Correction: A previous version of this article said handguns didn’t exist in the 18th century. The author was referring to the type of modern handguns at issue in the Heller case; however, this was unclear and has been clarified.'Clarification'
Nor, of course, did the semi-automatic handguns at issue in the Heller case exist in the 18th century. But the “originalists” on the Supreme Court nevertheless interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to handgun ownership, flying in the face of the text itself and the founders’ intentions.
Yeah, because everyone's seen how the founders just hated the idea of the commoners having arms. Now look under their 'Technology evolves' section:
Take the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” without a proper warrant and probable cause. Under a strict textual reading, would the Fourth Amendment apply to cars, which the founders didn’t have? What about to government wiretaps of personal telephones, which also didn’t exist when the Constitution was ratified? A strict reading would allow broad government surveillance and the exact kind of tyranny the founders were trying to block. But unless the understanding of the text keeps pace with rapidly changing technology and innovation, the words and intentions of the Constitution will become obsolete, and we will all be worse off.
And yet the idea of firearms evolving just annoys hell out of them, and the commoners should not be allowed such!
Make up your damned mind, Filipovic.
By the way, your idea of what a originalist thinks is just as full of shit as your understanding of the 2nd Amendment. And what 'well-regulated' means.
This mess was pointed out by a guy on Bookface, who deserves credit for bringing this idiocy to our attention.