Ironic that I see the same issue, but from a different side:
I see it as maybe the founders didn’t quite see how subversive the authoritarians would be, I mean the Bill of Rights was ratified some two generations before Karl Marx was born.
Really it should read “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall not be infringed! Seriously we me ARMS, as in all ARMS, guns, knives, cannons, and grenades! Seariously idiots, you think we wrote the word ‘infringed’ for our fucking health?”
Honestly the real irony is anti-gun people giving lip service to the 2nd Amendment, but really despising it and wishing it was never penned.
Seriously, how many times have you heard an anti say “You want a gun, go join the military!”, implying that people in the military have ANY right to arms. Sorry, they don’t get to choose what arms they bear, when they bear it, and when they will have no access to arms at all.
The bottom line is when it comes to gun, the antis would like to freeze time in 1776…while exercising their 1st Amendment rights with cellphones across the world-wide web.
Then again, they’re only interested in the 1st Amendment when THEY’RE using it…call Obama a Muslim Terrorist, and you should be JAILED!
Sooo…. the founders would be okay with those evil guns if they were expensive and hard to get?
Funny how often gun control boils down to “Poor people shouldn’t have guns!”
Yeah, I guess the message here is that so long as the arm is super expensive, not very accurate, and takes a while to reload, we’re good to go. So a non-guided shoulder fired surface to air missle is well within scope according to this cartoonist.
Why would the founders even bother writing rights down if they all have secret void codes that needn’t be documented?
“Should we say something about freedom of the press being void if literacy becomes commonplace, paper and ink become cheap, plentiful, and can libel and inflame the opinions of millions?”
Before the press became sensitive to prejudicial pre-trial publicity, newspapers would refer to a charged suspect as a “murderer”, etc.—before the trial and verdict, and before all the evidence was made known. Point? The First Amendment has a dark side, too, which allowed local editors, as one example, to purportedly poison the minds of potential jurors. Would the anti-rights people like to speculate on how many folks have been wrongfully convicted because the editor of a local rag went on an intemperate press crusade?