Steven Crowder interprets the Second Amendment as permits individuals to own artillery, cannons, and rocket launchers
Published
Citation
From the May 25, 2022, edition of BlazeTV's Louder With Crowder as streamed on YouTube
STEVEN CROWDER (HOST): Now let's go to another claim that's going to take a little bit of time here. This is another claim. This is the fifth claim, and this is one that's being recycled, but they try and reframe it. And the idea here is and you can see this all over Twitter, that the Second Amendment doesn't protect assault weapons, which, by the way, is an undefinable term. It's fluid, you know, like that penis between your legs.
GERALD MORGAN (CO-HOST): If it looks scary, that's what they pretty much mean.
CROWDER: Yeah. So here's the thing. What they try and often argue and then I want to get to what the actual Second Amendment means. But they say, all right, you know what? If the Second Amendment, if they knew that people would have these high capacity guns and they never would have – they would have they would have not allowed – well, okay.
First off, on a pragmatic level, that's not true. There are plenty of guns that weren't just muskets.
...
CROWDER: These were things that existed. The reason they just weren't in large circulation is because they were too expensive. Our founding fathers were aware of that. Not only were they aware of that, but they were also aware of and gave their stamp of approval on cannons.
MORGAN: Artillery was approved.
CROWDER: Artillery was approved like a subprime loan.
MORGAN: What? We want cannons. Why? Yes.
...
CROWDER: So what's the equivalent to a cannon today? It's at least a rocket launcher. This is a very lazy argument. They want you to believe that it was just about muskets. That's not true. There were other firearms and there was artillery and it was expressly approved by the people who wrote the Second Amendment.