Anonymous #2 18h

It doesn't but their logic is that we should examine the intent of law makers and their understanding of firearms instead of the plain text of the law

1

Anonymous #2 18h

Still it falls flat in that the founders knew of firearms more comparable to today's than a musket: The repeating rifle, the shotgun, and the handgun all existed and were known of by them, people even sold and owned cannons without licensure in the US

1

Anonymous #1 18h

I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say, could you please rephrase it?

1

Anonymous #2 17h

The idea is to make an argument about how the legislature was thinking when writing the Constitution. On the surface it seems reasonable to say that since modern firearms didn't exist when they were writing the constitution, they couldn't have pictured that. But it falls flat because there actually are analogous weapons predating the Constitution which the founders knew about

1