What Would Madison Think of the AR-15?

In this installment of Live to Shoot – Defending Our 2nd Amendment Rights, we discuss what would James Madison think of the modern AR-15 rifle

saf.org

subscribe to my newsletter

Follow this link and get $25 in ammo.

Fountain Podcast App
Follow me on Fountain


Follow twitter @JeffDowdle
Follow me on Truth Social - @JeffDowdle

Convention of States Project
Presearch search engine sign up.
Brave Browser

Find our Representative
email me at jeff@livetoshoot.com

Transcript

0:15

Welcome to the Lib Shoot podcast. My name is Jeff Dole and I've been a licensed farm dealer for the last 18 years, and this podcast to talk about. All things related Second Amendment, as well as anything else go in the World Sports story or anything else I might find interesting. So welcome, welcome, welcome. So if this is your first time tuning in this is your go-to spot for straightforward talk on the second Amendment. No fluff, just facts and, and, and fire for the cause. Today we're digging into a piece that I found on SCOTUS Block by Haley Proctor. And if you listen to this, you know, especially as we get closer to some decisions coming out from the Supreme Court Scot Block is a, is a, a pretty good place to go to get your updates on what's going on. That she, they are releasing the, the almost. Minute by minute below of what's the, the justices are up to. But this article by Hailey Proctor was what James Madison thought about AR 15. And it's a sharp look at why the framer's vision covers your modern rifle and not just some antique musket. It's an eyeopener. It's interesting and let's just kind of dig into it. So. This article tackles the heart of the debate. Does the Second Amendment stretch to protect today's firearms like AR fifteens or are we somehow locked into the 18th century technology? And Proctor makes a very compelling case that it does. Which we all know, leaning on hardcore originalism, figuring out what the framers intended and how that holds up today. So she points out how guns have come a long way since 79 1. We all know that from those, you know, clunky, one shot muskets that could foul up in a drizzle to semi with pinpoint accuracy, high magazine capacity, and real stopping paint change, stopping power. Sorry about that. It's a game changer for cell defense hunting and standing around. But yeah. It does amp up the stakes when things go wrong in the hand and they're in the hands of the bad guy. The key here is sticking to principles, not playing. Pretend with history, and we're not dragging Madison into the 21st century to test fire and ar. We're unpacking the rules here, and the ratifier wrote Smart balance between empowering armed citizens to protection and common sense while drawing line against outright abuse. Proctor drives this home with a classic Supreme Court moment from a case called Brown, the Entertainment Merchants Association from back in in 2011. It's the case where California tried to ban violent video games for kids claiming they were too graphic, found familiar during oral arguments. Justice clearly lit into the state lawyer with this g what? James Madison. What James Madison thought about video games? Did he enjoy them? The courtroom cracked up and justice Salito piled on asking if Mathen would've proved of mortal combat. It was pure girl gold. It weighed a spotlight. The ridiculous of demand demanding a founding error blueprint for every modern headache. What's makes this exchange so spot on if how it kind of flips the script on gun grabber's favorite Dodge. They love arguing that since meth had never dreamed of pixels or polymer frames. We should rewrite the rules onto the, onto the fly, but Brown, shut that down. The First Amendment shields violent games because the principle of free speech. Even the edgy stuff is broad and built to last. No need from Hassin. Thumbs up on Grant theft auto, or your Glock 19. The founders crafted enduring guardrails, not a fossilized rule book that crumbles under progress. It's a reminder that were true originalism. The Second Amendment's arms clause isn't some narrow loophole. It's a wide open door for tools that keep assistance free and safe from flintlocks to forward assist. That humor in the court. This a spark makes the whole argument stick. So building on that article walks us right through the analogical reasoning. The SmartWay courts bridge old laws to new realities. Instead of hunting for an exact 17 9 1 match, judges zero in on underlying ideas. Founding error res like keeping guns from felons or limiting carry and hotspots. Set the pattern today. That could green light focused fixes. We think that rahimi ruling where the court, okay, disarming a proven domestic abuser, but it torches blanket assault, weapon bans that paint every responsible owner with the same brush justice. Barrett's concurrence in Rahimi lays that out clean, looking for historical traditions that embody the same principles, giving lawmakers room to adapt without cutting the core. Right. No more of those fuzzy interesting balancing tests that Scotus torched and, and Bruin and Stevens, where judges play God weighing societal harm against your freedoms. The framers already quenched those numbers and armed populace, upsides, beat this. Downsides want to tweak it, fire up an amendment process, but they did like they did for the, you know, prohibition. Unlike then, your ars are protected as Madison's musket. So wrapping this up, proctors take a solid fuel Second Amendment fire linking straight back to winds like Garland V Cargill, restoring bunk stocks and the push against those merchant codes that let banks snoop in on your ammo purchases. It's proof our rice aren't rugs. They're rocket fuel for today, for you at home. Given Federalist 46th, read Masson's own words on why Disarmed folks are sitting ducks, then head to the range. Hone those skills and stay sharp and the length. Thoughts on Madison and your modern setup, let me know. Subscribe drop a review. Ping me on X. Do you disagree? Do you agree? I'd like to know. But from this perspective and from the SCOTUS blog, it is clear AR fifteens and James Madison were on the same page that he would've supported them because what it does is that I not. It is a tool that can help us protect us from an armed, from a tyranny as an armed populace. And to me that was what they really, truly meant when they said that our it shall not be infringed. So take care. Have a great rest of your day, and again, ping me, subscribe, share this with somebody, let everybody know about what's going on. We gotta continue to fight for our second amendment. Thank you.