|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
04-12-2011, 09:16 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn
I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...
"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"
Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...
|
Irrelevant. The first amendment does not share the squirrelly sentence structure with a dangling antecedent like the 2nd Amendment. It is not an unreasonable interpretation to assert that the 2nd Amendment has to do with militias, not the individual right to bear arms (regardless of your own personal views of the issue). BTW, I'm a life long gun owner and hunter, but not a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 04-13-2011 at 08:46 AM.
|
04-13-2011, 01:44 AM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Actually, nobody had rifles (yet). They had muskets. Rifles extended the range of muskets several hundred percent. I don't think the Founding Fathers saw that one coming.
|
Wonder what they would think of private citizens possessing AK-47s and 50 caliber sniper rifles?
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
04-13-2011, 09:13 AM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
Finn, the problem is, everything around it is individual rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
...
Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?
Regards,
D-Ray
|
The Founders certainly believed that you couldn't keep the latter without the former.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
04-13-2011, 11:12 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
|
|
D-Ray:
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?
|
Never will I attempt to rank the 1st 10 amendments except that the 10th amendment DOES have a clarifier effect on the "scope" of the other 9.. In fact, the 10th amendment makes it clear that the preceding 9 are a special carve-out zone of freedom and liberty from ANY govt intervention (state, federal, local).
The authors COULD HAVE justified any of the other "rights" with some benefit to the state (such as freedom of the press). In fact, the concept of "a press" has changed just as much as the concept of "arms". While you debate what the founders would have thought about AK-47s, you could propose that they never anticipated the dangerous implications of a "wiki" page or the subversive side-effects of twitter (ask Mubarak about that). So the argument can always be made that in terms of actual solid objects referred to in the original words, there is wiggle room. Except that the amendments are not about the objects, but about the excercise of liberty. And if that excersize changes with the centuries, so be it. We have a standing army, so if you abide by the militia interpretation -- you ARE essentially anti-2nd-amendment since that leaves the whole concept null and void. Simple logic folks. If the dangling proposition (militia) is no longer true, the rest is then irrelevent and unenforceable. Except that the right was granted to virtually every citizen of the time. And it is the exercise of that right of individuals that transcends the military organizational chart. Just like 'freedom of the press' is trancendent of the means or organization of communication.
I'll stay with the corroborating testimony of the guys who wrote the 2nd. Makes it clear enough for the current Supremes to declare it an "individual" right.
My bet is that Ben Franklin would have been a major twitter packer AND assault weapon collector.
|
04-13-2011, 01:06 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 217
|
|
I think the founders understood full well the power of the press and the power of free speech. I don't see that things have changed all that much in the electronics age to increase that power, in fact that power may have diminished for practical purposes because of the sheer volume and barrage of information, most of which is mis-information.
On the other hand, I don't think the founders anticipated the technological advances in weaponry. If you want to make the 2nd amendment about the gov't being forbidden to regulate an individual's right to bear arms, why aren't you upset that you can't buy a nuke to keep in your garage "just in case?" Or an Apache helicopter? Or any number of weapon systems.
Furthermore, if you want to make the argument that an armed populace is important to ward off tyranny, I think you ought to realize that things are a bit different in the 21st century. The disparity in military power between civilians and governments is too huge for armed rebellion to be effective. Look at the most successful revolutions in recent times... they've been essentially accomplished without weaponry. East Germany, the Soviet Union, Egypt... It's all about hearts and minds, not about a violent overthrow of a regime. The ones that fall via violence only do so with the assistance of other nations' armies, and it seems to me that the ones that fall via violence wind up being less stable than the peaceful revolutions.
|
04-13-2011, 01:19 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
It would still be much much harder to subjucate an armed population then an unarmed one.
Besides, in an oversimplified statement, a ragtag bunch of yokels took out one of the great military powers in the world. There was a great disparity.
Using the judicial system to 'reinterpret' the Constitution undermines all our freedom - and is tyranny.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
04-13-2011, 02:33 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,913
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
It would still be much much harder to subjucate an armed population then an unarmed one.
Besides, in an oversimplified statement, a ragtag bunch of yokels took out one of the great military powers in the world. There was a great disparity.
Using the judicial system to 'reinterpret' the Constitution undermines all our freedom - and is tyranny.
Pete
|
It seems to me that eleven fully armed states tried to fight the Federal government 150 years ago. How'd that work out?
I think everyone (probably) agrees that the Constitution allows citizens to own muskets, yet allows the regulation or prohibition of fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers or personal nuclear arsenals. The question is where along this continuum you draw the line.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
04-13-2011, 02:38 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
When in doubt, err on the side the people. But who, outside of perhaps Washington and a handful of others, would walk away from more power.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
04-13-2011, 03:42 PM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
When in doubt, err on the side the people. But who, outside of perhaps Washington and a handful of others, would walk away from more power.
Pete
|
On the side of which people? So far it seems to be only the wealthy that benefit.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
04-13-2011, 04:58 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,145
|
|
JonL:
Sometimes, given our awful foreign policy and bad choices on using the military, I'm sure that Washington doesn't deserve to wield cruise missiles, tanks, bazookas and ESPECIALLY the keys to the nuke locker. We've bombed SIX (muslim) countries this year. Would YOU issue a nuke license to a country like that?
Last edited by flacaltenn; 04-13-2011 at 05:08 PM.
Reason: correct seven to only six bombed countries.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM.
|