The Right to Drive Safely

Motorhead Lawyer

So? The Consbreastution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate the Consbreastution? NO.

The case I refer to speaks of the Locomotion Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. What ever the Locomotion Ordinarily used may be at any given time. A hundred and fifty years ago, the Locomotion Ordinarily used was the horse and buggy, and nobody would have argued that one didn't have a Right to Travel by Horse and Buggy. Today, the Locomotion Ordinarily used is the Automobile, yet you have been convinced it is somehow an exception.

When our Right to Keep and Bear arms was invoked, firearms technology consisted only of muskets and cannons. But, of course, the term "Arms" does not refer to any specific firearms technology, but instead to ARMS in the broad sense. When the repeating rifle was later developed, the Right to keep and bear arms was understood to protect it as well.

Before our forefathers wrote the Consbreastution, there had been many developments in technology, all of which I'm sure they were aware. And, I'm also sure they were aware of the fact that New technologies would be developed AFTER the writing of the Consbreastution. That is why they used broader terms than just the current technology allowed. They didn't recognize our Right to keep and bear MUSKETS. They knew muskets were a new technology of the time. And, they knew new technologies would likely develop later on. SO, they recognized our Right to keep and bear ARMS.

Likewise, the Supreme Court didn't recognize our Right to Travel by HORSE AND BUGGY. Instead, they recognized our Right to Travel by the Locomotion Ordinarily used. And, today, it is undeniable that the Automobile IS the Locomotion Ordinarily used for Travel.

The decision has been used as precedence in many cases.

Oh my! A Personal buttault! An Ad Homimen. Will I ever survive your scathing words?

YES.

Hahahahahaha!!!