Anything other than a muzzle loader was foreign to our founders so they couldn't have possibly thought that the 2nd amendment applied to modern day weapons. Great argument you got there.
That's exactly the point. Technology changes and the substance of the rights changes. In 1787 "arms" didn't mean machine guns because machine guns didn't exist. They had no concept of a machine gun. Today, I would argue it does. So the actual nitty gritty substance of the right that "never changes" according to 88GT.....changed.
...
So what exactly did the 4th mean when it was written, and what exactly does it mean now? I wasn't aware that it had changed.
Then maybe you should take some law classes and some history classes and learn a bit more before presuming to lecture others. Just a thought.
I think you don't understand my point at all. The existence of an exclusionary rule is redundant. If the state or is agents followed that rule they way they should, there'd be no need to introduce superfluous concepts like exclusion. All evidence would be properly and legally obtained.
In a perfect world, sure. But note that the framers did not provide a remedy for violations of it. which brings us to the next point....
And your point is irrelevant. Providing a system to determining disputes arising out of law doesn't change the law. But that's what the courts are doing these days. Is that what you think their purpose is?
Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia