Seems pretty obvious to me.
But -- glad we agree that your 'technology' argument is selective, and as such I will consider you to have conceded the point.
There's no need to look closer -- you already conceded the point, that the 'technology' argument is unsound.I don't know lets look closer...
If a reporter's ability to libel, slander or give away sensitive information isnt a danger to society sufficient to justify their exclusion from the protection of the 1st amendment, why are these things banned?A reporter doing a news report is not even close to a person with a rocket launcher.
Given that a reporter very mush has the ability to cause harm by doing these things, and then, by YOUR argument, should need a license.
How am I wrong?
You have already admitted that your argument to this effect is subjective and inconsistent. Move on.Realistically this is absolutely correct.
This, of course, completely undermines your technology argument, based entirely on what you think they could or could not have thought of when they wrote the 2nd. Glad we can put that one to bed. Again.Irrelivant as he is dead and we have no idea what his reaction would be.
Now you're moving the goalposts.What part about over site are you not understanding? It does not have to be a license, it could be requiring a class or something else.
Does requiring a reporter to 'take a class' before the government says he can report the news violate the 1st amendment?
If so, then how does the same requirement applied to gun owers NOT violate the 2nd?
You have done everyghing BUT answer my question.Fact is I have answered this question a few times and you don't like my answer as you have done your best to ignore it.
You simply want to apply a subjective and inconsistent standard to one right and not others. Your argument has no rational, consistent basis.
What do you mean "if"?If this is the way all rights work...
If you don't understand that the right to do something ends at the point where it harms someone else, as described by any number ouf court decisions, you really arent capable of adding anything meaningful to this discussion.
Because the 2nd doesnt apply to nuclear weapons?why can't people own nuclear weapons?
Read the question again:The "right to bear arms" does not cover "all weapons."
What rights of yours do I violate by my simple possession of a weapon that is protected by the 2nd amendment?
Now, answer the question.