Professor pulls out tired argument that Founding Fathers never could have imagined 'assault rifles'

Maybe one of the reasons conservatives respect and revere the Constitution and advocate for constitutionalist judges on the Supreme Court is that they realize what a forward-looking document it was and remains today. It was several years ago, but you might remember President Barack Obama attending a gun round table admitting that he was “constrained” by the Constitution when it came to enacting his will.

And now we have 2020 hopeful Kamala Harris announcing, even before this weekend’s mass shootings, that if elected, she will give Congress 100 days “to get their act together and … pass reasonable gun safety laws” or else she will then take executive action … which sounds unconstitutional to us.

There’s a tired argument that comes up every time there’s a mass shooting (that makes the news), and this time around we have professor and former ambassador Michael McFaul to tee it up:

Those who penned the Second Amendment could never have imagined the lethal capacity of these high-powered, high-capacity assault rifles.

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 5, 2019

First, despite what Piers “Musket” Morgan would have you believe, the Founders had some pretty impressive firepower.

1) The authors of the 2A knew about fully automatic weapons. They even saw them demonstrated.

2) AR-15s are not high-powered rifles. Fact.

3). Capacity of mags vary, and all sizes have been used with the same results.

4) Learn what "assault weapon" means. Please.

— Joe (@JoeFL65) August 5, 2019

https://t.co/ONHM0mt1Mt

20 rounds within seconds.

— Ducky ¯_(ツ)_/¯ (@thatjerkme) August 5, 2019

You've never seen what a .58 Minie Ball does, haven't you?

That chunk of leaf destroys limbs, you might want to compare it to the smaller bullets used now. https://t.co/RLrlBCO90w

— Dark Psychic Dragoon Bunny Girl (@NatashaRostov5) August 5, 2019

Those same men who penned the 1st amendment couldn't have envisioned Social Media, or the internet. But I am certain it mattered little to them in either case. What they were more interested in was the preservation of liberty and not government control of the people.

— T_C_ (@ToeKnee_Sea) August 5, 2019

Those who penned the First Amendment could never have imagined people all over world communicating in real time.

What's your point, bud? https://t.co/bprPpcLsdB

— RBe (@RBPundit) August 5, 2019

Just like they never imagined our 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Speech to be exercised through a computer or telephone. Care to revoke yours? https://t.co/zjJYj6n0gn

— John (@John12230062) August 5, 2019

They never could have imagined the internet either, but I'm sure you expect 1st Amendment protections for the moronic drivel you spew on Twitter. https://t.co/y8d2jn7iPF

— Thatguyfromwy (@thatguyfromwy) August 5, 2019

Those who penned the First Amendment could never have imagined the lethal capacity of these high-powered, high-capacity liberal server farms and progressive liberal media. #FixedItForYou https://t.co/qy5UQBfjrm

— Sparky's ? Barn (@BillyHurst14) August 5, 2019

Your premise is flawed, dishonest or both.
Are you under the belief that the 2nd Amendment is based on technology? It isn't–it's based on a principle that citizens must have the means to defend their free state.
You're spreading nonsense.

— KAM (@KAMbot1138) August 5, 2019

Exactly. But that didn’t stop McFaul with continuing on to the next worn-out gun control trope: No one needs a gun they wouldn’t use for hunting. It’s like 2020 hopeful Amy Klobuchar saying she evaluates any gun policy by asking, “Does this hurt my uncle Dick in his deer stand?” — because that’s what the founders had in mind.

I grew up in Montana, attended hunter's safety class, hunted with my dad, had multiple rifles in our house. No one in my family defends the idea that Americans have the need or right to buy military assault guns, capable of killing 9 people in 30 seconds. #Enough. #DoSomething.

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 5, 2019

So how many people did your dad kill?

— 82Brew (@rodgers_jeff) August 5, 2019

That’s great for your family, continue on. Fortunately, for the rest of us, rights do not emanate from your family’s views on an issue. https://t.co/mDz2EpSMot

— Ryan Petty (@rpetty) August 5, 2019

Why do they keep citing "hunting?" The 2A says nothing about it, and I would never hunt anyway.

— M. E. Tobin (@TheRiler) August 5, 2019

The #2A is and was never about hunting. Also the military doesn't use AR15s.

— Someone Else (@kd7oir) August 5, 2019

he must not have studied the constitution and why/what each of the amendments were about. ???????

— Jim Oaks (@oaks_jim) August 5, 2019

i personally dont care what his opinion or that of his family is.

— Dr. Rob RPh, PA-C, JD (@BShakakalaka) August 5, 2019

Then your family has a fundamental ignorance concerning gun rights. Check with the @nra. They can help educate you and your family.

— Brian O'Kelley (@BrianOKelley1) August 5, 2019

Nothing to do with hunting
The criminals will forever have the weapons everyone wants to get rid of.
We’re keeping ours

— ????????? (@Serafinos) August 5, 2019

No one has the right to determine what the need of someone’s defense needs to be. Responsible gun owners don’t go shoot people.
Notice the places that have had a gun controller being killed by knives and machetes
Over 90 people were killed by a knife on a train in China

— ????????? (@Serafinos) August 5, 2019

I grew up in NY, (and have enjoyed a hunt in Montana). In NY i was told which guns I could purchase.

I live in VA, and will not be told by a politicitian what I can and cannot purchase, that includes a modern sporting rifle.

— Mike (@mcposwusnr) August 5, 2019

We always had guns in our house. No one ever picked them up to use on other people.

— Sue Razi (@KateMikal3) August 5, 2019

A. Hunting is not the same as self-defense. B. My .22 cal. semi-auto, 18-shot squirrel rifle can also kill 9 people, or more, in 30 seconds. But it won't, because I'm not a criminal maniac. That's the key.

— Daniel Lee (@RealDanLee) August 5, 2019

Hey, genius, a lever action 30-30 can kill 9 people in 30 seconds. A 12 gauge pump can kill 9 people in 30 seconds, a Colt Peacemaker can kill 9 people on 30 seconds, a bolt-action 30.06 can kill 9 people in 30 seconds.

It's the person, not the weapon.

— Brian LaBonde (@Redhawk_Vet) August 5, 2019

Almost every gun, including bolt and lever action, are capable of firing enough rounds to kill 9 people in 30sec, however, it takes a sick and twisted individual to pull the trigger. We need to focus on the cause of the problem, not the symptoms.

— E.L.D. (@doomedcobra85) August 5, 2019

I just have plain old semi-auto rifles. Where are these "military assault guns" sold?

— Legal Sense (@sense_legal) August 5, 2019

Stop speaking for the rest of us. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

— Smells Like Teen Statism (@BlueEightySixed) August 5, 2019

Maybe if the Left would retire (or at least define) the term “assault weapon” we’d have some starting ground for a real conversation on guns.

Related:

‘They ALWAYS go for the instant HIGH’: Thread detailing how Dems have (once again) overplayed their gun-grabbing hand is EPIC https://t.co/PkhqaVznmx

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 5, 2019