Of course, he also thinks putting guns in the hands of the law-abiding will somehow result in a statistically significant uptick in homicides, then shares this deep and abiding insight, "I think the idea that the Founders' 'original intent' should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony -- as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet."
Yeah, Mr. Robinson, 'cos human nature has changed in drastic and fundamental ways since the late 1700s? Because "freedom of speech and of the press" could not possibly refer to electronic media, even the fat pipe of easy and widespread Internet access? (Only shouting from soapboxes and printing with a manual press using hand-set type are protected, yeah sure). Because making "... no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" could not possibly include Sci3nt0l0gy, Unitarians* or Hari Krishna d00ds?
It is not a matter of the technology those men used to record their thoughts but rather the quality and depth of those thoughts. A quill pen scratches along at about the rate most writers compose and far more rapidly than the thoughts of political philosopher can be organized and set down.
It is nothing but prejudice -- the blind arrogance of the materially privileged -- to sneer at our forebears as narrow, ignorant men because they lacked typewriters, ballpoints, indoor plumbing, electric lights and streetcars. They had their minds. They had the body of Biblical, Greek and Roman writings (and were often able to read them in the original language) along with nearly as much of modern Western philosophy as we have today. They had Shakespeare, Swift, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, algebra and calculus. Their time is not called The Age of
It is true that some among the Founders and Framers were newspaper columnists. But we mustn't hold that against them, either.
* Like those icky John and John Q. Adamses. How durst they?