What Would Madison Think of the AR-15?

Send us a text

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 [e-mail]

Support the show

Support the show

Episode Transcript

(00:15):
Welcome to the Lib Shootpodcast.
My name is Jeff Dole and I'vebeen a licensed farm dealer for
the last 18 years, and thispodcast to talk about.
All things related SecondAmendment, as well as anything
else go in the World Sportsstory or anything else I might
find interesting.
So welcome, welcome, welcome.
So if this is your first timetuning in this is your go-to
spot for straightforward talk onthe second Amendment.
No fluff, just facts and, and,and fire for the cause.

(00:38):
Today we're digging into a piecethat I found on SCOTUS Block by
Haley Proctor.
And if you listen to this, youknow, especially as we get
closer to some decisions comingout from the Supreme Court Scot
Block is a, is a, a pretty goodplace to go to get your updates
on what's going on.
That she, they are releasingthe, the almost.
Minute by minute below of what'sthe, the justices are up to.

(00:59):
But this article by HaileyProctor was what James Madison
thought about AR 15.
And it's a sharp look at why theframer's vision covers your
modern rifle and not just someantique musket.
It's an eyeopener.
It's interesting and let's justkind of dig into it.
So.
This article tackles the heartof the debate.
Does the Second Amendmentstretch to protect today's

(01:22):
firearms like AR fifteens or arewe somehow locked into the 18th
century technology?
And Proctor makes a verycompelling case that it does.
Which we all know, leaning onhardcore originalism, figuring
out what the framers intendedand how that holds up today.
So she points out how guns havecome a long way since 79 1.
We all know that from those, youknow, clunky, one shot muskets

(01:45):
that could foul up in a drizzleto semi with pinpoint accuracy,
high magazine capacity, and realstopping paint change, stopping
power.
Sorry about that.
It's a game changer for celldefense hunting and standing
around.
But yeah.
It does amp up the stakes whenthings go wrong in the hand and
they're in the hands of the badguy.
The key here is sticking toprinciples, not playing.

(02:07):
Pretend with history, and we'renot dragging Madison into the
21st century to test fire andar.
We're unpacking the rules here,and the ratifier wrote Smart
balance between empowering armedcitizens to protection and
common sense while drawing lineagainst outright abuse.
Proctor drives this home with aclassic Supreme Court moment
from a case called Brown, theEntertainment Merchants

(02:27):
Association from back in in2011.
It's the case where Californiatried to ban violent video games
for kids claiming they were toographic, found familiar during
oral arguments.
Justice clearly lit into thestate lawyer with this g what?
James Madison.
What James Madison thought aboutvideo games?
Did he enjoy them?
The courtroom cracked up andjustice Salito piled on asking

(02:50):
if Mathen would've proved ofmortal combat.
It was pure girl gold.
It weighed a spotlight.
The ridiculous of demanddemanding a founding error
blueprint for every modernheadache.
What's makes this exchange sospot on if how it kind of flips
the script on gun grabber'sfavorite Dodge.
They love arguing that sincemeth had never dreamed of pixels

(03:10):
or polymer frames.
We should rewrite the rules ontothe, onto the fly, but Brown,
shut that down.
The First Amendment shieldsviolent games because the
principle of free speech.
Even the edgy stuff is broad andbuilt to last.
No need from Hassin.
Thumbs up on Grant theft auto,or your Glock 19.
The founders crafted enduringguardrails, not a fossilized

(03:31):
rule book that crumbles underprogress.
It's a reminder that were trueoriginalism.
The Second Amendment's armsclause isn't some narrow
loophole.
It's a wide open door for toolsthat keep assistance free and
safe from flintlocks to forwardassist.
That humor in the court.
This a spark makes the wholeargument stick.
So building on that articlewalks us right through the

(03:54):
analogical reasoning.
The SmartWay courts bridge oldlaws to new realities.
Instead of hunting for an exact17 9 1 match, judges zero in on
underlying ideas.
Founding error res like keepingguns from felons or limiting
carry and hotspots.
Set the pattern today.
That could green light focusedfixes.
We think that rahimi rulingwhere the court, okay, disarming

(04:17):
a proven domestic abuser, but ittorches blanket assault, weapon
bans that paint everyresponsible owner with the same
brush justice.
Barrett's concurrence in Rahimilays that out clean, looking for
historical traditions thatembody the same principles,
giving lawmakers room to adaptwithout cutting the core.
Right.

(04:38):
No more of those fuzzyinteresting balancing tests that
Scotus torched and, and Bruinand Stevens, where judges play
God weighing societal harmagainst your freedoms.
The framers already quenchedthose numbers and armed
populace, upsides, beat this.
Downsides want to tweak it, fireup an amendment process, but
they did like they did for the,you know, prohibition.

(05:00):
Unlike then, your ars areprotected as Madison's musket.
So wrapping this up, proctorstake a solid fuel Second
Amendment fire linking straightback to winds like Garland V
Cargill, restoring bunk stocksand the push against those
merchant codes that let bankssnoop in on your ammo purchases.
It's proof our rice aren't rugs.

(05:20):
They're rocket fuel for today,for you at home.
Given Federalist 46th, readMasson's own words on why
Disarmed folks are sittingducks, then head to the range.
Hone those skills and stay sharpand the length.
Thoughts on Madison and yourmodern setup, let me know.
Subscribe drop a review.

(05:40):
Ping me on X.
Do you disagree?
Do you agree?
I'd like to know.
But from this perspective andfrom the SCOTUS blog, it is
clear AR fifteens and JamesMadison were on the same page
that he would've supported thembecause what it does is that I
not.
It is a tool that can help usprotect us from an armed, from a
tyranny as an armed populace.

(06:02):
And to me that was what theyreally, truly meant when they
said that our it shall not beinfringed.
So take care.
Have a great rest of your day,and again, ping me, subscribe,
share this with somebody, leteverybody know about what's
going on.
We gotta continue to fight forour second amendment.
Thank you.