You are NOT more likely to be injured or killed with your own firearm in a defensive encounter than by the criminal's firearm.
***Finally, mass shootings are the rarest form of gun related violence.
Maybe you should do some actual research before making such indefensible statements.
Him (here's where he goes on a little bit of a rant since he can't actually refute what I said): Pens do none of this. It's the words of the document that give it meaning not the ink pen. So again, get real. And you don't apply standards you rewrite to fit today's society so people like you don't use it as an excuse to run around with a gun like an idiot. Hey you know what. Cars have slipped off the road on patches of ice and died. Maybe we should encourage global warming to rid ice patches from the earth. People have a drank too much water in one sitting and died from liver toxicity. Maybe we should stop drinking water.
