But the thought of taking them into a shower with them is a bit much.

Showerthought is a loose term that applies to any thought you might have while carrying out a routine task like showering, driving, or daydreaming.

is to take to the showers; you know, kill two birds with one stone.

Could arms not also include swords, knives and bows? All could be used as defensive devices?

Benjamin Oliver, from Right of an American Citizen, 1832 (+emph): "The {2ndA} declares ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The reason is, ‘because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.’
. . . The provision of the Constitution declaring the right to keep and bear arms was probably intended to apply to the right to bear arms for such {militia related} purposes only, and not to prevent Congress or legislatures from enacting laws to prevent citizens from going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.” (1832)

Justice Joseph Story, 1833: .. among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.
There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

supreme court, 1939: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This part of Justice Story's commentary:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.

teddyR: You forgot .. This part of Justice Story's commentary: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers..

Under your own weird logic, YOU then forgot to include this from the very same paragraph written by justice story, which demonstrates how he was referring to the people synonymously with the miltia:
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.

Contrast TeddyR's top sentence above from Justice Story, with my sentence above from Story, & you will see Story is essentially praising both 'the people' and 'the militia' for the same thing - defense against the usurpation & arbitrary power of rulers (tyranny). Since individually 'the people' outside of organized militias could not do what story refers to above, he is referring to the people as the militia.

Story repeated, circa 1833: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them

Story was referring to 'the people' as the militia, for only a militia could do what he describes above; unorganized individuals with firearms would be ineffective or even counter productive against a well organized tyrannical army or militia.

teddyR: You also left out this quote A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.

I linked to a reputable source for everything you contend I 'forgot', so I really didn't forget did I? Pro gun adherents frequently complain my posts are too long, & here teddyR is whining I didn't make this one longer.
Justice Story was American, & Anglo American relations weren't that good early 1800's, so story was bashing England & her 'have arms' decree. Yet England's 'have arms' decree was the basis for the 2nd amendment, & the 'have arms' decree was militia based, militia centric.
Story was actually complaining about English game laws of 1671 (iirc date), which proscribed how Englishmen could hunt certain game. He implies the 'have arms' decree was manipulated by the game laws to allow gun confiscation.

I was pointing out your selective quotations, but if you prefer to classify it as whining that's fine, though not particularly conducive to a reasoned discussion.

So Story first noted the important fact that the right to keep and bear arms is considered "the palladium of the liberties of a republic." In other words, an armed citizenry protects the liberties of a republic.

I'm not sure what you are equating "militia" to. It looks like "the people," which means all citizens of the US, which is the same meaning that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they approved the Second Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So I guess we agree!

Your last argument seems to be that the Second Amendment someone requires service in a militia. That's simply historically inaccurate. The Second Amendment protects one thing - the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't protect the right to serve in a militia and it doesn't require service in a militia. In fact, as we agreed above, the "militia" is "the people." If you don't believe me, ask George Mason - "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." Or look at Virginia's 1776 constitution - "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people . . ."

Ultimately, the Second Amendment protects the right of "the people" to "keep and bear arms" and states that right "shall not be infringed." So, just as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech (with reasonable limitations) the Second protects the right to keep and bear arms (with reasonable limitations).

Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 07:42 AM - Edit history (2)

In any event, the United States has never taken the public policy position that only those serving within the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, with others being lawfully excluded from owning arms. It never happened, nor will it.

I feel bad for gun controllers, essentially forced to take illogical positions. Controllers are forced to believe that near the beginning of the Bill of Rights, Amendments clearly designed to limit governmental power and to protect citizens, is a statement designed to enable the government to raise militias and to keep individuals from owning firearms. They must believe this despite the fact that in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution the Congress is given the power "To raise and support armies."

As if it couldn't get any worse, you have the state constitutions.

Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (1792)

Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777)

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).

Etc., so on, and so forth.

Kind of ends the attempted muddying of the waters, does it not?

I would add an additional cite to an earlier version of Pennsylvania's state constitution: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21). I see no mention of a "militia" in this provision, and it plainly protects the right to bear arms in defense of one's self. And if you want to go a few years later you'll find something like Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

teddyR: .. earlier version of Pennsylvania's state constitution: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (enacted 1790). I see no mention of a "militia" in this provision, and it plainly protects the right to bear arms in defense of one's self.

Would somebody email & explain to teddyR what 'the State' means. Pennsy's rkba in 1790 was militia centric.
Observe original rkba's circa 1776 - 1784, where 6 of the 8 were limited to common defense (militia), and the other 2 were militia centric (rkba for both self & state).

Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights (+ arms rights) prior to the adoption of the US Constitution. http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm#LEGISLATION

VIRGINIA (June 12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided..
DELAWARE (Sep 11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA (Sep 28, 1776) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;
MARYLAND (Nov 11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA (Dec 18, 1776) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time..
VERMONT (July 8, 1777) That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS (Oct 25, 1780) The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 2, 1784) A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.

circa constitution: .. numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time:

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION (Dec 12, 1787) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 7,1788) That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.
NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 26,1788) That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION (May 29, 1790) XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

You accuse Second Amendment advocates of leaving out the "militia" part of the Second Amendment and then when you quote the Pennsylvania constitution you COMPLETELY ignore that it states the right of the people to bear arms "in defence of themselves and the State," because that language disrupts your narrative.

And of course there are others from the 1700s:

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. XII, § 23 (1792).

And if you go into the 1800s even more:

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (1818, art. I, § 17).

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (1819).

Michigan: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13 (1835)

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (1851).

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (1876).

Idaho: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law. Art. I, § 11 (1889).

And I always like Samuel Adams quotes:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

teddyR: .. when you quote the Pennsylvania constitution you COMPLETELY ignore that it states the right of the people to bear arms "in defence of themselves and the State," because that language disrupts your narrative.

No I did not 'completely ignore' the pennsylvania quote including 'in defence of themselves & the state' - I noted it twice in the very post you replied to, either get new glasses or do remedial english comprehension:

I wrote in post 24: Would somebody email & explain to teddyR what 'the State' means. Pennsy's rkba in 1790 was militia centric.
Observe original rkba's circa 1776 - 1784, where 6 of the 8 were limited to common defense (militia), and the other 2 were militia centric (rkba for both self & state).

Further, inclusion of 'in defence of themselves and the state' does not disrupt my narrative. It disrupts yours, since it includes defending the state as militia, and not, as scalia ruled, an individual rkba disconnected from militia service.

teddyR cites early state rkba provisions: Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (1818).
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. (1819).
Michigan: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." (1835)

Obviously restricted any self defence rkba to males, & actually restricted to WHITE ADULT males, comprising about 25% of a state's total population (less for states with greater slave populations).

TeddyR: And I always like Samuel Adams quotes: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …

He also had this one, explaining who those 'peaceable citizens' were: Samuel Adams: It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them

BUT, dunno why you think that sam adams quote so appealing, it is ambiguous & maybe even bogus:

sam adams excerpt: ... or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

Just copying a truncated snippet out of context without precise date, place, and where one can find the original, is hardly a proper cite. These truncated snippets appear in many places, all from the same likely disingenuous redactor. And each hoplophile site just steals it unchecked from another, and keeps repeating it unchallenged. But whether Adams ACTUALLY said it is never proven, and, more importantly, it is ignored that this was merely a proposal, and IT WAS WITHDRAWN! It NEVER was sent! He was NOT involved in its drafting or debate!

Sam Adams quote in fuller context: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

And "the people" in this context, as it was in JOHN Adams's Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was ALWAYS "the people at large" acting as the collective body politic, and NOT each and every individual taken separately; THIS was a militia reference to the collective people maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the militia as an alternative to a standing army http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm

kang: .. the United States has never taken the public policy position that only those serving within the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, with others being lawfully excluded from owning arms. It never happened, nor will it.

In certain instances & at times the US did indeed make it unlawful for slaves to own guns; and had a wife, daughter or mother complained to a magistrate in 1795 that her husband/father/son violated her right to bear arms by denying her access to his musket, she could've been laughed out of court &/or possibly divorced or reprimanded as a nutjob.

kang: I feel bad for gun controllers, essentially forced to take illogical positions. Controllers are forced to believe that near the beginning of the Bill of Rights, Amendments clearly designed to limit governmental power and to protect citizens, is a statement designed to enable the government to raise militias and to keep individuals from owning firearms.

No, those of us who have studied the issue don't think that at all, esp the part about keeping individuals from owning firearms. Indeed the militia act of 1792 (5 months after 2ndA written) encouraged americans to own, purchase & bring personal firearms to militia duty - harpers ferry & springfield armories either not open yet or scant production.
So don't feel bad for us, for a figment of your imagination.

The 2ndA & the subsequent militia act of 1792 only covered about 20% of americans in the 1790 census; (iirc about 750,000 white males 18 - 45 yr old, maybe a quarter of which owned a firearm.
The 1792 militia act was militia centric, since relatively few americans owned firearms in 1792 it encouraged militia members to purchase or provide their own firearms; but of course 2ndA was a limitation on congress as well as a guarantee of personal rights (to belong to militia).

"because women and African Americans were systematically oppressed, therefore gun laws."

The U.S. has never limited the right to keep and bear arms to only those serving in a/the militia.

Kang: As if it couldn't get any worse, you have the state constitutions.
Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.. (1792)
Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777)
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; 1776).

Note that 'the right to bear arms for the state', should be construed as synonymous with a 'duty' to belong to militia.
As well, Kentucky added this: Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (enacted 1891).

Tennessee gets special mention too: 1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
1834: "..free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime 1870.

Above are militia centric (exc Tennessee explicitly), rkba for both self & state. None individual only.

As teddyR might say, you 'forgot' these, kang:

Florida: 1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
(Lousiana) 1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed."
Louisiana (as late as 1974): The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (1974).

Mississippi: The right .. shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons
Missouri: 1875: "That the right .. but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons
Montana: The right .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (1889).
New Mex: 1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
NCarolina: 1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as... 1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
Oklahoma: The right .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. 1907
Texas: .. the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Utah: 1896: .. the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Says nothing about the "individual". In fact a case (2 cases actually) had to be brought before the SC (just recently) to tease out new interpretation for the "individual" from "the people" in the 2A which is itself at odds with previous rulings.

Specifically used both "the people" and "persons". The founding fathers were pretty smart, I think they knew the difference between the generality of the term "the people" and the specificity of the word "persons".

I just don't think you are going to get far with some "community rights" approach to the Constitution. It isn't really there in any meaningful way, esp. a right which is conditioned by the state. And I don't think the weight of legal, historical analysis is on your side.

I remember from my college days spirited discussion between some "lefties" who decried the individualist notion of BOR rights, and the "negativist" way they are couched, preferring rights which were positively expressed and some how "given" to groups and communities. Even they did not contest that the individual/negativist structure existed, only they didn't like it and wanted it to change.

Curiously, the Second never came up in the debates.

Is that distinguishing between "the people" and "persons" with respect to the Fourth doesn't make much sense. You indicate the Founding Fathers added "persons" to clarify that it was an individual protection but that doesn't seem correct. If you rephrase based on your approach then the amendment would have originally read "the right of the people to be secure in their people," which is illogical. It just seems to me that it is a real stretch to argue that the Founding Fathers drafted all of the Bill of Rights at the same time and used "the people" in three separate amendments (and more if you include the 9th and 10th) and meant something completely different in the Second Amendment than they did in the First and Fourth. [on edit] Like you said, the Founding Fathers were pretty smart, and I would expect them to use different terms for different meanings.

States the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The First Amendment protects the "right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons." All three of those Amendments protect the rights of "the people," so is it your position that the First and Fourth Amendments protect individual rights but that the Second, using the same language, does not?

I disagree with your statement that the Supreme Court only recently recognized a "new interpretation," but even if it did why is that a problem? The Supreme Court has changed its mind before. In Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court held that states could pass laws criminalizing same-sex activities, which was contrary to a ruling in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy.

I appreciate your reply. The founding fathers new the difference between the words "people" and "persons" as demonstrated in the 4th amendments use of both words. They realized the term "the people" was not specific enough for that right so they added "person" to the text. In the 2nd they specifically used the word "militia" not "persons" had they meant the 2nd to be an individual right they could have easily used the word "persons" but they didn't.

As for the first amendment. It is not written in the same sense that the 2nd and the 4th are. The first is not really a "right" that people have. It is more about what the government cannot do because it does not apply to anyone other than the government. You can't go into a private establishment and say whatever you like, you cannot assemble and protest on private land w/o permission etc.

http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

I skimmed the law review and the way I read it I'm not sure it supports your premise. And isn't the article really disagreeing with the Supreme Court's conclusion that "the people" is used numerous times in the Bill of Rights and each time -- including the Second Amendment -- it refers to an individual right?

With respect to your statement that the First Amendment is a limitation on what government can or cannot do, my understanding is that applies to all of the Bill of Rights -- for example, the Second Amendment forbids the government from "infringing" on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms (setting aside whether that is a collective or individual right.

I do appreciate your response and reasoned argument, even if I don't necessarily disagree with all of it.

Many people feared that the new Constitutional powers the federal congress would have over the Militias (to provide for organizing, arming, & disciplining them) could actually be used to make them LESS effective, either through in-action or disarming, quite contrary to the stated purposes of & in the Constitution.

"...Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Mr. Gerry, 1st Congress


By declaring that well-regulated (well-trained to arms) militia were NECESSARY, i.e. mandatory, it would "furnish a greater certainty of its being done". By securing the right to keep AND bear arms of the people - who would serve in the Militias - it would be assured the govt couldn't DISarm the Militias, or otherwise render them ineffective (i.e. by declaring who could serve), and so reduce the need for that bane of liberty - a large standing army.

The Militias were made from the body of the people, whose duty it was to serve; they better have the right & means to do so, and should NOT be dependent on the...generosity of the federal govt for them.


Now there were various people who were/would be exempt from Militia duty by law. It hardly seems plausible the FF expected them (themselves) would give up a right to personal arms simply because of that. So that right doesn't seem to be dependent on the 2nd's obvious militia purposes for its existence.

Of course the militia purposes are barely viable any more, not since the decline and recreation of the Constitutional militias into the federally controlled/armed National Guard, Yes 'the people' are handed a bone as part of the "unorganized militia", but that is hardly "well-regulated". (and shows why things like AWBs and mag limits are found to be constitutional vs the 2nd & their ideal use for a militia).

Before anything else matters one must have the ability to be safe and secure, that is to say the ability to defend yourself and family. Without that ability, food, water, shelter are all meaningless and temporary at best.

Folks that insist only the National Guard should be armed are being purposefully obtuse.

We do not have a right to keep and bear "firearms," we have a right to keep and bear "arms."

The less definite noun is important, and permits the right to adapt with the advent of technology and necessity.