Our founding fathers did not have computers, laptops, i-pads or i-phones and most of the historical founding documents were written with quill pens. Many Liberal, Anti-Gun and anti-freedom anarchists that serve in our state and federal governments use a very flawed argument in their desire to confiscate and dis-arm Americans of their constitutional right. They state that the founding fathers did not either anticipate or calculate that technological advances would allow weapons to be more destructive than weapons of that era. This is a flawed premise and an argument that they only apply to the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bear arms only.
They fail to apply it to the fact that there have been just as many technological advances in the form of mass media and the mass hysteria that they provoke. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech & freedom of the press. Clearly there is a double standard when it comes to which rights they support and which ones they don’t!
Please find below probably “THE BEST” analysis that I have found as it relates to this topic. Read it several times to really understand it. It is VERY POWERFUL and the ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE of our Founding Fathers will shine through!
Does “freedom of the press” in the Constitution’s First Amendment, and its state counterparts, apply only to printing presses “of the sort” in use in 1789? Are printing technologies that rely on lead type protected, while xerographic processes are not? Is a pamphlet distributed on floppy diskette or through electronic mail unprotected? Should the Supreme Court hold that presses capable of printing thousands of pages of libels per hour are not protected?
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 applies to every new technology. For example, in United States v. Katz,168 the Court applied the privacy principle underlying the Fourth Amendment to prohibit warrantless eavesdropping on telephone calls made from a public phone booth—even though telephones had not been invented at the time of the Fourth Amendment.169
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 a publisher uses a Franklin press to produce a hundred copies of a pamphlet, or laser printers to produce a hundred thousand. In 1791, it was easy to start a newspaper. But today, starting a major paper requires large financial resources. The changed conditions provided a reason to uphold a law guaranteeing a right of reply to persons who were attacked in a newspaper. But the Supreme Court had no trouble rejecting changed conditions as a reason for retreating from the historical understanding of the First Amendment.170
It is true that an individual who misuses a semiautomatic today can shoot more people than could an individual misusing a musket 200 years ago.171 Yet if greater harm were sufficient cause to invalidate a right, there would be little left to the Bill of Rights.
Since the Constitution was adopted, virtually all of the harms that flow from constitutional rights have grown more severe. Today, if an irresponsible reporter betrays vital national secrets, the information may be in the enemy’s headquarters in a few minutes, and may be used to kill American soldiers and allies a few minutes later. Such harm was not possible in an age when information traveled from America to Europe by sailing ship. Correspondingly, a libelous television program can ruin a person’s reputation throughout the nation, a feat no single newspaper could have accomplished. Likewise, criminal enterprises have always existed, but the proliferation of communications and transportation technologies such as telephones and automobiles makes possible the existence of criminal organizations of vastly greater scale—and harm—than before.
In short, the proposition that the (arguably) greater dangers of semiautomatics justify a ban on modern firearms technology proves too much, since it allows a ban on many other modern objects used to exercise constitutional rights in harmful ways.
Virtually every freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights causes some damage to society.
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 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.