Church - A place for quiet reflection ...

[piece-itpete]

Finn, the problem is, everything around it is individual rights.

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

[piece-itpete]

Ah so. Long things that looked like guns that propelled small objects rapidly

The Constitution has this amazing foresighted bit in there - the amendment process

Btw, I probably wouldn't have kept going back although it was very good - my step daughter loved it there.

Pete

[finnbow]

Speaking of Williamsburg, my (now deceased) uncle was a graphics artist employed by Colonial Williamsburg for his entire career. One of his specialties were the period maps you saw in a bunch of the buildings there. His son-in-law (my cousin's husband, also recently deceased) managed all the period musicians who played in the taverns, etc. He played a bunch of period stringed instruments and, in addition to playing in the Colonial Williamsburg venues, travelled widely to cultural and diplomatic meetings where they wanted such entertainment.

Cool place.

[merrylander]

We spent a Christmas there, stayed right in the Inn, quite an experience.

[flacaltenn]

D-Ray:

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.

[JonL]

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.

[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

[finnbow]

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.

[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

[merrylander]

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.